Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ashcroft shows his true colors
Boulder Camera ^ | 17 Nov 01 | Christopher Brauchli

Posted on 11/17/2001 12:25:06 AM PST by real saxophonist

Ashcroft shows his true colors

The struggle to establish civil liberties against the backdrop of these security threats, while difficult, promises to build bulwarks to help guarantee that a nation fighting for its survival does not sacrifice those national values that make the fight worthwhile."

William J. Brennan, Speech delivered to law school of Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel, December 22, 1987

Just because Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department and its assorted enforcement agencies have been unable to locate the source of the anthrax does not mean they haven't been busy.

During October Mr. Ashcroft took steps to remind the country of the agenda that is closest to his heart (after figuring out who the terrorists are and where the anthrax came from). In California drug enforcement personnel began an all-out assault on marijuana being distributed to seriously ill people to ease their suffering. DEA Agents (who work for the attorney general) uprooted a marijuana garden grown by patients, seized the files of a doctor and lawyer who recommended the drug for thousands of sick people and spent six hours in a raid on the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center.

There was more to the raids than simply relieving ill patients of a drug that was relieving their suffering.

Susan Dryden, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, explained: "The recent enforcement is indicative that we have not lost our priorities in other areas since September 11." That was not the only evidence of priorities recalled, especially those that affect the dying in whom Mr. Ashcroft seems to have a peculiar interest.

During the first week in November Mr. Ashcroft issued an opinion that authorizes federal drug agents (when they are not tearing up gardens in Los Angeles) to identify and punish doctors who prescribe federally controlled drugs to help terminally ill patients die. In his memorandum to Asa Hutchinson, the DEA chief, he said assisting in a suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" under federal law.

That opinion effectively bars Oregon physicians from legally prescribing narcotics to help patients commit suicide, something that is permitted under the state's Death With Dignity Act. Oregon voters approved the Act in both 1994 and 1997 but Mr. Ashcroft assumes that they did not know what they were doing, and, if they did, he as attorney general knows better. Those acts were not enough to satisfy Mr. Ashcroft's craving for conservative credentials.

At the end of October the anti-terrorism bill he enthusiastically supported was passed. It contains provisions that combat terrorism while simultaneously combating civil liberties. The Act has been baptized the U.S.A. Patriot Act. It empowers the government to shift the primary mission of the FBI from solving crimes to gathering domestic intelligence.

Intelligence gathering by the FBI was one of the first victims of the post-Watergate era. At the conclusion of the 1975 Senate investigation into abuses of domestic intelligence-gathering against political activists, Sen Frank Church said domestic intelligence-gathering was a "new form of governmental power" that was not constrained by law. One of the resulting reforms was the segregation within the FBI of the bureau's criminal investigation function and its intelligence-gathering against foreign spies and international terrorists. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) permits the FBI to carry out wiretaps and searches that would be unconstitutional if they were designed to obtain evidence but are permitted if designed to gather intelligence.

In order to guard against abuse, the attorney general was required to certify to a court that the "primary purpose" of a proposed wiretap was to listen in on a specific foreign spy or terrorist. The new law simply requires a showing that "a significant purpose" of the tap is to listen in on a specific foreign spy or terrorist.

Commenting on the bill, Senator Patrick Leahy, said: "The bill enters new and uncharted territory by breaking down traditional barriers between law enforcement and foreign intelligence." The law also permits the FBI to give grand jury information to the CIA without a court order, a dramatic change from the former rule that said prosecutors could only share federal grand jury evidence with other federal agencies if they had a court order. Mr. Ashcroft cut short his testimony before the Judiciary Committee in support of the bill and then declined to attend two additional Senate hearings for closer questioning. He was probably busy with the marijuana and Oregon matters. Those were not the only matters he might have been busy with.

During the first week in November he decided that it was OK for folks in the Justice Department to listen in on phone conversations that lawyers have with clients in federal custody and to intercept mail between lawyers and clients in custody even though those communications are confidential. That rule applies to people in custody regardless of whether or not they have been charged with a crime. Some people might consider that the equivalent of denying persons in custody of the right to counsel. Not to worry. The attorney general will violate the right of an individual to be represented by counsel only if he thinks "that reasonable suspicion exists to believe that an inmate may use communications with attorneys or their agents to facilitate acts of terrorism." The folks listening in will, according to the Justice Department, only disclose what they hear to federal prosecutors or investigators if a federal judge approves, unless the department thinks acting without approval is necessary to thwart an imminent act of violence or terrorism.

It's been a busy time for Mr. Ashcroft. It's been an even busier few weeks for states' rights and civil rights.

