OK, maybe I'm not done. I normally hate Crossfire. But I had it on last night while reading the paper, and this comment by Bob Beckel made the whole barrage of people talking over each other worthwhile:
Well, I tell you what we are going get a chance to talk about that and talk about John Ashcroft's rather irregular interpretation of the constitution -- how it deals with the over one thousand people that have detained in this country and we will talk about that when we get back. Is it legal or is it Ashcroft?
Ashcroft testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee today on the Administration's tactics in the terrorism investigations. In his opening statement, he said in part:
Since lives and liberties depend upon clarity, not obfuscation, and reason, not hyperbole, let me take this opportunity today to be clear: Each action taken by the Department of Justice, as well as the war crimes commissions considered by the President and the Department of Defense, is carefully drawn to target a narrow class of individuals -- terrorists. Our legal powers are targeted at terrorists. Our investigation is focused on terrorists. Our prevention strategy targets the terrorist threat.
Since 1983, the United States government has defined terrorists as those who perpetrate premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets. My message to America this morning, then, is this: If you fit this definition of a terrorist, fear the United States, for you will lose your liberty.
We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; 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.
Now, in a perfect world with perfect people who have perfect judgment, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with this. But if we were in that kind of fantasy world Ashcroft wouldn't have been giving that statement anyway. I fully believe the intention is to go after what reasonable people (or at least people I'd think are reasonable) would consider a terrorist. But let's play connect the dots for a minute.
Part of Ashcroft's statement just isn't true: "Since 1983, the United States government has defined terrorists as those who perpetrate premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets." On multiple occasions since 9/11 Bush has stated an expanded definition of a terrorist:
And not only will we find the terrorists, we will enforce the doctrine
that says if you harbor a terrorist, you're a terrorist; if you feed a
terrorist, you're a terrorist; if you fund a terrorist, you're a
terrorist; and this great, proud nation of free men and women will
hold you just as responsible for the actions that take place on
American soil.
(October 17, Travis Air Force Base, California)
and
I also want to make it clear that the doctrine I laid out to the
United States Congress is a doctrine this nation will enforce. It says
clearly that if you harbor a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, if
you provide sanctuary to a terrorist, if you fund a terrorist, you are
just as guilty as the terrorist that inflicted the harm on the
American people.
(October
30, Wootten High School, Maryland)
Again, I don't have much of a problem with this definition in theory. But this isn't theory.
The Holy Land Foundation was shut down the other day under that doctrine. Maybe they are as closely tied to Hamas as the FBI investigation apparently determined, maybe their only tie was support for the families of suicide bombers as CAIR claims is the only explicit charge in this statement, or maybe they gave no knowing support at all. I don't know. But if we can follow Bush's doctrine to, rightly or wrongly, label a charity that allegedly provided funds to Hamas "as guilty as the terrorist", is it that much of a stretch to label those who donated to that charity potential supporters of a terrorist organization and thus potentially terrorists themselves?
It could be argued, and has been many times, that we don't have to worry about these laws and Administration policies infringing on our civil liberties because they apply only to non-citizens. But think about this: If you've lived in the U.S. all your life - a citizen by birth, how exactly do you go about proving that? Think about every document you could produce, and think about all the reports of people with forged copies of that same document, or copies obtained based on falsified information. Think about having to prove that those documents are valid and belong to you. And think about doing it from a jail cell while being held on suspicion of having a terrorist link.
That is why we have to question the effect of the (very worthwhile and completely justified) fight against terrorism on our civil liberties, even if that effect turns out in the long run to be a "phantom". These laws and policies are not intended to apply to normal peaceful citizens. But they easily can. And it's entirely possible they already have.
I'm done now.
The Bonn talks have resulted in an agreement, signed by four factions, with six milestones on the way to democracy in Afghanistan. They start with the appointment of a 30-member interim government led by Hamid Karzai. One faction is already saying they won't support the government.
