Granted, it’s a relatively brief AP blurb, with little to no analysis, but it certainly looks pretty goofy to me:
Attorney General John Ashcroft asked Congress Thursday for expanded powers to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely before trials …
Um, Mr. Attorney General, sir? You know, there’s a reason why annoying bits like habeus corpus and “speedy and public trial” were put into the Constitution? Y’know? I’m sure it must have been covered in Attorney General School.
… and to let him seek the death penalty or life imprisonment for any terrorist act.
Define “terrorist act.” And define it narrowly.
Ashcroft told the House Judiciary Committee that the 2001 Patriot Act signed into law after the Sept. 11 attacks should also be expanded to let prosecutors bring charges against anyone who supports or works with suspected terrorist groups as “material supporters.”
Define “material supporters.” Define it narrowly.
“The law has several weaknesses which terrorists could exploit, undermining our defenses,” Ashcroft said.
Explain first how the law has been hampered so far by these weaknesses. Explain, further, how the law has actually functioned. Demonstrate you’re doing your job, sir, and we might consider your judgment as to what you need, or don’t need, to be something we should consider.
Feh.
(via Scott)
Bravo, Dave.
Thankee.
Just to make it clear, I do recognize that there may be extraordinary events that require temporary, but extraordinary, powers. Lots of risks involved, and eternal vigilence is needed, and all that, but, yeah, I can see the argument for it, short-term.
However, I have found Ashcroft’s “We need ever-increasing powers, and we need them permanently, and you can trust us because we’re only after the Bad Guys, really” to be singularly unconvincing.
And if he has the manpower to harrass doctors in states with medical marijuana laws, then he has the manpower to work around some of the difficulties in the present (unprecedented) USAPatriot Act, or at least present a better case as to what specific risks are involved if there is not further expansion of his powers.
Having listened to an NPR description of the hearing, the AP story was a bit misleading.
Ashcroft was actually before the House Judiciary Committee to describe how the Patriot Act was the greatest thing since sliced bread (though he was long on rhetoric and short on detail from what I heard). He did indeed suggest (unjustifiably, IMO) that there were Patriot provisions that needed expansion, but that was not the primary thrust of his appearance.
I think people really have to ask themselves, “Do I feel safer? Is what the administration doing making me safer? Are these limitations on rights really necessary?”
All good questions.
Or even, “What degree of safety is worth what degree of restriction?”
Dave, I appreciate your desire to keep definitions narrow. What I want to make sure is that the definition of terrorism is sufficiently broad to include Eric Rudolf as a terrorist (assuming that he did what he was accused of).
As to violations of habeas corpus this has been a common practice concerning illegal enemy combatants during war time. For example, FDR had trials very similar to what’s being proposed for German saboteurs. Such tribunals were held up by the Supreme Court. Lincoln summarily suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War.
The narrowness that I would make sure of is that these restriction of rights didn’t apply to American citizens. It is not necessary to extend those right to illegal combatants. Legal combatants, however, should be fully protected under the Geneva Convention. For a quick (but incomplete) way to distinguish a legal from an illegal combatant is to see if they are wearing a uniform.
Rich…
The WWII and Civil war Habeus Corpus problems go back to Dave’s “National Emergency” statement.
Eric Rudolf, while I find his beliefs to be wholly unjustifiable, is a citizen of the US and deserves the full protections and guaranties of the Constitution. Also, I have huge Problems, still, with the “illegal combatants” classification. If caught in this country, and national emergency powers have not been inacted, they are still guarantied the full protection of the Constitution (and the Geneva Convention even though we ignore that). Clothing has nothing to do with a parties legality.
Since we are not at war (declared), and the Constitution has not been suspended, Ashcroft should go back to his office and read the Constitution, and it’s Amendments till he can remember them. The USA/PATRIOT has been used very much to counteract terrorism, mostly Ashcroft has used it to become the new Uber-Hoover.
I’m inclined to agree. My one concern over the “illegal enemy combatants during war time” issue is the question of what constitutes “war time” in this context. Can a “war on terrorism” ever be won? And, even if it were, would the government ever willingly say so?
I would suggest that any provisions taken under the guise of the “war on terrorism” have a distinct sunset clause, requiring at least some measure of periodit debate as to whether they are necessary, and/or whether the conditions that spawned them are still present. That safeguard would go a long way toward building confidence in passing such laws.
