Ashcroft's emergency power grab

[allan]

This thread is to discuss our fundamentalist Attorney General's decision to use military tribunals against any non-citizen suspected of terrorist activities, to essentially suspend habeas corpus for noncitizens, as well as the right to a trial by jury.

Ashcroft's "reasoning" is that (quote) "foreign terrorists who commit war crimes do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution." Be that as it may, how do we know any individual here is guilty of either planning or carrying out such war crimes WITHOUT using the rules of evidence required in our traditional judicial process? By legal definition, people are only guilty when proven so in a court of law, so Ashcroft's statement is therefore NOT a justification for infesting our judicial system with kangaroo courts.

I knew that Ashcroft, being a fundamentalist (like the terrorists themselves, btw--never forget that), was going to be trouble from the beginning.... Fundamentalists tend to believe that the end justifies the means. Unfortunately, since this is an executive order, there is nothing we citizens can do about it.

I'm afraid that this is a victory for the terrorists--severely undermining the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. And since no one knows how long the overall war on terrorism will go on (terrorists will probably always exist), we can't view this as a merely temporary measure (that wouldn't justify it anyway), but potentially it could be permanent.

Thoughts on this, anyone? America is not America without its Constitution--I fear we are witnessing a fatal stab wound to it today....

 

[allan]

Something else that's disturbing:

http://www.greenparty.org/bangor_release.html

Apparently, a Green Party organizer was denied the right to use her air ticket to fly, due to her being on some computer list--because the Green Party is against the war in Afghanistan.

Now we can certainly disagree with her stance, but since she has done nothing terroristic that does not deny her the basic right to travel.

 

[CurtSibling]

War makes people a bit cautious...
Some politicians get carried away in the fervour...

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by allan
Something else that's disturbing:

http://www.greenparty.org/bangor_release.html

Apparently, a Green Party organizer was denied the right to use her air ticket to fly, due to her being on some computer list--because the Green Party is against the war in Afghanistan.

Now we can certainly disagree with her stance, but since she has done nothing terroristic that does not deny her the basic right to travel.

I agree with Ashcroft on this one, as I do in many cases, but what if out of a thousand Green Party members, one of them was a radical that skyjacked the plane and flew it into the Sears Tower or the Empire State Building?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Allen, why would put any credence into a a political piece written by a party propagandist, printed only in a party newpaper, without checking for other versions of the story by independant sources.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

“She was uncooperative during the screening process,” said American Eagle spokesman Kurt Iverson, who added that Oden reportedly would not stand still when security staff tried to wave a metal-detecting wand over her. “Obviously if they can’t submit to screening, [Federal Aviation Administration] regulations require that they not be allowed to board the plane.”

Oden said that while she asked security staff not to touch her with the wand, she did allow them to complete their search of both her person and her baggage. Oden said that she did pull away from a National Guardsman when he grabbed her left arm and asked her if she “knew what happened on September 11,” she said.

"While acknowledging that Oden was singled out for added extensive screening, authorities said it was more likely due to the manner in which she purchased her ticket than for her activist past.

Under newly adopted FAA regulations, more passengers — either randomly or based on a computerized profile — are being targeted for more intense screening during the boarding process.

While industry officials were unwilling to release the criteria under which they would profile a passenger, they said the criteria did not include federally protected characteristics such as race, religion, age or sex.

Without providing details, interim airport director Rebecca Hupp said that the FAA guidelines “have more to do with the ticket than the person.” For instance, one airline official said, a passenger who pays cash for a ticket the day of the flight would likely undergo added scrutiny."

She was tagged by compertor profile (they are notw allowed to release to the public the criterion for privacy reasons, but she likely lcould get out the reason, but that would not serve her propaganda purpose as well as making it up) and refused to fully cooperate with the extended sucurity screening process. Most common reason for being tagged for additional screening is purchasing your ticket by a method (ie. cash or internet purchase0 where your indetity cannot be confirmed until you get to the airport. You let yourself get succered by pure propaganda, Allan which was painfully obvious even on the face of the story you cited.

 

[allan]

My bad, I didn't see this in my regular newspaper, but encountered it on the Green Party website (I often look at websites of various different parties and organizations, for different perspectives). I couldn't find any other stories on this (where did you find yours, lefty?), so I assumed this story was buried for some reason.

