# John Ashcroft -- menace or threat? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 11, 2002, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434 "2002-06-11T13:21:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/81 "2002-06-12T20:00:28Z")
Ahhh, **Kimstu** , you charming naif! He **is** guilty! The President said so! The Attorney General said so! Have you forgotten the Nixon Doctrine: “If the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Next we’ll be hearing some wild-ass idea like the Bushistas are hyping this up to cover thier inadequacies! Article one, paragraph three, catch-22: “If the President shall declare a person “bad”, such person is guilty, and no (dirty bomb! dirty bomb!) further consideration of thier alleged rights is needed”. You could look it up. ---
**Author:** ![Amok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f17d59/32.png) [@Amok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amok)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/82 "2002-06-12T20:10:24Z")
Thanks for your opinion, **minty**. It will be interesting to see what the courts decide. I read through _Quirin_, and it’s not clear to me whether “unlawful enemy belligerents” can be tried by military tribunal in the situation we find ourselves (which isn’t exactly the issue in the case of Al Muhajir, but it is related, it seems to me). However, it does seem as if a declared state of war isn’t strictly necessary. On one hand, the Court did make a lot of references to the state of war then in existance. For instance: > [@](#): > > Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, has thus exercised its authority to define and punish offenses against the law of nations by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And the President, as Commander in Chief, by his Proclamation in time of war [has] invoked that law. On the other hand, there are passages such as: > [@](#): > > But the detention and trial of petitioners-ordered by the President in the declared exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army in time of war and **of grave public danger** -are not to be set aside by the courts without the clear conviction that they are in conflict with the Constitution or laws of Congress constitutionally enacted. > (emphasis mine) and: > [@](#): > > By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations… and also between… those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful… Such was the practice of our own military authorities before the adoption of the Constitution… and during the Mexican and Civil Wars. While there was a declaration of war against Mexico, there was none during the time of the Civil War. A number of Confederate officers and soldiers were tried by military tribunal for violations of the law of war. I’m not familar with the legislative history of the Civil War, and there may have been an act of Congress that made the use of such tribunals appropriate that hasn’t been issued by Congress in this case, but the reference to the Civil War (and in the footnotes they list several cases involving Confederate officers who were tried and convicted by military tribunals for “unlawful belligerency”) cleary seems to indicate that military tribunals for “enemy belligerents” are not solely restricted to times where Congress has passed a declaration of war. I thought this was quite the interesting line: > [@](#): > > It is unnecessary for present purposes to determine to what extent the President as Commander in Chief has constitutional power to create military commissions without the support of Congressional legislation It may now be necessary, unless Congress has passed legislation dealing with this matter that I didn’t notice. It does seem clear, that if Al Muhajir is an “enemy belligerent” who has “violated the law of war”, then his being a citizen is irrelevant to how he should be treated. > [@](#): > > Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid… guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war… It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused. The question is whether Al Muhajir can be classified as an enemy belligerent given that al-Queda is cleary not an “enemy government”. On that, as well, I’m not sure. We’ll have to see what the courts have to say. Additionally, it seems to me that many (though certainly not all) of the respondents to this thread are asserting that the government’s treatment of Al Muhajir is unconstitutional without attempting to show why that is within the framework of the legal precedents. In my opinion, that’s not good form. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/83 "2002-06-12T20:11:01Z")
> [@](#): > > See, for many here, the WHY’s don’t make a difference. For example: “WHY is Padilla being held?” “Who cares? Doesn’t matter!,” shouts the SDMB concensus. But for many, many more people off of the SDMB, the WHY makes all the difference in the world. > [@](#): > > Does it matter if they are wrong if it turns out that they have the majority? “Wrong” could become “right” – all it takes is a change of priorities and a majority of opinion. Which is why we don’t constantly re-vote on the Constitution. How’s it go? Ah yes - “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Good words. Once again, the problem isn’t the deprivation of liberty; it’s the due process. We can lock him up and protect our skins _while_ providing him with access to counsel, for instance. Unless the government doesn’t have a leg to stand on in locking him up, in which case Ashcroft made a big fool of himself the other day. But the government _shouldn’t_ get the idea that they can grab people off the streets with evidence against them that would be laughed out of court. Maybe _this_ guy can’t show that the government has no reason to hold him, but the next guy might be able to. So I want this guy to have counsel handy, so that when they grab the wrong somebody, _that_ guy has someone to make the case for him that he doesn’t belong in jail. ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/84 "2002-06-12T20:19:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by LouisB \* > \*\* \ > > We do–Ashcroft and Bush. \*\* Oh for Christ’s sake, Ashcroft and Bush are bigger dangers than an organization that killed 3000 people on September 11th, several hundred others over the past few years, and are now hoping to detonate radiological weapons in our majors cities? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/85 "2002-06-12T20:22:48Z")
