Ashcroft is a fascist

You're free to speak your mind my friend,
as long as you agree with me.
Don't criticize the Fatherland,
or those who shape your destiny.
'Cause if you do,
You'll lose your job, your mind,
and all the friends you knew
We'll send out all our boys in blue.
They'll find a way to silence you.

- John Kay (Steppenwolf) "The Ostrich" - 1968

 

actually i was gonna come back here and apologize for the last post i made (i'll even go edit it). personally i don't feel like discussing this topic cuz I don't have a tremendous insight into all sides of the argument but I just kind of get the feeling you like to throw a lot of big words into your arguments to make them sound impressive. not that i don't know what they mean, but it just seems like forcing when they get strung all in a row. if not (and i assume not), then sorry.

but, sorry, i still find TheFreak's post funny.

 

you're more likely to try to organize a campus anti-US/anti-War rally.

Agreed.

This, too is protected by the First Amendment. Whether Ashcroft or anyone else argues otherwise.

Having an anti-war demonstration is not "anti-US". Exercising you freedom of speech is actually quite American as we are all doing on the bbs.

 

An especially good article on why the military tribunals are actually counterproductive in the fight on terrorism.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2059475





Perceived Injustices
By Robert Wright
Posted Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 9:10 AM PT


Here is President Bush's justification for sending suspected terrorists to "military tribunals" rather than granting them the legal protections we normally grant people, whether Americans or foreigners: "Non-U.S. citizens who plan and/or commit mass murder are more than criminal suspects," the president says. "They are unlawful combatants who seek to destroy our country and our way of life."


Is the circularity of this logic so obvious that dwelling on it would be pedantic and obnoxious? Well, that's never stopped me before!

Everyone agrees that people who have in fact planned or committed mass murder are "more than criminal suspects." They are criminals, and thus lose various privileges we normally accord people—such as the privilege of not living in a prison. But the question is: How do we determine whether they have in fact planned and/or committed mass murder? Bush's answer—since they're guilty, we can skip the standard procedure for determining whether they're guilty—could bring real administrative efficiencies, but it involves logical problems that even I won't bother elaborating.



Alarmingly, this piece of logic didn't just slip out during Bush's off-the-cuff defense of military tribunals this week; he uttered it as part of last week's official, prepared statement in defense of them. The logic was presumably vetted by some of the finest legal minds in his administration. With minds like that, who needs gut instincts?

But the faulty judicial logic isn't what bothers me most about these "military tribunals"—courts that could operate in secret, among other eccentricities. It's the faulty geopolitical logic.

Since Sept. 11, many observers have credited President Bush with belatedly appreciating that the United States is part of Planet Earth. This erstwhile unilateralist, we're told, is now a blossoming multilateralist, increasingly aware of America's interdependence with other nations. And it's true that events have moved Bush toward enlightenment. But this secret-tribunal idea is among the evidence that they haven't moved him very far. To truly appreciate the interdependence of the modern world would be to accept two premises that call the secret-tribunal scheme into grave doubt.

First, and most obviously: If America wants to be treated in a certain way, it helps to treat other nations the same way. Do we want our citizens given a fair and open trial when they're accused of crimes abroad? Manifestly. We protested Peru's military "trial" of American Lori Berenson on terrorism charges. The Peruvian government obliged us by giving her a new trial in a civilian court, where she was convicted on a lesser charge and given a milder sentence. On what grounds would we protest the secret trial of an American citizen in the future if we're giving foreigners secret trials?

Second: In the modern world, what people think of the United States matters. As Sept. 11 and its aftermath suggested, technological evolution is moving us into an age when groups with intense grievances will have the capacity to wreak great violence. Being a much-hated nation will be increasingly unenviable. So, it matters that our treatment of foreigners be perceived as fair, and the first step toward this goal is to let our treatment of foreigners be perceived.

Of course, there are people on the streets of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who could never be convinced that America's jailing an Islamic terrorist is just. Some secret-tribunal enthusiasts would doubtless point to these people, arguing that convincing America-haters of America's goodness is a lost cause anyway—so, what have we got to lose? They'd be wrong on two counts.

First, converting America-haters to America-tolerators isn't the only goal. Preventing the conversion of America-tolerators into America-haters is equally important. And the more plausible the stories about American injustice, the more such conversions there will be.

