I've heard numerous people on this board say that one of the greatest thing about America is that even if we disagree, our Constitution provides a free forum for the exchange of our ideas in our society. I agree with this. I have many problems with the way America behaves abroad, but at home... our liberty and freedoms are unrivaled. America treats its own people better than any other country. That's what I love about our country. John Ashcroft, apparently, does not agree. While it's certainly possible that enemies of the US will cease upon the rhetoric of "critics," it's foolish to suggest that everyone who critiques the administration's rhetoric and unprecendented measures is simply looking out for personal gain. Many critics have emerged of certain policies, and there is a bipartisan concern on both sides of the political spectrum. Many Republicans and Democrats (and libertarians of course!) are concerned that we're seeing the erosion of our liberty. His argument is basically: don't speak out against what we do. We know better than you. We won't infringe on freedom... we promise! And if we do, it's worth it, since our first mission is to protect our citizens. If you say otherwise, you're just a discontent and are indirectly helping terrorists! Some of what he said is jut bizarre. Like, by criticizing current policy, you "encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil. " I could go on for pages... but I found this ignorant tirade to be disingenuous, indicative of a fascist disposition, and unthinking. Many people who object to the current measures are intelligent, conscienscious, and patriotic. To suggest otherwise, is wrong. John Ashcroft isn't the only person on earth with an iota of intellect. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/06/inv.ashcroft.hearing/index.html
Ashcroft is a psycho. Granted -- I understand his thinking. He probably believes what he's doing is right and that there's no way he'd abuse his power. What he doesn't get is that this isn't just "about him". Other people might, and the US isn't designed to assume the government will do the right thing. In conclusion, I still think he's a psycho.
I find that, in retrospect, all of the furror about his complete lack of respect for human rights right after his nomination to be chillingly prophetic. He is exactly the faccist agenda-persuing autocrat that he was made out to be. Sad.
It could be worse, Janet Reno could still be Attorney General. So your whole point is that he doesn't want to be criticized? This is incorrect. His quote in the article you provided says nothing about criticizing. It specifically is directed at those who "pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty". It says nothing about those who criticize. I have a feeling it's directed towards those who want to politicize, rather than those who simply want to criticize. You have a problem with this?
Come on, I'm sure you understand argumentation better than this. Your claim would only be correct if you first established that Ashcroft asserted that there were critics who had valid points concerning "lost liberty." If you allow a cohesive unity to his argument, then you're utterly wrong. The statement you defend is predicated upon the assertion that current policy does not erode liberty, and furthermore, that asserting it does undermines national unity and merely frightens people. So, we can have it one of two ways: 1. Ashcroft's statements are incoherent, he's an idiot, and should be dismissed from the current government. 2. Ashcroft is a fascist and should be dismissed from the current government. See? Either way, I win. Riiiiight. Perhaps if we conducted house-to-house searches across the US, we'd also eliminate the current anthrax threat.
He's a fascist. I retract any argument on his behalf I ever might have made. Why didn't you make this a poll: Ashcroft is... * A fascist * Not a fascist
I just don't see him as a fascist. I don't agree with just about anything he has to say but I don't see him as a fascist. I think, unfortunately, he is using his position as a way to exert his extremely conservative influence. I think that his sort of "how dare you attack our policy" attitude is pretty scary. What greatly concerns me is the fact that he is the head lawmaker in America and he is attempting to circumvent and change laws intended to protect Americans. If we truly are a nation of laws as was repeated over and over during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, then we need to examine just exactly how we are behaving here. The best and most precious gift our forefathers gave us was our freedom to choose our own beliefs on our own terms without having to answer to anyone for them. Calling someone un-American or even implying it is, in and of itself, terribly un-American no matter how much you may disagree with it. I worry more about the attitude than the action because we are not privy to all the actions, so the attitude would seem to speak volumes.
Jeff: I don't usually throw around the term fascist. But I'm beginning to believe that Ashcroft may merit the term. A leader doesn't have to be Hitler to be a fascist. Dict.org defines fascism as "a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)." The question is, do Ashcroft's objectives undermine democratic procedures? I find the answer to be yes: 1. He seeks to suppress public opinion contrary to his own. It isn't just that he disapproves of certain opinions being expressed as TheFreak claims... the problem lies in the fact that he identifies any opinion other than his own as unAmerican! If he had the authority, would he silence such people? Listening to him talking about how they're hurting national security, I thin khe would. 2. Military tribunals. I actually think these are probably necessary, but they do still subvert the Democratic process, and I don't agree with the extent to which Ashcroft seems to want to use them or with the secrecy. I don't think the request that congress should help to establish certain guidelines is out of order. Ashcroft has rejected this. Ashcroft is undermining the courts AND congress. 3. Miscellaneous other measures, such as the long-term detention of hundreds of people without charging them. In a nation of laws, the government is constrained, even if it has good intentions. Hundreds of people, many of them surely innocent, are in prison for an indefinite period of time. This is a mockery of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't guarantee freedoms because it's some sort of labor negotiations between people and government, but rather because we believe in certain rights, human rights. If we deny these rights to non-citizen residents, then we rendered the principles behind these rights null.