"Oden said that while she asked security staff not to touch her with the wand, she did allow them to complete their search of both her person and her baggage."

And so did they find anything? I know it is not necessary for the wand to touch the person, to detect metal.

"Oden said that she did pull away from a National Guardsman when he grabbed her left arm and asked her if she “knew what happened on September 11,” she said."

For many people, it is a natural response, like a reflex, to pull away when someone grabs their person. And of course she knew what happened September 11.

"While acknowledging that Oden was singled out for added extensive screening, authorities said it was more likely due to the manner in which she purchased her ticket than for her activist past."

Could be, but I think the majority of ticket purchases are via internet these days.

I wouldn't count out "special lists" of people with certain political affiliations, though. Remember, 50 years ago our FBI kept track of members of the Communist Party, too.

In light of what you said, this incident wasn't proof of that kind of thing occuring today, however.

I guess that ever since Ashcroft announced such a radical idea as suspending due process for noncitizen residents (who'd have ever thought THAT would happen?), I'm more inclined to believe stories of other abuses.

I may have been "suckered" this time, but I am still going to be very vigilant....

"Under newly adopted FAA regulations, more passengers — either randomly or based on a computerized profile — are being targeted for more intense screening during the boarding process."

Randomly is the best way--or better yet, doing EVERYBODY. Profiling based on whatever they profile about (known political ties, ethnic background, etc.) is just plain ugly.

"She was tagged by compertor profile (they are notw allowed to release to the public the criterion for privacy reasons, but she likely lcould get out the reason, but that would not serve her propaganda purpose as well as making it up)"

Was it because she purchased her ticket on Priceline, or because she was a ranking member of the Green Party? Do we really know?

Anyway, supposedly the officials were able to complete their search (whether she was b*tchy about it or not, they still completed it), and found nothing (nothing reported, anyway), so why then did they still deny her access?

BTW, in another Green article (I suppose I have to find a way to confirm this one), American reportedly agreed to refund her money for the ticket--so obviously they agree that SOMETHING wrong was done, since Priceline tickets normally aren't refundable (and I know from experience that getting airlines to refund tickets is often like pulling teeth).

Well, I guess we can scratch my second post for now (unless further developments arise), but my first--about Ashcroft's suspension of the rules of evidence, due process, and habeas corpus for noncitizens--still stands, and is quite alarming in a free society....

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Google search turned up a couple dozen matches for this story, most in propaganda websites, only two contained any statements from the other side. IIRC the above text was from a civil libertarian web site giving both sides, with the info quoted from a local newspaper.

 

[PinkyGen]

1. Check out snopes2.com and the recent additions button for this. (It's an urban legend website, but now it tackles all rumors.) Seems like she wouldn't submit to security to me. Oh, and random checks and profile checks are used because its better than nothing, and it is implausible to check everybody.

It was a profiling check that caught the Chicago guy with the stun guns.

2. They are foreign nationals threatening nation security. If Ashcroft really wanted too, he could get a state of emergency declared and suspend it for US citizens as well (as ordered by Lincoln during the Civil War). Check out Article I, Section 9 paragraph 2 of the constitution.

"The privilige of the writ of Habeaus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

As long as its use is limited, I am all right with it.

 

[sonorakitch]

Allan,

For you to compare Ashcroft to the terrorists is a sick, un-American, and absurd act of blindness.

~Chris

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Diiferent parts of constitutional freedomns apply to diferent inclusive class of persons. The four most generalized classes would be citizens, lawful residents of the USA, any residents of the USA, and any persons under authority or power of the USA. Due Process of law aplies to any persons. It is not as specific or technical as other constitution provisons and rights. It can be basicly summed up as the MINIMUM fairness required to keep a judge from puking on the governemnt.

 

[sonorakitch]

Good point Lefty. I find you are right. I was under the impression that convicted criminals have no rights under the consititution, because of voidances of Amendments II, IV, etc.

I guess I can't consider them convicted yet, but hopefully, it doesn't go that far.