Second, to act as if all America-haters are impervious to reason is simplistic and borderline racist. You heard the same type of muttering after the O.J. Simpson trial, when opinion polls showed that an astonishingly high percentage of American blacks considered Simpson innocent. Indeed, the parallels between the post-Simpson muttering and the post-9/11 muttering are close enough to warrant exploring.

In the Simpson case, the people most astonished by the number of blacks who thought Simpson innocent were mainly people who hadn't been paying attention. The handling of the case by police and prosecutors was hugely inept, a godsend to those inclined to think Simpson had been framed. (For example: The detective who took Simpson's blood sample at the precinct house didn't follow prescribed procedure to book it there as evidence. Inexplicably, he put the vial of blood in his car and drove it to the crime scene—exactly the place where investigators later said they'd found blood identified as Simpson's.)

Of course, given the diverse evidence of Simpson's guilt, you wouldn't seize on scattered signs of a frame-up had you not been suspicious of the justice system in the first place. Still, had there been no evidence of a frame-up, fewer blacks who were suspicious going into the trial would have been suspicious coming out. If you don't make stories of injustice plausible—by, say, holding your trials in secret—they'll have less valence. Besides, the suspicions that some blacks carried into that trial didn't take shape in a vacuum. The Los Angeles police (some of them, at least) were notoriously racist, and blacks across the country were familiar with the experience of being singled out for suspicion by police and private security guards.

The point of this little excursion isn't that whenever an ethnic group exhibits a psychology of oppression, it is justified. Typically there is a variety of grievances, ranging in legitimacy from very to not at all (ranging from, say, the complaint that the United States sponsored a coup in Iran that led to decades of brutal repression to the complaint that globalization is an American plot to rule the world).

The point, rather, is that a psychology of oppression is built up slowly, by a lot of little things, and it can be broken down only slowly, by a lot of little things. Some of these things we can't control, since some of the grievances won't bear any real correspondence to our behavior anyway. But some of them we can control—such as whether Muslims suspected of terrorism are tried behind closed doors and sentenced to death by a two-thirds vote of Army officers whose current assignment is to fight a war against terrorism.

President Bush was right when he said that the struggle against terrorism would be very long and would proceed on many fronts. Righter than he seems to realize.

 

Haven, as you know, we largely agree on the issues. However, the Freak had a point. No need to use words like argumentation, cognitive unity. Support your arguments; don't try to buttress them with obscure academic terms. It will be good preparation for law school.

Probably not intended, but your response smacked of an elitism that not only sits uneasily with liberal democratic values but does not sell well to the public or juries.

I didn't like the title of your thread, but I must admit that it was very effective in generating a very worthwhile thread. It made me think. People are called communist or fascist so commonly that you can forget the actual meaning of the terms.

For the record I wouldn't call Ashcroft a fascist. He strikes me as similar to the type of German who afterwards realized how he unwittingly contributed to the rise of fascism by assisting in the first restrictions of freedom in a desire to protect "national security", fight a drug war or some other goal.

Another point is that we should realize that Ashcroft is just the point man for the president. Bush approve of his actions. He is the guy designated to take the heat for the administration on the issue.

 

It's always entertaining when Haven speaks from on high down to all those red blooded idiot Americans with their stupid ass brainwashed patriotism. How dare anyone not agree with haven's collegiate debate team view of the world! You bastards!!

First, contrary to what some may believe, according to immigration law the US has the right to detain any non-citizen for a period of 90 days to begin removal proceedings. The US is not required to charge these people with any crimes at all. After the period of 90 days, the US STILL has the right to detain these people "for a reasonable time" according to the court. There are indeed people in prison right now who were placed there long before 9-11 and for whatever reason, lack of repatriation agreements or suspected of terrorism for example, are still in detention. Clearly, the detention of non-citizens for a significant period of time was part of US law prior to anything John Ashcroft decided. Wow isn't that amazing!!?!?!

Secondly, let me introduce you to the Antiterrorism and Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, both from 1996 passed WAY before John Ashcroft showed up in Washington. These laws basically created a court to only hear cases where the government wanted to deport non-citizens suspected of links to terrorism based on secret evidence from classified intelligence. In addition to that, it allows the government to deny bond to all detained non-citizens. There are right now, non-citizens being held in prison because of "secret evidence" who've been there for several years without trial, bond, or deportation.

