posted on November 13, 2001 04:41:00 AM new
"--I thought every G-man in America was working double time to
try and make America safe and deliver justice. After all, the
president said civilization itself was at stake, not to mention its
prosperity. And didn't Congress sweep away concerns about
privacy to give Ashcroft a wide-open field to pursue this menace?
----What could be more compelling? What could divert Ashcroft's
attentions and make him redeploy agents and investigators from
these horrifying threats to our children and ourselves?
----It's the rebellion we started here in the West. When we in
California decided that a marijuana brownie wasn't too much to
offer chemotherapy patients so they could hold down their
medicines without vomiting, just as long as a licensed physician
approved. When voters in Oregon decided that, for truly horrible
terminal illnesses, people ought to have the right to ask their
doctors for the drugs to escape their final suffering."
posted on November 13, 2001 10:19:30 AM new
Geez....what is it with pain killers and marijuana? It makes me furious to hear about people that have to suffer when treatment is so handy and inexpensive. This just forces people to buy stuff "underground" which adds to the governments dilema. (??????)
posted on November 14, 2001 08:15:31 PM new
Ashcroft is only doing what we all have been
advised to do, ignoring the threats of further terrorist acts and assuming the position of role model for the new normalcy, the key to which seems to be to further the power of Federal government by diminishing the rights of states and individuals. With the current Supreme Court and a docile and distracted public, there's little doubt that he will be successful.
posted on November 16, 2001 03:41:25 PM new
"...there's little doubt that he will be successful."
Maybe not. Have you seen the latest edition of Newsweek?
"The Attorney General: Facing a SenateProbe and mounting criticism overcivil-liberties issues."
"Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy recently demanded that Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Bob Mueller ensure that all documents relating to September 11 are preserved."
"Sources tell Newsweek that, in the year prior to September 11, the FBI allowed some counterintelligence wiretaps of suspected terrorists to lapse. In addition, some tapes of terrorist suspects were never transcribed for a lack of Arabic translators."
To win confirmation for his Cabinet post, the right-wing Ashcroft overcame strong opposition to his controversial appointment by promising to carry out the law of the land even if he disagreed with it. And he has certainly done that on the issue of legal abortion rights.
But he is now using the war in Afghanistan and on the home front to push his own ideology. An egregious example is his approval of a rule that permits the Justice Department to eavesdrop on the confidential conversations between lawyers and some clients in federal custody. These clients include suspects who have been detained but not charged with a crime whenever the government says such steps are necessary to prevent acts of terrorism.
Ashcroft rammed the rule through late last month as an emergency measure without allowing the usual waiting period for public comment. The regulation permits the government to monitor conversations and intercept mail between the suspects and their lawyers for up to a year.
The Ashcroft move was denounced by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups as unconstitutional.
The protests made him pull back a bit. The Justice Department now says the attorney general must be able to certify that "reasonable suspicion" exists to believe that a particular detainee or federal prison inmate is using contacts with a lawyer to "facilitate acts of terrorism."
In the amended version the department stressed, as a "safeguard," that the attorney and client would be notified if they are being monitored and that information protected by the attorney-client privilege may not be used by the prosecution without a judge's permission. But there would be no protection for communications related to ongoing or contemplated illegal acts.
The fact that Ashcroft buckled somewhat shows that having a vigilant public can pay off.
But he still refuses to release the names or numbers of people detained for questioning about terrorism.
The new anti-terrorism law that Congress passed last month has given him a much freer hand to deal with such matters -- and to curb basic rights. The law permits the government to detain or deport suspects, eavesdrop on Internet communications, monitor financial transactions and obtain electronic records on individuals. So far, the Justice Department has detained more than 1,000 persons, about 200 of them on immigration violations.
Middle Easterners, especially students, are special targets -- one more example of racial profiling, which apparently is in style again.
In another action, Ashcroft moved to inhibit press freedom, a First Amendment right, by encouraging federal agencies to use the pretense of national security to hide public records that the press is ordinarily entitled to receive under the Freedom of Information Act. The law was passed during the Cold War to encourage an open government. Last month Ashcroft issued a memo to federal agencies telling officials that if they decide to deny requests for information filed under the FOIA, they "can rest assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions ...."
Such a retreat into secrecy, while an outrageous violation of the principles of openness followed by previous administrations, is just what you can expect from this one.
On Tuesday night, after declaring an "extraordinary emergency," President Bush announced he had issued a directive claiming the power to order military trials for suspected international terrorists and their collaborators. That directive, which applies to non-U.S. citizens arrested here or abroad, allows him to take the highly unusual step of bypassing the nation's criminal justice system with its rules of evidence and constitutional guarantees. I think that would be a mistake.
Even before the horrific terrorist bombings of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Ashcroft had edged around the U.S. Constitution by holding prayer meetings every morning in his Justice Department office. The sessions are just one of a number of methods this administration is using to chip away at the separation of church and state.
