Round up the usual suspects

Washington Times ^ | Monday, October 29, 2001 | Nat Hentoff

[JohnHuang2]

George W. Bush and members of his Cabinet have continually emphasized that in our war against terrorism, we have to preserve what House Majority Leader Dick Armey has called "the precious Bill of Rights that we are fighting to defend."

[Texasforever]

The attorney general says that all of these prisoners have a right to a lawyer, and a list of pro bono attorneys is provided if they have insufficient funds. But a lawyer can only be of use if he or she can find the client. And reporters can't get to them.

What the heck do these two statements have to do with each other?

[GVnana]

I just can't find it in my heart to be too sympathetic about this situation. This country is in danger and this is an emergency. I also don't worry much about Ashcroft. However, these tactics--in the wrong hands-- would be used against the wrong people ala Clinton and the FBI files. It's a dangerous slope. Let's hope it's not a slippery one.

[Recovering_Democrat]

thanks for the post, JHuang..

Nat, I am fine with what Justice is doing. Did the Supreme Court decision take into consideration the factor of a nation at war? I'm certain it didn't. Perhaps the almighty Supreme Court would have rendered a different opinion. Perhaps not. In any case, I'm sure ol' "Dr. Terror" is still under surveillance, as are a lot of others being released.

In case you hadn't notice, 5,000+ people are DEAD. INNOCENTS. If some possible suspects are inconvenienced because our government is trying to round up murderous bastards, I say TOO BAD...there are millions more of us out here who are willing to suffer those inconveniences, too, for the sake of finding and stopping more acts of atrocity.

[JohnHuang2]

Bravo -- couldn't have said it better myself

[samtheman]

the first casualty in war is truth.

As a matter of fact, the first casualty of this war was a certain group of 6,000 or so human beings who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time on September 11, 2001.

We didn't start this war. But we better be the ones to finish it, or we're dead.

[ssfromla]

How many Americans know about these abuses of fundamental due process?

As far as I'm concerned. They've been treated better than our men in uniform. At least they know what they're facing. Our military is on a cruise to no where without a captain.

[calebcar]

1.I always respect Nat Hentoff's opinions. He is foursquare for the Bill of Rights, and doesn't play favorites for pinkos.

2. I think life and death interests supercede any law. I know as a physician that legally it is true that in a life or death emergency one can act to protect life using reasonable judgement and not be held liable. This is also a principle of most religious law-saving life supercedes virtualy any religious mandate.

3.If suspects are not afforded due process, they should not be convicted. Depriving suspects of their rights is only justified to prevent terrorist acts. I think it reasonable that law enforcement choose between prosecution and protection in any individual case.

<4>.Constraints on our liberties are necessary here but prayers and vigilance are necessary. With both the government and the vigilantes earned trust is a large part of the equation. I welcome Mr Hentoff's vigilance.

[Lion's Cub]

The government refused to tell his lawyer where the doctor was; "and after 13 days in jail, 13 days of humiliation, he was released," with a terse Justice Department statement that "he's been cleared."

I saw this man interviewed after he was released. (I believe they said that some of the hijackers were using his credit card, which had been stolen.)

He did not fault the FBI at all. He said he was a loyal American and felt the FBI was just doing what they had to do to protect the nation. He said, while he was relieved to be cleared, he thought their behavior was justified; and he didn't resent it at all.

[samtheman]

Interesting that this person, picked up, held for questioning and then released, said he understood why the FBI did what they had to do. This person understands that it's not about him, that there are more people affected here than just himself. How different is the attitude in the American Muslim communities where it seems, in every interview I've seen, that the only thing that matters from Sep11 is how it affects them personally. No concern for the dead 6,000. No concern about ongoing and future attacks. Only whining and moaning about "how difficult it is to be Muslim in America".

[sauropod]

I disagree. I am probably farther to the right than either of you, but i am worried about the permanent loss of civil liberties going on here.

There but for the grace of God go i.

[Twodees]

It doesn't require sympathy for the enemy (which I believe these people to be) to see the danger of letting federal agents and attorneys play loose with the Constitution. These same things can, as you mention, be done to political enemies once a new administration is in office.

I don't trust or respect Ashcroft at all. There's something slimy about that man, even if it's just his track record of letting things go. I became suspicious of him when he didn't challenge the election he lost. Explanations from his supporters that he was going to get another job anyway, and that going after his crooked opponents in that race would smack of being a sore loser just didn't cut it.

Had he insisted on taking on the democrats who used such blatantly illegal election practices against him, even though it could have cost him the AG slot, I would have a different view of him. That he didn't shows a disregard for law, and he has further shown willingness to let the Clinton administration's crimes slide. That doesn't sound like the kind of thing an honorable man would do. Ashcroft is a snake. The fact that he's the GOP's snake shouldn't be a comfort to anyone.

[Twodees]

I'm willing to suffer the inconvenience, if Congress will declare war and even if they suspend the privilege of the writ of habeus corpus. Piecemeal, unconstitutional measures like this shouldn't be tolerated.

For any of the excesses of government to be tolerated under the justification of war, Congress must first declare war. There are Constitutional provisions for just this sort of emergency, and failing to utilize them just makes everything done outside those provisions illegal.

[John Locke]

I agree with you, sauropod. For those who disagree, just these words: Nacht und Nebel.

[JCG]

Approximately 2,800 were killed, but you're not supposed to know that. The New York times & Washington Post came up with approximately the same numbers, independently.

URL,  article, date,  please.

 America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America -- here

Download 8 Mb zip file

[Straight Vermonter]

I disagree. I am probably farther to the right than either of you, but i am worried about the permanent loss of civil liberties going on here.

There but for the grace of God go I.

I'm with you Sauropod. Under these rules the next militia wacko that blows up a building gets all of us arrested and held without a lawyer.

[Straight Vermonter]

Right here.

[Bill Rice]

"...there are millions more of us out here who are willing to suffer those inconveniences, too, for the sake of finding and stopping more acts of atrocity."

Time to change that handle Bub. You've recovered all the way!

[walden]

Yeah, I'm ok with this too. We know they're being fed well and not tortured, so I think the most one can say is that they're inconvenienced. Too bad. We are at war, and if the worst thing that happens to anyone in a war is that they get inconvenienced-- well, they can just get over it.