So you see Haven, people could be held exactly five years ago and INS has always had the right to detain non-citizens for extended periods of time. You're just now becoming aware of it so you think liberties are eroding because of that fascist John Ashcroft when in fact Bill Clinton enacted "secret evidence" laws several years ago. Apparently even ole Bubba Clinton recognized the threat of terrorism as enough of a danger that he would allow non-citizens to be held practially indefinitely.

 

I think TheFreak just needs a big hug. His pattern of surliness is too obvious in every thread to mean that it is specific to haven in this thread.

francis,

So, it is haven's fault that you are limited? So much so that you jumped into a thread about which you know and care little?

Glynch,

You do little justice to the "liberal domocratic" values you claim to be defending. True democritization of knowledge involves bringing up the level of the education of the population, not dumbing down the "elite." It is ridiculous to label academic as bad (as some have done in this thread and others), as it is the root of all knowledge throughout the history of civilization. The only one being elitist (or at least perpetuating the elitist differentiation), in my opinion, is you by claiming that "educated" discourse is not beneficial in the public arena. Academia's problem is in showing its relevance to society, not in its level of jargon or education.

In regards to fascism, I see it as having varied meanings and usage. Fascism, certainly, is a type of government and usually more limited. Fascist, however, has also morphed into an adjective-type word that allows for more variation. Usually, however, all application must be centered around the understanding of a hierarchically rigid structure. It can be overused, but in this case I understand haven's side (I am not making a value judgement on his argument) and it wold be appropriate, imo, to use it in this situation. This would be a similar application as the discussion of large corporations having a fascistic structure.

 

A. Who said I was limited? I understand the man, I just said it makes him sound high and mighty the way he writes (Timing just said as much). Haven explained above how he viewed the issue of his writing and I'll agree with him on that and have no problem with it anymore. I hope he has no problem with me.

B. Who said I care little about it? I just said I wouldn't jump in w/o having all the facts covered. I for one almost never agree with haven in threads like these and that probably exacerbated my feelings of displeasure with his writing.

Again though, it's all good now.

 

Rimbaud, I'm not saying using academic language is undemocratic per se nor elitist , nor was I attacking academic endeavors or pretenses in that thread.

I believe Haven understood this by his reply about putting these concepts into more everyday language.

However, your reply reeks of elitism by your taking it for granted that the academics or so elite. Just because academics specialize more and know more and more about less and less and use special vocabularies does not make them that special. Maybe some of them should be schooled in the latest computer systems and auto repair terminology by certified mechanics for example.

Many professors publish in a small journals in which they esentially write for themselves and those who play the tenure game in their specific little area. This inbreeding is prone to getting out of control.

My favorite example is the famous situation in which a professor of physics wrote an essay in which he purported to "deconstruct" the law of gravity as just a construct of language and not based on reality. It was sent to and published in the leading journal in the field "Something or other Text?" I believe. It was very favorably received by the reviewers and readers until the physicist said that it had just all been a joke and he didn't mean for anyone to take it seriously.

(I got to get back to my real job so I can't find the cite, but can provide it if needed.)

What this revealed among other things was that by stringing certain buzz words together to make new terms the author had fooled the reviewers into accepting the publication, though they really didn't understand it. Because they suspected the physicist was just too brilliant they decided they'd better act like they understood him.

You sound like a graduate student rather than a professor with tenure. Most of them who have been around for awhile are a lot less impressed with the whole affair. It does help get you through graduate school and the tenure process to have complete faith in the whole affair.

Now let me say that I am not attacking academics per se and much valuable knowlege is generated at universities around the world. It is just that there is at least as much intellectual posturing and cyical carerism in academia sas you would find in any large corporation or government structure.

My perspective is perhaps different as I am over 50 years old and have studied in three different graudate programs if you include law school. My peers, a number of whom are professors, probably talk to me in a different way than they do their colleagues and students. My wife worked with medical professors for many years.

A tenured professor friend of mine recommended awhile ago a book called "It beats working for a living by Professor X". It is out of print and after they discovered who professor X was they managed to take away his tenure on a techicality. Note I only recommend it if you are already tenured or at least have a sense of humor. I and my professor friend who is still tenured found it hilarious.

