Do you aid terrorists?

Here is a quote from Attorney General John Ashcroft, uttered today in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee:


"Charges of kangaroo courts and shredding the Constitution give new meaning to the term `fog of war. To those who pit Americans against immigrants and citizens against noncitizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."


Call it an overreaction to a man whose job it is to speak hyperbolically but this just makes my blood boil! To use such rhetoric as answer to real Constitutional concerns to the administration's plans for military tribunals and the use of wiretaps in attorney-client discussions in prison is totally and utterly irresponsible and Ashcroft should know that. Bringing up these issues does not in any way shape or form "aid terrorists". Please!


This is really starting to smack of the McCarthy era where the political rhetoric and debate degenerated to the point that anyone with a minutely liberal idea was labelled a commie and their opinion discarded out of hand.


Americans pride themselves on living in a civilized, democratic republic where matters of policy are codified in law and changes to policy law are vigorously debated. For a cabinet member to use words that equate those who question our response to 9.11 with unrepented killers just makes me sick. Our country was founded upon intellectual rebellion and all great social changes have begun with those that stand up and question the actions of its democratically elected, accountable government. Ashcroft's comments only serve to squash such debate and creat a false impression of those that have a differing opinion.


Real democratic servants embrace debate. Ashcroft is the worst type of politician--he uses fear to discourage debate. He makes me sick.


KJS

no support for the following, but a sort of a worst case explantion for what were seeing.


http://www.almartinraw.com/column37.html


brad

Here is William Safire's take on Ashcroft's remarks. Seems even usual conservative allies are having some trouble with the administration's choices and his defense of them. I guess Safire aids terrorism by saying:


"Preparing to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee where to get off today, Attorney General John Ashcroft lashed out at all who dare to uphold our bedrock rule of law as "voices of negativism"...

Polls show terrorized Americans willing to subvert our Constitution to hold Soviet-style secret military trials. No presumption of innocence; no independent juries; no right to choice of counsel; no appeal to civilian judges for aliens suspected of being in touch with terrorists.


President Bush had no political motive in suspending, with a stroke of his pen, habeas corpus for 20 million people; his 90 percent popularity needs no boost..."


KJS

I agree that we need to be vigilant against erosion of our constitutional liberties and protections. I also feel that aliens should not necessaily be entitled to all of these these protections to the same extent as US citizens. Where to draw the lines is the important question.

Ashcroft is horrible. I have criticized him before on this forum and am conservative and voted for Bush. He was a bad pick for many reasons and he proves it most times he opens his mouth. There are serious questions out there to be answered, and Ashcroft may even be right legally (I doubt he is on the attorney-client wiretaps) but he shouldn't be saying that. But hey, he lost an election to a non-existent ex-person and didn't have the guts to challenge it. He was the only candidate in the election eligible for the office and lost. (I never fail to point that out.)

Good for you! You are a sane and freedom loving American.

Ashcroft's remarks are indeed sickening. Those of us who opposed his appointment knew, from his record, what a horrible man he is and what a terrible attorney general he would make.


Great post, KJS.

Not to make light of KJS's excellent post, but thought you'd like this, HDPM:


Tournament. Big blind is not present at the table at the appointed starting time, so they post his big blind for him. The small blind's backer is watching, behind him. Everyone folds to the small blind. All he has to do is raise, and he will be awarded the pot, as the only money which is not his that is in the pot is the big blind, who is not at the table.


The small blind folds.


The dealer pushes the money to the big blind's stack.


The small blind's backer asks, "Whatsa matter with you? Why did you fold?"


Small blinds responds, "I couldn't beat nobody."


Backer says, "You mean you couldn't beat anybody; You could beat NOBODY."


True story. If I were the backer, I'd find another horse.

I did like that. Why do people back terrible players? An eternal mystery. Same as why people voted for Ashcroft I guess.