As we suspected, Ashcroft-haters are full of glee that the Attorney General is in intensive care. Michelle Malkin, conservative Catholic columnist and total badass, takes them apart in her latest column.
As we suspected, Ashcroft-haters are full of glee that the Attorney General is in intensive care. Michelle Malkin, conservative Catholic columnist and total badass, takes them apart in her latest column.
What a bogus statement.
We don't "hate" Ashcroft. But in the case for getting rid of Boy George as president, Ashcroft is Exhibit A.
RP,
Do you realize that you, an obvious Bush-hating leftist, just made a gay slur?
RP, that wasn't really a defense of your position, was it? I'd be happy to add to Malkin's short list of Ashcroft hatred if you like. Just about every Democrat presidential candidate said John Ashcroft was a threat to American liberty, but they were real short on specifics and long on viciousness.
I'm quite sure Ashcroft being a religious believer has a lot to do with liberal hatred toward him; enforcing laws they don't happen to like is another.
And in many cases, enforcing laws they voted for, but now disdain.
The main problem "liberals" have with John Ashcroft is his relationship to the USA PATRIOT Act, which is a very scary piece of legislation that does more to threaten our rights and freedoms than any other US law. My prayers go out to Mr. Ashcroft and his family, because evn if I do not agree with many of his positions I still wish no harm upon him.
Chris, I've read many claims that the Patriot Act is somehow destroying our liberties, but none of them contradict this fact:
The Patriot Act doesn't authorize the government to do anything it couldn't do before September 11, 2001.
The bill explicitly authorized the Feds to do things they'd already been doing for non-terrorist-related crimes, like performing roving wiretaps and checking personal records at public and private institutions. All of these things must be done with the permission of a court.
People have also gotten worked up at the "secrecy" aspect of the law, but really, if you're monitoring low-level members of a terrorist cell in the hope that they'll lead you to the ringleaders, is it prudent to let them know they're being investigated? Or is it better to notify a panel of federal judges, as well as Congress, that you're conducting the investigation?
I'm sure the law could be usefully modified, but calling it "scary" and "threatening" borders on the hysterical.
I'm not a huge fan of Ashcroft (or anyone else in the Bush Administration), but I think it's detestable to be glad that anyone is in intensive care. I think it's even more detestable to be glad of that, and to call one's self a Christian.
The PATRIOT Act removes the need for permission of the court from these actions. They do not need to supply any proof or evidence of a crime or even terrorist activity to the courts to receive a "warrant"; they simply need to say that there is terrorist activity. It vastly expands Law Enforcements powers to function without court supervision. They can conduct secret searches and then place a gag order on those searched (a direct attack on 1st amendment rights). They can tape communication between lawyers and clients (a direct violation of attorney-client privileges). It also allows civillians accused of terrorism to be tried in military courts (ruled unconstitutional in 1866 by the Supreme Court). The list goes on and on but I am not in the mood to list them all.
All of the powers authorized under the Patriot Act either require the permission of a court (such as a search warrant) or notification of Congress. There is oversight for everything. It doesn't give the government carte blanche to snoop at will.
Placing a "gag order" on anyone isn't a violation of First Amendment rights. Courts impose it all the time in criminal trials.
Civilians conducting an organized military campaign against the United States are not civilians. They are combatants. Anyway, that's irrelevant: the Patriot Act doesn't say anything about tribunals.
You might want to read the actual act right here.
The "oversight" provided by the Senate and House Judiciary Commitees is simply that they require the number of applications for "warrants"(I use this term loosely) denied, or accepted. The judge who receives the application MUST carry the order if it is not solely based on "activities protected by the first amendment". The application needs no further requirements to be granted.
The gag order put upon citizens who have been searched under this provision removes the most valuable check and balance of them all, the ability to voice complaints about rights being violated. There is no way of knowing whether or not these searches were carried out in a lawful manner as we cannot ask anyone besides those involved with the searches whether or not the searches were done in a lawful manner.
The purpose of a court case is to detirmine whether or they are in fact involved with a military campaign against the United States. If it was already known that they were, what would be the purpose of the trial. Once you are suspected of a crime you do not automatically lose your rights to due process as a citizen, which you still are until it is proven in a court of law that you are otherwise.
(also the Supreme Court that I was referencing is called Ex Parte Milligan look it up and read it. It was against a guy for being involved with the Confederacy, a military organization at war with the US).