Enemy Combatants: Ashcroft and the Constitution

I remember a thread a while back ended up coming to this topic.

I am in full agreement with you. It's a very dangerous road that Ashcroft has started us down.

I don't know who's the worse enemy to our constitution - the terrorists or Ashcroft.

Obviously the terrorists are a worse enemy to people's lives, and use violence. Ashcroft however is a threat to our constitution and our freedoms.

 

If the loss of rights does happen, you can bet there''ll be a civil war. Look at all the democratic countries that are in civil war. I hope this never happens in my time, but it might be inevitable. Time to kick Ashcroft out of office while we still can.,

 

Maybe I'm dense, but if we are referring to essentially enemy soldiers captured during battle I don't understand how they are supposed to have rights under our constitution.

 

I just lost a few more brain cells.

 

Well the people who blew up the WTC in '93 were tried in civil trials and given all the rights of standard criminal defendents.

The American justice system worked great then. Why abandon it now? What's the reason?

If they have the evidence to hold these people, then arrest them and let's put them on trial, if they don't have the evidence the don't arrest them. It's the American way.

 

Isn't the issue that in criminal trials, we would be subject to exposing our intelligence, our intelligence networks, etc?

That wasn't such a prevailing issue in 1993.

Honestly, I cannot believe that anyone is afraid of John Ashcroft...

Do you really think he would be finding a way to accomplish this if the events of 9/11 had not transpired?

BTW, <b>treeman</b>... WELCOME BACK!!!!!!

 

That's the issue they claim may be at stake, but I don't buy it. The govt. has said things like that for decades, then later when the information is released via the freedom of information act and things become unclassified, it often shows that things like that wouldn't have been comprimised, the govt. just didn't want people to know what they were doing.

 

Essentially, if you look at the definition of "war", from webster's, you get:

Essentially what they've done, through slight of hand, is to use conditions which apply to the first, and apply them to the 'War on Terror' which fits in under the second definition. I have no problem when it comes to applying these things to combatants in the 'war on afghanastan', which IMHO rightly deserves to be considered distinct from the 'war on terrorism' but when it comes to applying them to people like Mr. Padilla, the supposed 'dirty bomber', I think they're way out of line.

It's no different than declaring a 'war on child abuse', or a 'war on drugs' and holding suspects as enemy combatants without rights. Everyone will agree that cocaine is bad, and child abusers are bad, but in these cases, where the expediency required by traditional war is not present, the constitution is clear that the rights of the individual are most important.

 

Frankly, I'm just glad that someone is kicking ass on my behalf.

 

I'm sure there are many Arabs who are glad someone named Ossama bin Ladden is kicking ass "on their behalf", but that doesn't make it right.

 

I was listening to 90.1 on the way home this evening, and there was a Republican representative or something who was RAILING on Ashcroft. He said he likes Ashcroft personally, and he even supported his nomination, but now he things Ashcroft has gone so far it's potentially threatening to the future of the U.S. constitution.

I agree with him. I guess we should just throw away the Constitution and institute Martial Law. Then things will be alright

 

So what are you proposing: to sit around and get OUR tail kicked? They came after us remember...onto our own soil.

I think that Al-Qaeda in America is going to turn out like an anthill. What you see is impressive enough, but wait until you see how wide and deep the tunnel goes and how teeming with ants it is.

I'd rather these drastic measures not be necessary but I can justify them. I know that everybody can't. But I don't fear Ashcroft as the next Fuhrer.

 

I believe it has to do with the detainees still having important information that is helpful to the war effort. Maybe that wasn't the case in '93 (we weren't at war then anyway, there's your biggest difference). That's why John Walker was let go and tried, he was of no practical use anymore.

 

Cohen, I think the big controversy is whether we can hold 'US citizens' without the normal procedures and protections. The two the article named were both from the US. The Supreme Court has ruled many many many times that foreign nationals do NOT have the protection of the Constitution. Most recent might be Verdugo Urquidez v. US I think.

Personally if you are captured as a member of a foreign army trying to attack the US, I don't think you should get normal Constitutional protections. You have not only abandoned your country, but are now a enemy in wartime.

As per the intelligence needing to be kept secret, while the FOIA requests have uncovered things the government did not necessarily want us to know, the secrecy rules in general are there to protect assets that would be compromised with public disclosure. Again the Supreme Court has ruled this Constitutional.

 

The thing is though, how do we know that someone is an enemy combatant if he is allowed no legal recourse. It is basically the government saying "he's an enemy combatant" and that's that. We are assuming that the accusing government is correct in its assertion, AND that it is acting in a prudent and sound manner. I don't want to give the government that much credit for being so consistently correct.

Under the Patriot act, and this whole Enemy Combatant thing, ANYONE can be held as an "Enemy Combatant", without notifying the accused of his crime, without divulging to anyone that he has been arrested and why, without any legal recourse, without a fair, civil, public trial, without legal counsel, and without any rights. And by labeling the accused an "Enemy Combatant", we are saying "it's okay, we can deny him his freedoms because the government says he's an enemy combatant".

This is the kind of law that we've seen in all of those governments and dictatorships we challenge and fight against. Its purpose is allegedly to eliminate "Enemy Combatants", but it gives the government freedom to easily do away detractors and critics as "Enemy Combatants". Or perhaps even those who are not liked by the rulers.

 

If they start using it on domestic groups, not foreign ones, then i'll worry. As it is, specifically targeting Al Queda operatives, I have no problem with it.

It has the potential to be a 'slippery slope,' but so does gun control. So does every governmental limitation put on its citizens.

 

You obviously have no fear of facist religious reactionaries who abuse the power of their appointed office.

I do.

John Ashcroft is a threat to our constitutional rights and civil liberties. He is easily the worst cabinet appointment of the GWB administration. Ask any conservative whose belief system isn't clouded by Republican party politics.

 

Well, for instance the shoe bomb guy. Now officially we SUSPECT that he is an Al Queda operative which is what you are saying.

I'll go out on a limb: The guy is a terrorist. I know I know, innocent until proven guilty, but geez...he had a freakin BOMB IN HIS SHOE. I don't think he was auditioning for the new Get Smart.