States' rights know how busy it has been. Civil rights may not yet be aware of how busy it has been for them. They'll soon find out. So, unfortunately, will the rest of us.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ashcroft
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-308 next last

1 posted on 11/17/2001 12:25:06 AM PST by real saxophonist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: real saxophonist
I agree that Ashcroft is asking for unconstitutional and dangerous government powers, but I don't much care for the insulting tone of this article.
3 posted on 11/17/2001 12:36:01 AM PST by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billybudd
I don't much like aggrandizement of power either, but this is war, and a war cannot be fought under constraints. We just need to be vigilant against abuses and force a retrun to constitutional norms as soon as is is safe to do so.

By the way, this is from the Boulder Camera. I expect to see the same editorial in the Ithaca Journal, a sister small-town socialist rag.

4 posted on 11/17/2001 1:11:01 AM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: real saxophonist
Yes but Boulder is, basically, a communist enclave.
6 posted on 11/17/2001 3:16:32 AM PST by Check6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Check6
"Yes but Boulder is, basically, a communist enclave."

Like The People's Republik of Kalifornia?

7 posted on 11/17/2001 3:21:40 AM PST by advocate10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: real saxophonist
Have you not learned that Ashcroft is just a Baby killer Janet Reno Clone?
8 posted on 11/17/2001 3:36:16 AM PST by Texbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Speak for yourself, pal. I'm not keen on giving up any of my rights. Once the government seizes a power it never gives it back.

As they say, "Give 'em an inch, they'll take an ell."

9 posted on 11/17/2001 3:45:56 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dinodino
And once you have 500,000 tons of concrete and steel come down on your head, it's all a bit academic.
10 posted on 11/17/2001 4:10:57 AM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
A famous gentleman once said, "Give me Liberty, or give me Death." May the spirit of American freedom R.I.P.
11 posted on 11/17/2001 4:43:53 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dinodino
Yes, for Mr. Leahy intelligence would be "foreign" to him!
12 posted on 11/17/2001 4:52:44 AM PST by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
I don't much like aggrandizement of power either, but this is war, and a war cannot be fought under constraints. We just need to be vigilant against abuses and force a retrun to constitutional norms as soon as is is safe to do so.

The 'war on terrorism' will be permanent, just like the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on poverty'.

13 posted on 11/17/2001 4:54:44 AM PST by ThreeOfSeven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dinodino
Come now, come now... don't be so mellow-dramatic... name for me the freedoms you have lost. The reality is, that no one from or during this administration, will come knocking at your door unless you pose a civil threat.
14 posted on 11/17/2001 4:59:52 AM PST by Godfollow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Godfollow
"melodramatic"

I'm not so concerned about THIS Administration. The next Administration could be another Clinton. The point us, if you willingly hand a power over to the government, don't complain when it's used against you later.

15 posted on 11/17/2001 5:04:31 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Godfollow
Maybe Mr. Robinson could change the name of this site to AuthoritarianRepublic. That seems to be the prevailing mindset.
16 posted on 11/17/2001 5:06:49 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dinodino
And if we do not eliminate the group of terrorists that are out there, making plans to kill thousands of Americans, and destroy our economy, there may not be a "next administration".

You have bitched, and waxed on about lost freedoms, now I would like to hear your solution to stop terrorists from doing what was done on 9-11.

17 posted on 11/17/2001 5:08:55 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: billybudd
If you are bothered by the insulting tone of this article than you have better get used to it. The third party gaggle, the Libertarians in particular, and the tin foil hat clubs all pronounce anyone outside their pup tents as statist, socialist, police state anti-liberty thugs. A real objective, fair minded bunch these.
18 posted on 11/17/2001 5:11:08 AM PST by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Damn right I'm bitching about lost freedoms. I don't want my kids to grow up in a country less free than the one in which I grew up. How about you?

I'm not sure there's anything one can do to stop individuals who are determined to cause acts of terror. You could try to create a police state (Singapore is a good example), which would *mostly* stop these acts, but you'd give up tons of freedoms in the process.

As far as the events of 9/11: how about really increased airport security? Why doesn't this sort of thing happen on El Al? Federalizing airport screeners is not the solution; all that'll do is create unionized workers who can't be fired. I read that Argenbright was the target of a Federal EEOC suit for not hiring enough and firing Muslims; if this is true, we can see how the government "helped" security in this case.

Have you flown since 9/11? The security is a joke, designed by the FAA merely to make passengers FEEL safer. I was in S.E. Asia on 9/11, and didn't notice any security changes when I returned to the U.S.--that's because all the airports I passed through already HAD good security. Only here in the U.S. is the security lax. Okay, well, maybe in Nigeria. ;)

19 posted on 11/17/2001 5:17:20 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
We just need to be vigilant against abuses

How can we do that? Every one of these new laws, executive orders and imperial proclamations shrouds the activities of governmental agencies in so much secrecy for the sake of our own "safety and protection" that there is no way we can know if abuses will occur, are occurring, or have occurred. They have covered their butts and tracks very, very well. We have the federal fox in the hen house swearing to God that nothing bad is happening, "trust me," and at the same time removing any mechanism for us to verify that.

20 posted on 11/17/2001 5:18:05 AM PST by another1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-308 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson