A good question:
Why was this article removed from the free part of the LA Times web site? SSD
From:
fredburks@earthlink.net
(Fred Burks)
To: gcforall@earthlink.net
(Undisclosed Recipients)
--
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list of deep inside information (avg.
one email every two or three days), send an email to wecare@wanttoknow.info
with "subscribe deep" or "unsubscribe deep" in the subject
line --
Dear
friends,
The
following article from the Los Angeles Times is just incredible! Our attorney
general wants to suspend all rights of any US citizen he chooses to label an
enemy combatant! I am very thankful that the Times reported this story, but
why didn't anyone else?!!! And why did the Times take the highly unusual step
of removing this article from the free part of their website and requiring
payment to read it only 10 days after it was printed? Many of their articles
from a year and even several years ago are still available free on their
website. Is there any integrity left in our press? Please help to build a
better world by spreading this news far and wide.
With
best wishes,
Fred
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0814-05.htm
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/149054411.html?did=149054411&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Aug+14%2C+2002&author=JONATHAN+TURLEY&desc=Commentary%3B+Camps+for+Citizens%3A+Ashcroft%27s+Hellish+Vision%3B+Attorney+general+shows+himself+as+a+menace+to+liberty.
Camps
for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision
Attorney
general shows himself as a menace to liberty.
by
Jonathan Turley
Atty.
Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to
be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political
embarrassment to being a constitutional menace. Ashcroft's plan, disclosed
last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite
incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their
constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy
combatants.
The
proposed camp plan should trigger immediate congressional hearings and
reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for this important office. Whereas Al
Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear
and present threat to our liberties. The camp plan was forged at an optimistic
time for Ashcroft's small inner circle, which has been carefully watching two
test cases to see whether this vision could become a reality. The cases of
Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi will determine whether U.S. citizens can be
held without charges and subject to the arbitrary and unchecked authority of
the government. Hamdi has been held without charge even though the facts of
his case are virtually identical to those in the case of John Walker Lindh.
Both Hamdi and Lindh were captured in Afghanistan as foot soldiers in Taliban
units. Yet Lindh was given a lawyer and a trial, while Hamdi rots in a
floating Navy brig in Norfolk, Va.
This
week, the government refused to comply with a federal judge who ordered that
he be given the underlying evidence justifying Hamdi's treatment. The Justice
Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its declaration and
cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority in "a time of
war." In Padilla's case, Ashcroft initially claimed that the arrest
stopped a plan to detonate a radioactive bomb in New York or Washington, D.C.
The administration later issued an embarrassing correction that there was no
evidence Padilla was on such a mission.
What
is clear is that Padilla is an American citizen and was arrested in the United
States--two facts that should trigger the full application of constitutional
rights. Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made "enemy combatant" stamp
for any citizen whom he deems to be part of a wider terrorist conspiracy.
Perhaps because of his discredited claims of preventing radiological
terrorism, aides have indicated that a "high-level committee" will
recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and
sent to Ashcroft's new camps. Few would have imagined any attorney general
seeking to reestablish such camps for citizens.
Of
course, Ashcroft is not considering camps on the order of the internment camps
used to incarcerate Japanese American citizens in World War II. But he can be
credited only with thinking smaller; we have learned from painful experience
that unchecked authority, once tasted, easily becomes insatiable. We are only
now getting a full vision of Ashcroft's America. Some of his predecessors
dreamed of creating a great society or a nation unfettered by racism. Ashcroft
seems to dream of a country secured from itself, neatly contained and
controlled by his judgment of loyalty. For more than 200 years, security and
liberty have been viewed as coexistent values.
Ashcroft
and his aides appear to view this relationship as lineal, where security must
precede liberty. Since the nation will never be entirely safe from terrorism,
liberty has become a mere rhetorical justification for increased security.
Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens to
accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrorist
attacks.
His
greatest problem has been preserving a level of panic and fear that would
induce a free people to surrender the rights so dearly won by their ancestors.
In "A Man for All Seasons," Sir Thomas More was confronted by a
young lawyer, Will Roper, who sought his daughter's hand. Roper proclaimed
that he would cut down every law in England to get after the devil. More's
response seems almost tailored for Ashcroft: "And when the last law was
down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws
all being flat? ... This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast
... and if you cut them down--and you are just the man to do it--do you really
think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Every
generation has had Ropers and Ashcrofts who view our laws and traditions as
mere obstructions rather than protections in times of peril. But before we
allow Ashcroft to denude our own constitutional landscape, we must take a
stand and have the courage to say, "Enough." Every generation has
its test of principle in which people of good faith can no longer remain
silent in the face of authoritarian ambition. If we cannot join together to
fight the abomination of American camps, we have already lost what we are
defending.
Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional law at
George Washington University.
Explore these empowering websites coordinated by Fred:
www.momentoflove.org
- Every person in the world has a heart
www.WantToKnow.info
- Revealing major cover-ups & working together for a better world
www.gcforall.org
- Building a Global Community for All
www.weboflove.org
- Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all
Together, we are creating a new paradigm of love and cooperation on Earth
--
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list of deep inside information (avg.
one email every two or three days), send an email to wecare@wanttoknow.info
with "subscribe deep" or "unsubscribe deep" in the subject
line --