 

glynch,

Lol, I say you are perpetuating elitism, you call me elitist. What is next?

Seriously, though, I believe you misunderstood me. Of course academia is elitist, I am certainly not of the opinion that it isn't. Hell, going to college at all is elitest, as only a small percentage do. This only gets compounded when the degrees pile up. My point, however, was that academia is not the issue (in regards to education level, jargon, etc), it is academia's alienation of society in general. I am of the somewhat utopian belief that academics should be more involved in the community, in order to diminish the elitism level - the culture capital that further works to justify elitism.

I agree with haven in that not everyone is on the same level intellectually, but that does not automatically mean that elements of academia are not relevant or helpful for society as a whole. This is my point. I am a revolutionary and see education as a catalyst.

" It is just that there is at least as much intellectual posturing and cyical carerism in academia sas you would find in any large corporation or government structure."

Of course. We are, after all, "only money." That is the nature inherent within our system of commodity justification. Academia, like anything else, is not immune. Further, your story about the joke article can happen in any area: business, technology, science, art, etc. It is called the sheep mentality and the trying to be "with it" mentality.

"You sound like a graduate student rather than a professor with tenure."

I am just a guy from the ghetto, trying to live beyond my life.

 

Haven if you need any recommendations on your Hitler Youth application you should just send them a copy of some of your posts.

Inferior human beings!? *yikes*

 

Lol!

Sometimes, I'm sarcastic and don't put a smily to leave it subtle. This time, though, I was actually being serious.

 

Timing,
The only thing that I'm gonna to say in this thread is this: how come haven has not responded to you? He has responded to everyone else like treeman, glynch, francis4prez, etc.

Do you think that is telling you something?

 

Haven, Rimbaud, doesn't sound like we are really that far apart. As I said, I was in a hurry. Thanks for not getting too bent out of shape in your replies to what I later worried was an intemperate post.

For the record I believe that neither of you is really that elitist or probably any more so than I am. I prefer to look at it like in general I like to hang out with intelligent informed people who like the Rockets like those on this board.

(Is it too late for me to rehabilitate myself and become one of the most popular guys on this bbb? Please don't anwer, Treeman.)

.

 

Haven, I wish you had Ashcrofts's job; your tune would change! He reads daily intelligence from around the world about he next terroristic threats on America and Americans. He feels some responsibility for saving American lives.

You sit in your carrel at the library ogling girls and thinking about Rocket basketball.

Give the man a break!

 

Ashcroft was probably the type of student who when he was in college kept secret lists of students that he had observed oggling girls.

He turned the lists in to the dean and proposed that the ogglers be tried in a secret session of the honor court and given the option of dropping out of school or going to compulsory bible study groups.

To think that Ashcroft was this first amendment freedom loving guy before he read a (secretive, it exists its really bad, trust me I'm dong the right thing) report on terrorism is laughable.

 

glynch -- be honest...you attack Ashcroft and Bush because you simply do not like them. The day after Sept. 11th you were telling us all here how Bush is a joke and how his popularity would be very short-lived. You suggested it was beyond him to be a great leader. The fact is, no matter what these guys do, you will disagree. If they move to the left on any issue, you'll move out even further in an effort to avoid agreement with the administration. I don't doubt that you disagree with them on this particular issue, but it kinda rings hollow when it seems you will always disagree with them, no matter the stance taken. You're taking shots at Ashcroft as if he has absolutely no respect for the Constitution he swore to uphold...an oath I'm certain he took quite seriously.

As for military tribunals -- again...these are not being implemented for trying those who are citizens of the US and guaranteed due process. This is, in no way, an encroachment on your rights. You might disagree with it on other grounds, but I sense that everyone has concerns that this is creeping in to affect the citizens at large. It's not. You, as a US citizen, will not be subject to a military tribunal...unless, perhaps, you renounce your citizenship and take up arms against the US.

While I would certainly never put a halt to criticism of any elected official, I do sympathize with the argument that Ashcroft is privy to information that you and I are not privy to. His job, in this instance in particular, is to protect the freedom we're all busy spouting off about here. It's very easy to criticize from our ivory towers. But once again...if it's good enough for our own soldiers who stand accused in wartime, it's good enough for non-citizens suspected of involvement with terrorism.