Your emphasis in that quote is wrong, **Amok**. It should read as follows: > [@](#): > > But the detention and trial of petitioners-ordered by the President in the declared exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army **in time of war and of grave public danger** -are not to be set aside by the courts without the clear conviction that they are in conflict with the Constitution or laws of Congress constitutionally enacted. It does say “and,” after all, not “or.” The lawful vs. unlawful combatants thing only comes into play after you determine whether there’s a state of war. If there is such a war, the president may declare that lawful combatants, like soldiers, are not subject to military tribunal. Unlawful combatants, such as the spies/saboteurs at issue in _Quirin_, may be detained and tried by the military. At least that’s how I’d read _Quirin_. SCMMV. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/86 "2002-06-12T20:52:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rsa \* > **december,** I am willing to be convinced that this detention is legal and necessary Eugene Volokh discusses it [here](http://volokh.blogspot.com/2002_06_09_volokh_archive.html#85161381). (Scroll downo a bit.) [quote] [ol][li]Under Ex parte Quirin (1942), enemy saboteurs and spies can be tried by military tribunals, whether or not they are citizens, for violation of the laws of war. Quirin makes a persuasive case that this has long been seen as an exception to various Bill of Rights protections, and that the Framers would not have understood the Bill of Rights as applying to such military crimes.[_]At the same time, it’s easy to see the risk of military tribunals, which may operate in secret and dispense with all sorts of other protections, trying people for “sabotage” and “espionage.” [_]This is why it’s good that the President’s executive order limited military tribunals to noncitizens: [_]While military tribunals may pose unusually high dangers – in the long-term, not (in my view) now – of suppressing domestic dissent, military detention may pose such dangers, too, even if it’s followed by eventual civilian trial.[_]On the other hand, we can’t let even a real risk of the slippery slope down to bad results in the future cripple our ability to protect ourselves against dirty bombs, nuclear bombs, smallpox plagues, and all the other horrors that the enemy may unleash on us. And the sad fact is that our criminal justice system may not be an effective way to deal with saboteurs who are agents of an enemy force such as al-Qaeda.[_]What’s more, the risk of the slippery slope is serious, but American history cuts against it, at least as to military tribunals and military detention.[_]A possibly relevant, though possibility not relevant, fact: While the saboteurs in Quirin were tried by military courts, those who allegedly helped them – who were not in any meaningful sense enemy soldiers, and were perhaps not in on the plan in the first place, but who allegedly ended up knowingly assisting the saboteurs – were tried by civilian courts; [_]Might this point to a sensible distinction between people accused of being actual enemy soldiers, and those who were supposedly only helping them, incidentally to their daily lives? [_]One important question to which I haven’t seen the answer: Will there be some civilian court screening of whether there’s indeed very strong evidence to think that a detainee really is an enemy combatant, and thus properly subject to military detention and perhaps (if he’s a noncitizen, or if he’s a citizen and the rules are changed) military trial?[/ol][/li][/quote] > [@](#): > > …I am offended that you believe that even questioning the policy is unpatriotic. I didn’t say that **I** found it unpatriotic; I said that others would so find it. > [@](#): > > Since the position the administration is taking allows them to hold someone as an “enemy belligerent” until the end of the war, I think some standard for defining the “end” would be kinda nice. Something other than, “we’ll let you know.” Sure. And, I expect that to come out of the Habeus Corpus hearing. > [@](#): > > Does it make no impression on you that even the quite conservative Dallas Morning News in an editorial is questioning this policy? Can you cite this editorial? How do you know that they are conservative? > [@](#): > > I am willing to give up my life to a terrorist if that is necessary to maintain the freedoms that our Constitution provides. But, it’s likely to work the opposite way. If there are a series of deadly terrorist attacks here in the US, that’s when Constitutional freedoms are likey to be most willingly compromised > [@](#): > > Apparently you are not so willing to defend the Constitution yourself. And that makes me sad. To be blunt, I see a lot of robotic thinking. Constitutional protections are vital, but protection against terrorism isn’t simply a matter of following the rules. We’re not bureaucrats filling out a form. IMHO the right sort of thinking is: 1. What actions are necessary and appropropriate to deal with this problem? 2. Are these actions legal and constitutional? 3. If not, what can we do to find effective actions that are legal and constitutional. Ashcroft is intelligently beginning at #1. The New York Times is stolidly thinking inside the box, and beginning at #2. ---