~Chris

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Convicted criminals retain most rights. Many that are gone are not denials, but are inapplicable to the condition of incarceration. Convicts have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus recieve alomost not benefit of 4th amendment limitations on searches. because they are in custody, the state does not require a court order to take physical control of them and move them where it pleases. Note this last also applies to not only convicted persons but all lawfully in custody, after arrest but before trail. Thus no warrant is needed to arrest a bail jumper. Others rights would be constrained by the power of the state to mainteain order over prsioners. Thus while they still have free speech, they cannot exercise it in any manner that avoid discipline and control of the prison. They caan right letters to the editor, but they cannot organize rallies and protests in the prison.

 

[allan]

"For you to compare Ashcroft to the terrorists is a sick, un-American, and absurd act of blindness."

Perhaps, since they use vastly different means. I was probably a bit to harsh on Ashcroft.

But fundamentalists of ALL stripes are, at their core, enemies of liberty. Trust me, I used to, a long time ago, attend a Pentecostal church for a couple of years--and their agenda is basically to establish a theocratic state. They view all those forces who value separation of church and state as "secular humanists", following "man's laws" instead of "God's laws" (as interpreted by themselves), and basically demonize them. They say government SHOULD keep peeking into bedrooms, SHOULD legislate morality beyond what is necessary to preserve the safety of citizens, SHOULD make the Bible the law of the land. Then there is the Reverend Falwell, who attempted to exploit the September 11 events to scapegoat and condemn homosexuals, civil libertarians, and others on his sh*t list. And he'd be offended if I were to compare HIM instead, I suppose.... No, I have no love for the fundies. They are a scourge to freethinking people. And if I go overboard and offend one, I don't give a sh*t....

Yes, they use different means, but their ends aren't all that different. I personally do not trust ANY fundamentalist as far as I could throw him. I have experience with them. I used to be brainwashed with their same paranoid crap. I know.

We certainly do not need them in key government posts. Why the republicans kiss their asses and lose many more rational voters in the process is beyond me. Let them have their own, isolated and ostracized, fringe party....

I'll admit it's a personal thing--I have a personal vendetta against fundies, for reasons I won't get further into here. Not normal religious people, they're alright, but fundies....

Yep, comparing them to the terrorists was no doubt a bit harsh. But such people do have much more in common as far as worldview, vision, and ultimate goals than either have with people who value individual liberty. And one with political power can be just as dangerous to liberty as a terrorist--so when one does have political power, I am especially vigilant.

 

[sonorakitch]

Allan,

Okay...I thought you were crossing the line some. I agree, I don't like fundamentalists and I despise the religious right. It is ruining my party. But I think, in reviewing Aschroft's accomplishments in the past nine months, I don't find much I disagree with. I find no problem in the state supporting religious groups, as long as it is equally balanced (which I think it has been). I find his latest decision on the prosecution of any terrorist a fitting end to a disasterous moment. Whether or not there are legal issues with the decision, I don't care. To me, the terrorists lost their rights on September 11.

Thanks for the clarification,
~Chris

 

[allan]

"To me, the terrorists lost their rights on September 11."

But there's the rub--how do we KNOW that a given person arrested in the night was/is a terrorist, without the test of evidence that a standard jury trial provides?

The cost of time or money for a regular trial is minimal in exchange for assuring that we have the right man, and that we never revert to "guilty until proven innocent" thinking.

Expediency sounds good, but it is dangerous and not a real solution. I want all terrorists to face justice--I just don't want an innocent person to be railroaded. That is why our judicial system is run the way it is. We should not mess with it--there are enough threats to freedom from terrorists already....

 

[BlueMonday]

And now, we face the great question of our generation: free state or police state? Is there anyone in America who would not choose the free state?

Earlier this month a made a short trip back to Philadelphia. I flew into and out of Newark airport (and got to see the lonely absence of two silver towers from New York's skyline). On my way out, I had to deal with some of the most insane security I've ever seen. I spent an hour and a half winding through a line merely to get to the security perimeter where two or three reserve officers stood with loaded assualt rifles backed up by a half dozen state police. When I finally got to the metal detector I had the wonderfull honour of taking off my shoes, belt, baseball cap, getting a pass with the hand held metal detector, and having my bag searched.

A few minutes later, after I got my sh!t back together I was sitting at the gate and overheard some other travelers say, "Wow, that was some security -but I don't mind...it keeps me safe."