With the clear approval of President Bush, Ashcroft is moving aggressively against civil liberties in the hunt for terrorists. But in his headlong rush to ignore the Constitution, he should remember the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"If we give up our essential rights for some security, we are in danger of losing both."
posted on November 19, 2001 12:01:19 AM new
No, I hadn't read that yet, Pat. Newsweek is the only print magazine to which I still subscribe, so I wait faithfully for its arrival, even though sometimes, especially lately, it doesn't arrive until the latter part of the week. I remember Leahy calling for a thorough investigation of the CIA and FBI immediately after the WTC attacks; I was beginning to think that the fire on that back burner had been extinquished. Maybe dousing it with a scoop of anthrax will do the trick. Highly dramatic warnings of imminent terrorist attacks certainly didn't hurt as negotiating leverage in securing the majority of the provisions in Ashcroft's anti-terrorism proposals. I'm a bit skeptical about how rigorous the investigation will be, especially since the administration has chosen from the outset not to pursue questions of competence with American security. It still puzzles me that the FBI was unable to maintain surveillance on visitors whom they knew to have been members of bin Laden's Al Queada network. But perhaps something will come of the investigation, even though under the new Reign of Secrecy we may never know.
That's a good op ed piece, Helen. The ACLU did chop away a little, but their foolhardy damage can be rectified with later legislation as the definition of terrorism is expanded. Who would have thought that it would be so easy? Half the nation already would doubtlessly be willing to stand in line to sign away their constitutional rights for the cause of national security. I mean it's not like they're giving up their right to be entertained or anything important. Someday we'll be sitting in a rocker by the fire telling our grandchildren incredulous stories about the primitive uncivilized past when silly, disorderly people wasted their talents, which were meant for the good of the state/corporation/god. About how they actually believed in those days that there could be differences in political, economic and religious beliefs and about a quaint and archaic concept called individualism.
typo
[ edited by antiquary on Nov 19, 2001 12:17 AM ]
posted on November 19, 2001 05:23:16 PM new
Antiquary
Constitutional rights are being lost so quickly and without significant protest. It's unbelievable that in this country we would have the criminal justice system changed so easily in order to carry out "swift justice". Now, when I hear the word, "security", I flinch.
Excerpt from Time...
"Some legal experts question the necessity of creating a whole new court system. "It's not clear to me why we're doing this now," says Professor Jonathan Entin, who teaches constitutional law at Case Western Reserve University. "We tried the people who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 in civilian court. Since we figured out a way to handle that trial, I guess my question is why this administration now sees civilian courts as inadequate."
Professor Entin also questions the message sent by the President's decision. "My concern about this order, not having reviewed every detail, is that it kind of undercuts the efforts we've been making as a nation to distinguish ourselves from regimes like the Taliban," he says. "It sort of suggests that when the going gets tough, we don't really believe in our ideals either."
posted on November 19, 2001 09:38:05 PM new
That's a good one, Antiquary.
But, colateral damage is not a concern of John Ashcroft and George W. Bush. These two totalitarian politicians simply don't recognize the Constitution of the United States of America.
posted on November 19, 2001 11:32:29 PM newThese two totalitarian politicians simply don't recognize the Constitution of the United States of America.
Helen
Well, that's understandable, after all they didn't sign it, nor could you really expect them to if they had the opportunity; after all, it is based upon extremely liberal political philosophies and they could hardly be expected to endorse anything liberal. Everything has pretty much run amuck since Magna Carta and even the Salem Witch Trails here failed to properly instill that old time religion into our documents of incorporation. But if it can't actually be removed, the next best course of action would be to ignore it--the current Supreme Court has set a fine precedent in that regard. Pragmatically, all that those in the Neofreedom movement need is a good mission statement drafted by genuine missionaries like John Ashcroft and a sound 7-year business plan drafted by--well, that would include almost the whole cabinet and first family emeritus--so who really needs it after all.
posted on November 20, 2001 10:17:47 AM new
Today, Ashcroft in a very quiet tone is calling his proposed changes to the Constitution of the United States of America, *adjustments*.
posted on November 22, 2001 09:48:27 PM new
WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 — Congressional leaders have agreed to delay until next year any major investigation into the government's failure to prevent the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, citing the need to give the administration time to focus on the war in Afghanistan and the global effort to destroy the Qaeda terrorist network.
So much for Leahy's and others' questions about problems with internal security surrounding the 9/ll attacks. If and when it ever occurs, it'll be fluff.
posted on November 23, 2001 06:48:33 AM new
Who would have thought that this military attack on Afghanistan would be such an effective vehicle to promote Ashcroft's detrimental agenda. Who would have thought that violation of fundamental civil rights, censorship and now this cover up would be so easily postponed.
Congress and the courts need to keep this administration under control and the media needs to ignore their requests to censor news.