**Author:** ![Amok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f17d59/32.png) [@Amok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amok)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/87 "2002-06-12T21:10:54Z")
I considered that, **minty** , and you may very well be right. The grammar question is what is the full clause that “and” implies? Is it just “in time” or is the full clause “in the declared exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army in time”? Is “in time of war and [in time] of grave public danger” a full condition that must be met, or should we read it as “ordered by the President in the declared exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army in time of war and [in the declared exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army in time] of grave public danger” (i.e. there were two conditions, he has powers when either is in existance, and he exercised both powers)? The former usage is more common, but the later isn’t unheard of. I don’t know, I think I slept through that class. I looked at the sentance for awhile trying to decide, and ultimately figured it was the later, but I might well be wrong. My thoughts were that made more sense in the context of the whole opinion, because if the lawful vs. unlawful thing only comes into play during times of war, how are we to explain what happened during the Civil War (when Confederate officers were tried by military tribunal in the abscense of a declared state of war)? Assuming what was done during that time was lawful, then it only makes sense to me if it was a time “of grave public danger” (and that alone is enough) or if the Civil War was recognized as being a (de facto) state of war, and that is sufficient. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/88 "2002-06-12T21:19:28Z")
**december:** \*MHO the right sort of thinking is: 1. What actions are necessary and appropropriate to deal with this problem? 2. Are these actions legal and constitutional? 3. If not, what can we do to find effective actions that are legal and constitutional. Ashcroft is intelligently beginning at #1.\* Personally, I think the most intelligent thing would be to start with #3, that is, consider effectiveness and constitutionality simultaneously, but YMMV. In any case, we’re now intelligently raising the question in #2, in our role as concerned and informed citizens of a democracy. So what’s the problem with that? What was the point of your snide insinuations that we’re simply being lazy, unpatriotic kibitzers who think the War on Terror ™ is less important than the World Cup? \*But, it’s likely to work the opposite way. If there are a series of deadly terrorist attacks here in the US, that’s when Constitutional freedoms are likey to be most willingly compromised \* Well, we’ve already had at least one extremely deadly terrorist attack here in the US, and many of us are not willing to compromise our freedoms on that account. Saying “we shouldn’t protest any government infringements of our freedoms now, because something might happen to make it more difficult to resist them later” is not sensible advice. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/89 "2002-06-12T21:25:45Z")
I’d explain the Civil War as a state of rebellion, which is certainly something the Constitution contemplates: “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 1. **december** , none of what yuo just posted explains, even indirectly, why the dirty bomb suspect cannot be held and tried within the ordinary justice system without compromising national security. **rsa** , there are already existing procedures to ensure that a criminal suspect can be tried without compromising national security or the security of intelligence sources. Think of all those FBI and CIA spies, for instance. It is simply unacceptable for an American citizen to be detained without charge or trial on the naked assurance of the government that national security demands it. The more I think about it, the more disgusted I become. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/90 "2002-06-12T21:39:11Z")
> [@](#): > > “This guy, Padilla, is a bad guy,” Bush said as he met with lawmakers at the White House to discuss his proposal for a Department of Homeland Security. “And he is where he needs to be – detained.” How can he get away with saying this? If there were ever a trial, how would you be able to find jurers who would not be prejudiced by this statement? I’m also worried about the timing of this thing. The guy was arrested way back in May, which I did not know beforehand. The idea that this could happen with no one not knowing for a month is concerning to me. How many other American citizens have “disappeared” in these last few months? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/91 "2002-06-12T22:03:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \ ***december** , none of what you just posted explains, even indirectly, why the dirty bomb suspect cannot be held and tried within the ordinary justice system without compromising national security. True. However, I think the better question is, “Can he be dealt in the military system in a way that legal and constitutional?” My first priority is preventing and defeating terrorism Why should the default be to use ordinary justice system? We are dealing with organized terrorists, not ordinary criminals. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/92 "2002-06-12T22:04:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Revtim \* > \*\*Senator PalpaBush and Darth Ashcroft would never abuse their powers! Their _Republicans_ after all, and they believe in a SMALLER, LESS POWERFUL government. \*\* Isn’t it funny how some people keep on declaring they’re in favor of a smaller federal government, except when a larger one will help them and their buddies acquire more power? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/93 "2002-06-12T22:09:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > I think the better question is, “Can he be dealt in the military system in a way that legal and constitutional?” He has apparently been denied the right to counsel for over a month. He has been detained without charge for over a month. He has been detained without any due process whatsoever for over a month. Clearly, the answer to your question is _no_. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/94 "2002-06-12T22:13:50Z")
> [@](#): > > And the sad fact is that our criminal justice system may not be an effective way to deal with saboteurs who are agents of an enemy force such as al-Qaeda. Yet it worked for the [Rosenbergs](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROSENB.HTM), and they were researching how to make _real_ atom bombs. I guess the current Al Qaeda scare is just much scarier than the old red scare :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/95 "2002-06-12T23:09:12Z")
**Squink** , our policy to keep nuclear secrets out of Stalin’s hands was an utter failure. Thank God, we never had a nuclear war. But, the USSR’s possession of a nuclear arsenal no doubt helped them maintain control of Eastern Europe for 50 years – producing terrible lives for hundreds of millions of people. (Not that the Rosenberg trial was the cause of the failure. The secrets were long-since lost by then. Also, Klaus Fuchs gave the USSR more useful info than Julius Rosenberg did.) The important thing isn’t the quality of Al Mujahir’s trial; it’s protecting America from terrorist attacks. I hope that we’re more successful now than we were in guarding our nuclear secrets 55 years ago. BW **minty** , the WSJ had a neat point. The ordinary justice system is designed to deal with crime i]after it has occurred\*. Ashcroft’s challenge is to _prevent_ an attack from occurring in the first place. It’s not surprising that ordinary criminal procedures may not be well-suited for Ashcroft’s purpose. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/96 "2002-06-12T23:26:54Z")
it’s simply **not** true that our criminal justice system is only geared to deal w/crime after it’s occured. Police make routine patrols as a preventative measure. They also do community service presentations on how to best protect yourself from crime to various groups (gee, I get to sit through one tomorrow as a matter of fact). Personal protective orders are another means to avoiding crime. the DOJ even spends actual $$ on crime prevention grants etc. Police will be stationed at large gatherings etc. and increase patrols and visibility on holidays etc. all while announcing the fact. ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/97 "2002-06-13T01:51:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > I didn’t say that **I** found it unpatriotic; I said that others would so find it. That’s bullshit and a copout. Why do you keep repeating it if you don’t believe it? Either say what you think or shut up about it, but don’t go around blaming your farts on the dog. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/98 "2002-06-13T02:58:19Z")
**december** -would you kindly stop using op-eds as CITES? Yeesh! ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/99 "2002-06-13T03:14:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dumbguy \* > \*\*That’s bullshit and a copout. Why do you keep repeating it if you don’t believe it? Either say what you think or shut up about it, but don’t go around blaming your farts on the dog. \*\* OK, here’s what I think: [ul][_]Ashcroft’s actions have some precedent. They may or may not be upheld in the Habeas Corpus hearing, but there’s enough support for them so that Ashcroft’s action is reasonable…[_]Those who exaggerate this as a civil liberties crisis are behaving foolishly. [_]Those who analyze and advise on this matter without giving due attention to the purpose – prevention of terrorism – do not deserve to be taken seriously. E.g., the N Y Times editorial page.[_]A very few Democrats may be using this accusation for political purposes, which is disgusting. However, this is rare.[/ul] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434/100 "2002-06-13T03:44:37Z")
1. I don’t give a rat’s ass whether there is precedent or not. Wrong is wrong, no matter how many precedents are equally wrong. The Constitution does not empower any authority, **period** to abrogate its protections. 2. All exaggerations are, by definition, foolish. Nonetheless, the prisoner (or _detainee_, if you prefer) is an American citizen with precisely the same set of rights as Mr. Ashcroft, you or me. The law applies to all, or it applies to none. 3. “without due attention” same as above. 4. I’m sure Democrats will appreciate the balm of your amnesty. Let us hope that they continue to emulate the loftily non-partisan attitude of the Pubbies, who so fervently pursue the common weal without even a nod to political advantage. (Is there a smiley for weapons-grade sarcasm?) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-menace-or-threat/113434.md?page=6)