As for Eric Rudolf, we get to one of the problems with “terrorism” (and its little brother, “hate crime”) — defining crimes (and punishment) by intent, as opposed to by action or result. Assuming Rudolf is, in fact, guilty of what he is charged, I don’t know that we know enough of his motivations or stated goals to declare him a “terrorist.” To my mind, a terrorist is someone who performs heinous crimes with the intent of inducing terror in the body politic and thus achieving some goal.
While Rudolf was not killing at random, it’s not clear to me whether he was trying to intimidate society, or simply kill folks he didn’t like. One is terror, the other is simply savagery.
When “terrorism” becomes synonymous with “heinous crime,” something has been lost.
(Previous comment was an answer to Rick.)
Actually, Stan, wearing of a uniform is mentioned in the Geneva Conventions as one way to tell a legal combatant from an illegal one.
Aside from that, your points have merit.
My apologies for conflating two issues. As for Rudolf, I think the charge of terrorism can be well defined by the kinds of politically-motivated targets chosen (in his case abortion clinics and gay bars) and is thus less problematic than hate crimes. This does not, however, make Rudolf an enemy combatant and thus tried in a military tribunal. All constitutional rights including Habeus Corpus should be available to him.
One of the reason I wanted to stress this case is because I am both a Christian and pro-life. Just as terrorism has corrupted Islam, I don’t want it to corrupt Christianity. Terrorism is an intolerable religious position and should be condemned in the strongest of terms irrespective of the religious “host”. I have called for Muslims to condemn the terrorists in their midst. It would be hypocritical of me if I did not do the same myself.
Amen, brother.
I’m still not convinced as to Rudolf (reading a bit about him, all I am convinced of is that he’s a frickin’ nutcase, though not sufficient to warrant an insanity defense) being a terrorist. My sense is that the killing he did was an end to itself — killing abortionists and baby-killers and faggots and … internationalists and sports fans, I guess — as opposed to a statement to the populace, or as a desire to terrify and dissuade others of the same ilk as his victims.
But I don’t know. Some of that will doubtless come out in the months (years) to come.
Very interesting reading.
It seems that all the examples, at least in the article, were pointing towards the Al Queda/Taliban/Afghani prisoner/detainees in cuba. Because they were taken “into custody” on foreign sole and are being detained on foreign sole, are they & should they be afforded rights, privileges, and protections under the constitution?
I keep saying that they should appeal to the Cuban government — though I doubt Castro wants them freed on his soil. The US courts have basically ruled that they have no jurisdiction over goings-on at Gitmo.
Okay, so he detainees are not afforded any constitutional rights or privelages. Has any individual, excluding Timothy Mcveigh (and I’m not certain of him), been captured, detained, and/or charged with terroristic acts on U.S. soil? I’m trying to find an unbiased reason, besides just saying he’s a dumb conservative, for the changes he’s proposing.
Zacarias Moussaoui. (And, yes, I had to look it up to spell it right.)
That’s the rub. He’s claimed cases where folks have turned evidence in the face of stricter penalties in USA Patriot.
Under the threat of the increased USA Patriot Act penalties, several detainees are cooperating with the Justice Department to reduce their sentences, Ashcroft said.
“Since September 11, we have obtained criminal plea agreements, many under seal, from more than 15 individuals who, according to the agreement and in order to have the agreement carried out, will continue and must continue to cooperate with the government in its investigation of terrorists,” he said.
One person gave federal officials intelligence on terrorist weapons stored in the United States, while another has identified places being scouted or cased for potential attacks by al-Qaida, he said.
But few if any folks are questioning whatever criminal penalties are being hung over these peoples’ heads. Instead, they are questioning the easier wire taps and other criminal investigative powers granted the DoJ by USA Patriot.
What Ashcroft needs to do is demonstrate cases where past or current legal restrictions have actually and substantively interfered with fruitful investigations, or how the powers granted or being requested would have, for example, prevented 9/11, or other terrorist acts or plots.
Has anything been heard on which way Congress is leaning? I sincerely hope that they do not give him any more room to infringe on our rights to privacy.
I know Congress has not been happy with the DoJ’s high-handedness about these matters, which has resulted in such the DoJ being a lot more cooperative in testimony before the respective subcommittees. Dems have been pretty critical of Ashcroft, of course, but a number of GOP congresscritters have, from a libertarian standpoint, been dismayed by some of what’s gone on.
Still, it’s going to be difficult for the GOP majorities in both chambers to appear to stand in the way of “homeland security” — especially insofar as such as stand would reflect on a sitting president of their own party.