If Ashcroft's infamous agenda can be approved in "just a few weeks", that should be a major wake up call to Congress to put an end to it now.
posted on November 23, 2001 04:58:23 PM new
I think that quite a few senators and representatives are themselves frightened of further terrorist attacks or have constituents who are and that's probably one factor in the carte blanche approval of the extended powers to federal law enforcement. Another fear is the backlash from voters since Ashcroft and the agencies could always blame any failures in security on Congress if they failed to support the recommendations.
The postponement of the investigation was likely the result of strong arming from the administration and backroom deal-making about upcoming legislative issues. The announcement signals even further weakening in Congressional oversight of the FBI, CIA, and related agencies. Not a happy thought.
posted on November 24, 2001 08:03:15 AM new
From the link above...
"As part of his mass dragnet prompted by the attacks on America, our attorney general has rounded up about 50 Israeli Jews, some of whom have been detained for nearly a month on the pretext of minor offenses involving working papers.
Why hold Israelis when there is no evidence linking them to terrorist activity?
posted on November 24, 2001 09:39:41 AM newBy working its various end runs around our laws, the fearful message is clear: American democracy is too weak to contend with terrorism, and two of the three branches of government, the judicial and the legislative, are not to be trusted.
This statement from the piece sums up the goals of the Bush administration well. As the article illustrates, a theme of secrecy or greater limitations on the access to information, if you prefer, is a chief goal of the Bush administration, continuing into the recent order to "protect" presidential papers. Ashcroft, though something of a buffoon in his own right (so to speak), is a team player. The bottom line here is that any governance is easier, goals more successfully realized, if no obstacles of opposition exist. I believe that the object of the usurption of power is for its own sake and will continue in small increments until a strong public reaction develops.
At present, I think that the public, at least that segment which makes a habit of attempting to understand the changes, is confused but not totally unaware of the abuses to civil liberties and constitutional constrictions. So far the media, especially TV, has focused much more on the inconveniences of changes, such as hassles with flying and travel as security methods and procedures are developed, but given very little focus to the changes in access to public information, right to privacy, due process, etc. Since I believe that a majority of the public depends primarily upon TV coverage to understand complex issues, I doubt much growing public concern as long as the coverage remains superficial.
But also, I don't know whether or not very many people today care that much about preserving their freedom except as an abstract idea which is easily altered by changes to law and government.
posted on November 29, 2001 03:24:56 PM new Finally! Republican Politician CriticizesBush Policies
Republican Representative Bob Barr Has Become Harsh Critic of Bush Administration on Privacy Issues
By Jeffrey McMurray Associated Press Writer
Published: Nov 29, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) - Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, a harsh critic of President Clinton in the previous administration, now has become the most outspoken Republican opponent of President Bush's efforts to expand law enforcement powers to combat terrorism.
Barr, a staunch conservative, says he generally supports the way Bush has handled the war against terrorism.
But there are parts the former federal prosecutor doesn't like, such as more wiretaps and possible military tribunals. He has gone on television, written newspaper columns and issued statements to draw attention to what he, as well as more liberal lawmakers and groups, sees as infringements on privacy rights.
"Most people up here, Republicans especially, don't like to make waves," Barr said. "They prefer to sit back and go with the flow, or they might not speak out because it might be contrary to what the Republican president wants. But I was not elected to represent the president."
Conservatives believe in less government, Barr says. Therefore, it's consistent to be skeptical of plans to expand government power, even in times of war.
Yet it's liberal Democrats who are doing the most complaining. Barr was the lone Republican among 39 lawmakers who signed a letter this week blasting Bush's plan to establish military tribunals to expedite the trials of suspected terrorists.
Although the letter was a sweeping rebuke of the plan, Barr explained later that he isn't necessarily opposed to using military courts for overseas suspects. But he is concerned that such a policy, implemented in the United States, could undermine the American justice system and the personal liberties it guarantees.
Earlier, when Attorney General John Ashcroft asked Congress for more law enforcement powers, including the expansion of wiretapping, Barr warned that the administration was "dismantling carefully crafted, constitutionally protected safeguards."
Barr's views, and the way he has articulated them, has upset some of his GOP colleagues.
"I simply, totally, 100 percent don't agree," said Rep. Charlie Norwood, a fellow Georgia Republican. "It's ludicrous not to give this president that ability to deal with terrorists."
Barr, who pushed hard for Clinton's impeachment near the end of the Democratic administration, is seeking re-election. Because of redistricting he faces a primary challenge from fellow GOP Rep. John Linder.
Charles Bullock, a University of Georgia political scientist, said Barr's criticism of the Bush administration could actually help him, despite the president's popularity among Republicans.
"Typically, Republicans who vote in the primary are a bit more conservative," Bullock said. "Individuals who may share Barr's concerns about big government will make up a disproportionate share of the voters."
