John Ashcroft rescues the Constitution from attack by "civil libertarians"

The BBQ Pit
41

It does open some entertaining questions.

Bush has stated repeatedly that we are at war, and he wants the American people to rally 'round him as if we were.

This, despite the fact that NO ONE has declared war of any kind, nor does the enemy in question have an exact location that we could bomb or invade… at least, not one that remains in one place. The Afghanistan situation seems to be over, in that the news has gotten bored with it… but you’ll notice we’re still occupying the place. We’re going to be there for decades to come, too, unless we want it to disintegrate back into anarchy again. This place hasn’t had what we’d call a stable government since the Crusades, for potato’s sake!

What bugs me is the fact that American citizens on American soil who have not been convicted of any crime, nor had any wrongdoing proven against them… could concievably be held prisoner for any length of time, and denied the rights that are taken for granted by any crack dealer, junkie, or child molester who has been taken into police custody.

Because “we are at war.”

And if we aren’t, then we will be. Soon.

Pardon my saying so, but that’s goddamn wack. It is a complete and total betrayal of everything that I was brought up to believe that America stands for.

If you have enough evidence to believe that an American citizen is acting on behalf of a terrorist conspiracy, then you have enough evidence to take the sonofabitch to trial. If you do not, then you investigate the hell out of him. If you still don’t have anything, you LET HIM GO, because he is a citizen of the Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave.

We have set a crappy example for the entire world, one which will have future generations hanging their heads in shame, at least, if not being sued by those whom we have wronged. And it is going to get worse before it gets better.

God, please, don’t let us re-elect this man…

42

It seems to me that this decision shows them to be “arrogant” and “wrong” only if the comments were made exclusively within the context of this case.

Personally, I’ve got a bit of a headache right now (unrelated to the thread), but my mind keeps flashing on images of blind pigs and stopped clocks.

BTW, perhaps this isn’t the place for it, but if nobody minds, where can I learn about the distinction between a Prisoner of War and an “enemy combatant” who happens to be in custody?

43

I strongly suspect that this is not actually codified. In short, if Ashcroft has your ass busted, you are whatever he says you are.

If I am in fact wrong, I would not mind being corrected.

44

Not quite correct. See the opinion (linked in the OP), page 11. Congress has authorized the President “to use all necessary force” to oppose the terrorists. Effectively, a declaration of war.

So, because the enemy is difficult to find, we just give up and let all of their combatants go?

Yeah, that’ll work.

45

—The arrogance lies in assuming that one’s preferred civil liberties approach must also be what the Constitution calls for.—

The fact that this court found in favor of Ashcroft today doesn’t prove the case any better than it already was. If you think otherwise, you’re sadly deluded as to how the justice system works (something I doubt, seeing as how you yourself have disagreed with the “nine wise souls” at times on Constitutional matters). I’m not saying that your argument is wrong (the idea that people are too arrogant about presuming that simply because something is just, it’s therefore constitutional): but a court finding doesn’t make that argument any stronger or weaker.

Indeed, it cases like this, I think it’s pretty laughable for either side to pretend to be talking about what the Constitution says or doesn’t say at all. The Constitution was written in an era in which the federal government was nothing like anyone could have imagined it would be today. The Constitution doesn’t consider the question of what sort of limits should be placed on today’s government in a situation like this because no one ever envisioned anything like the government we have today ever existing: the Constitution never granted it the power to even be in the position of ASKING these sorts of questions in the first place.

46

I agree, but this observation strengthens my point. Apparently Ashcroft is in the main stream because his Constitutional understanding is supported by today’s judges.

Regarding kaylasdad99’s “stopped clock” analogy – IIRC this is the second court decision where Ashcroft prevailed over his critics, although I don’t have the cite at hand right now. OTOH I vaguely recall his critics may have won a single court decision against Ashcroft.

Regarding Kimstu’s excellent point that “there were significant constitutional issues involved, and that it was a good thing to get some judicial clarification on them.” – This goes for Ashcroft as well as his critics. The Justice Dept. has responsibility for protecting the security of Americans. It’s appropriate for Ashcroft to pursue effective security measures which appear Constitutional, even though they may require “some judicial clarification.” Of course, if the court rules a particular measure to be unconstitutional, he would cease using it.

47

Certainly they can make a wrong decision. But if you wanna know what the law is on this matter, just look to the 4th Circuit’s opinion.

48

So John Ashcroft was upheld by a court. Big deal. Doesn’t the blind squirrel find a nut once in a while?

49

What - one Circuit Court (out of twelve) ratifies part of Ashcroft’s position on this one issue out of many, and that puts Ashcroft ‘in the main stream’?

Whatever.

Not to mention, the ‘main stream’ of Federal jurisprudence has been shifted significantly over the past 20 years, by the willingness of the Republicans, when in power, to appoint extremely conservative persons to the courts, and engage in wholesale blocking of nominations when a Democrat was in the White House.

50

I like that blind squirrel metaphor a lot better than the humdrum stopped clock. I can just visualize Ashcroft aimlessly rooting around the base of a tree. OTOH, he is leading his critics in the race for the the nuts.

After a bit of googling, I found another Ashcroft “nut” – a decision last November by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, to grant the FBI broad powers to wiretap phones and search homes and computers.

51

He’s sees you when youre sleeping…

52

“Apparently Ashcroft is in the main stream because his Constitutional understanding is supported by today’s judges.”

Actually, his position is supported by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is located about a stone’s throw from where I’m sitting right now. You would be hard pressed to find a more conservative group of jurists. I doubt that the Ninth Circuit would have made the same ruling.

53

Poor John Ashcroft… he’s just a victim!

Oh yeah, and one decision in one limited case proves that everyone was wrong about him regarding everything else. That’s a reasonable position. :rolleyes:

You know, I honestly read the OP as a parody. I thought the whole thing (other than the cite) was a joke. Guess I should have considered the source… it was only funny in unintentional ways.

54

Hmmm.

december: if the Supreme Court hears this case, and reverses the Fourth Circuit, would you then take the position that the people who made the mean-spirited comments about Mr. Ashcroft were right?

  • Rick
55

And when Bush and Ashcroft came for me, there was no one left to speak up.

56

Bricker

*"Hmmm.

december: if the Supreme Court hears this case, and reverses the Fourth Circuit, would you then take the position that the people who made the mean-spirited comments about Mr. Ashcroft were right?

  • Rick"*
    I suppose he would…and in the same spirit, until that happens, I would assume that you will be willing to admit that those people are wrong?
57

Well, a review of my earlier posts in other threads will reveal my defense of Mr. Ashcroft against charges that he “violated his oath” and other baseless allegations, so I’m not sure an admission on my part is now called for.

I took the position then that when the law is unsettled, one cannot fault the Attorney General for arguing the position of the Administration. Others may disagree with the wisdom of such a course, but cannot argue that the man violates his oath to protect and preserve the Constitution when he seeks to make new case law.

In other words, I have always repudiated the mean-spirited comments of the type the OP refers to.

Why my question to december above, then?

Because his post seems to suggest that now that the Fourth Circuit has spoken, the final word has been delivered, and this proves Mr. Ashcroft was “right.” I suggest that this is a faulty way of looking at it. When the law is not settled, the Attorney General is not wrong to argue the administration’s position; the ultimate ruling of the court clarifies the law, but doesn’t make the losing side’s advocate a bad-faith actor.

Even if the Supreme Court reverses the Fourth Circuit, all it will show is that, definitively, the Constitution doesn’t say (in this instance) what Mr. Ashcroft argued it did. That’s all.

  • Rick
58

I’m still not clear as to how december seems to feel this proves Ashcroft right and civil libertarians wrong. Ashcroft has pressed for the right to unprecented powers of investigation into the privacy of any and all Americans, as well as the right to label anyo American suspected of being associated with terrorism an enemy and hold them without trial or charges. These are huge changes in the power of the government over ordinary citizens, and very scary to people worried about the government giving itself such broad powers, hence the anger and fear directed toward Ashcroft.

The Fourth Circuit court has specifically limited itself to the discussion of an American captured on foreign soil, in a well-defined war zone. A war on Afghanistan is a legally well-defined situation. A war on terror is not legally well-defined. Just because you call it a war doesn’t meant that you can expect to use the same rules – the current rules regarding enemy combatants were written with the assumption that you’re fighting a country, with a government, army and territory. So it’s pretty clear that the court has yet to decide if declaring “war” on people who would hurt the citizens of the U.S. allows Ashcroft to decide who is waging this war on us and treat them as enemy soldiers. This is by no means a validation by the court of the policies of Ashcroft that have caused the most concern among civil libertarians.

I think people are right to be especially worried about Ashcroft’s policies. The United States was set up to be a government of laws, not a government of men, with good reason. It is difficult to prevent corruption and abuse of power, when you trust the power of government to the judgement of individuals. Once the Justice department is no longer required to back up criminal charges with evidence and give the accused a chance to defend his/herself, you no longer have a rule of law. I for one really don’t want to see anyone mess up the free country we live in, in a misguided attempt to save it.

59

And of course, since you’ve suggested that Mr. Ashcroft has proposed dispensing with evidence for criminal charges, you can easily provide a citation for this claim.

Right?

  • Rick
60

Bricker

Thank you for your clarification!!!