I've been waiting for the day when all of the closeted liberals holding their tongues after being wrong time and again since the outset of this military campaign would finally explode into their gloom and doom predictions and prognostications about the "unprecedented" erosion of our civil liberties consisting of military tribunals for and detentions of non-Americans suspected of being linked to terrorism. Of course Ashcroft is a fascist and 88% of Americans are perfectly fine with that fascism apparently. The will of the people... I mean liberals be done!!
That thread title is beneath you, haven. I may not always agree with you, but your discussions are usually more sober.
<B>Of course Ashcroft is a fascist and 88% of Americans are perfectly fine with that fascism apparently. The will of the people... I mean liberals be done!!</B> Funny. You do realize that enormous number of "right-wing" groups have lashed out at these decisions, right? Not to mention that many Republican members of the House & Senate also have concerns? Are all these people liberal now? By the way, a tad under 60% support the Military Tribunals according to an ABC poll.
Well, gotta give him credit for sticking with his protection of gun rights: <I> Justice Dept. Bars Use Of Gun Checks Records The Justice Department will not allow the FBI to check its records to determine whether any of the 1,200 people detained after the Sept. 11 attacks had bought guns. "We intend to use every legal tool available to protect American lives," said assistant FBI director John Collingwood, but adding that "applicable law does not permit" the background check records to be used "for this purpose." </I> We'll detain them, but not actually investigate them, cuz that would infringe on the 2nd amendment.
haven: Wartime, haven. There is a good deal of precedent for censorship of anti-American ideas during wartime, so this is nothing new. I don't think it's a matter of silencing those who have opinions that are contrary to John Ashcroft's opinions, but more a matter of trying to tell those who constantly spew anti-American propaganda to shut the hell up, or he will shut them the hell up. And the propaganda war is especially important in this case; the enemy is among us (not "over there") and is vigorously trying to get its message into the minds of many Americans. They are using confusion tactics to create disillusionment in the populace ala Vietnam, and that cannot be allowed to happen in this case. The Supreme Court has ruled them constitutional, and the Congress is going to naturally complain about any element of government it doesn't have control over. But since the judicial system has OK'd military tribunals, their concerns are really just for the cameras as there is no real question of separation-of-powers issues here. Repeat, the less-talked-about branch (judicial) has ruled them constitutional. And I think alot of people have some mistaken ideas about military tribunals. The defendants are still entitled to due process under military codes of justice, they still get lawyers, etc. The secrecy is an absolutely necessary component in this case for security reasons. The only major difference is that there are no appeals. Blame Congress for the legal detention of non-American suspects for up to one year; that was their doing when they passed the antiterrorism bill. Yes, those pricks you saw hammering Ashcroft today with questions and accusations are the ones who made that little item law. Hypocritical SOBs... Personally, I agree with them. And the Constitution is not immutable, nor is it subject to strict interpretation. It is subject to whatever interpretation the Supreme Court feels like applying to it at the time. Are they a bunch of fascists, too?
For the record, I have never liked Ashcroft. I think he probably is a bit racist, is a little too authoritarian for my tastes, and his views on abortion scare me. Just to get that out of the way...
A poll I saw on Tuesday from Newsweek had 71% as fine with what's going on, 12% saying it went too far, and 17% saying it didn't go far enough. Polls can change I guess. I would also say there is a difference between concerns of how tribunals will be implemented and saying an unprecedented erosion of our civil liberties is taking place or calling Ashcroft a fascist. As we speak, no American citizen in the country has lost a thing as far as civil liberties are concerned. At least as far as I'm aware.
<b>I don't think it's a matter of silencing those who have opinions that are contrary to John Ashcroft's opinions, but more a matter of trying to tell those who constantly spew anti-American propaganda to shut the hell up, or he will shut them the hell up.</b> Define anti-American propaganda. That is the issue. Is it wrong to say that America has held a position that may have put us in this situation in the first place? Is it wrong to say that peace should be pursued above all else? My concern isn't with stifling people who are a legitimate threat to America. That's the nature of war. My worry is that it will lead to squashing those who just don't agree in the war in the first place.