And I thought, I f***ing mind! You think this changes anything? When I worked at the restaurant we had a few polymer knives. Polymer knives (in addition to being just as durable and sharp as metal knives) are completly non metallic and undetectable to the metal detectors. I could slip one up my sleeve and walk right through them and no one would know a thing. There's still a thousand ways to get a dangerous object past security. I could buy one of those polymer knives at any restaurant supply store, or slip a gunpowder packet in the bottom of a coffee cup, or seal a nureotoxin in a plastic casing, or strangle a couple flight attendants with my belt -or sh!t, my bare hands would probably do.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. Are we going to stop selling polymer knives? or stop manufacturing explosives? or stop allowing men with big hands to get on planes? Nothing has changed, it's just that now we search more people and have servicemen at the airport with fully automatic assault rifles. Anyone who knows what they are doing could get something through that would do catastrophic damage. Would having tighter security stop that? NO!

I once read a book in seventh grade called Johnny Tremain. The last line in that book reads: "A man can stand up..." That statement right there is the basis of our entire freesociety. Should we allow the state to enforce total protection? Right now, that is the question everyone is asking -we may not say it aloud, but we all are thinking, "should we allow it so that another thousand won't die?"

I say no. Leave us as we are, because I would rather be able to protect myself using my own methods than have to rely on the whims of the state. If I have to, I will fight back. If they pull a knife, I'll pull a gun. I'm not going to cower while I wait for a doughnought-eating cop to miraculously appear. This is the way I choose to live. Others may not feel the same as I, but I demand the right to stand up on my own. And taking away our freedom to do that, even in the illusion of protecting us from whatever it is that we call enemy, is one more nail in another coffin -it may not be the same coffin as before, but another coffin none the less.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by allan
Ashcroft's "reasoning" is that (quote) "foreign terrorists who commit war crimes do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution."

Ahhh, so we can beat, torture and basically do whatever we want to "foreign terrorists" then?

Hmmm, I'm just pleased that Mr Ashcroft is not in charge of my legal system.

 

[sonorakitch]

"But there's the rub--how do we KNOW that a given person arrested in the night was/is a terrorist, without the test of evidence that a standard jury trial provides? "

But wouldn't the military tribunal court provide this?

Allan, I know I am wrong here. I probably couldn't argue with you about this. I just feel if we nab any of the Al Queda, justice should be expedient and unmerciful. And I just fear some liberal bench judge is going to find some technicality, with the help of the ACLU, and the bums are going to get off. We can both agree this won't happen in a military court.

So whether or not it is right or legal, I personally don't care. That is the beauty of being a citizen versus an Attorney General. I don't have to be right. He does.

~Chris

 

[RedWolf]

Allan,

For once I find myself on the same side of the issue as you.

I value my consitutional rights more than anything else in the world and I am NOT willing to give them up to guarentee me "safety" from terrorism - especially when my government hasn't even convinced me that there IS a threat to my country yet.

A price you pay for living in a free society is that yes, sometimes some criminals and terrorists may slip through the cracks due to restrictions on police powers. And sometimes even when they DO manage to capture them they WILL occasionally walk free because their guilt could not be proven LEGALLY in a court of law.

Within a week of September 11th our so called "Liberal" government was already proposing draconian anti-terrorism legislation. Due to the fear and the unknown citizens of my country were on side of these new laws - even though it would open the door to all kinds of government and police abuses. The general opinion was "I'm not a terrorist so what do I have to worry about?"

Our justice minister states that these laws are required to guarentee democracy - in her words: "You cannot have freedom without safety".

I disagree - I'm not willing to live in a police state in order to guarentee that every single criminal/terrorist is caught.

I was talking to a very intelligent man at work that shares opinions very silimar to my own... He was from Yugoslavia actually and he had a very shocking but real observation to make: "When you start giving your government absolute power to solve crime - it is THEY that eventually become the criminals and terrorists."

The scary thing in Canada is that our proposed bill has no "sunset clause". As some of you know a sunset clause sets a limit on these sweeping police/governmental powers so that they will cease to exist after a set amount of time - say 3 years for instance (I believe the American law has this built in). Once our bill is passed our constitutional rights are gone forever. Life here will never be the same. Long live democracy.

On the bright side however people have started to regain their senses. They've started to realize exactly what this bill will mean to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and people are speaking out against it... Civil Liberty groups, Journalists, and even politicians. So maybe there is hope for freedom yet.