What is John Asscroft

[lander]

I just painfully watched his taped defense of the Patriot Act. Johnny 2 Times Asscroft says that basically we NEED the Patriot Act because it helped us catch "alleged" terrorist. Forget due process, all we need is hypotheticals to strip liberties and surpress the BOR.

Oh, yeah, Mr. Asscroft also say that "the Patriot Acts preserves our liberties" and that 2 out of every 3 Americans support the Patriot Act. I have NOT met a single person that supports the Patriot Act (of the hundred or so that I've discussed this with). Can somebody explain this data to me? Did they just ask Asscroft, Bush & Dean to get the 67%???

This Asscroft guy bewilders me. Everything he says is either hypothetic or seemingly fabricated data. What is John Asscroft?

 

[bunyon]

What is he? He's another product of George W. Bushs bad judgement.

 

[MrTanaka]

All of the above and more.

Maybe nobody told Bush's people that you're supposed to wait until after your 2nd election to do crap like this.

 

[Phaedrus]

I've been opposed to this nutsack since Bush first nominated him. He has a long history of racism, anti-liberty actions, and a demonstrated tendency to further the neo-con line of the politicians somehow being *special* and deserving of different (i.e. better) treatment than "mere men."

See also:

Ayatollah Ashcroft's Law

The Agony of VICTORY

Anthrax Anniversary: The Lies Continue

Enemy Combatants at the Gate: An Ongoing Travesty of Liberty

Lapel Pins of Mass Destruction

NEO-CONNED: Congressman Ron Paul Addresses the House of Representatives

Careful: The FB-Eye May be Watching

The Government's Win-Win Solution Against Liberty

As Usual, Another Apalling Offence to Liberty Goes Under the Radar

Why Jose Padilla Should Matter to Everyone

Getting the FBI's Nose Out of Your Books

Anti USA-PATRIOT Info


Phaedrus

 

[WildBill]

Ashcroft will give you no problem if you are very religious and don't go out so you can go home and baby your children. Otherwise its likely he will give you problems. For goodness sakes the guy has given speeches in his past talking about how immoral DANCING is!!!

 

[Phaedrus]

LIke he was reading our minds, Congressman Ron Paul writes on Ashcroft today at LewRockwell.com

Hey ... mayb Congressman Paul reads the Rx ... lol

Ashcroft's Bizarre Promo Tour
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


Attorney General John Ashcroft has embarked on a bizarre promotional tour to counter growing public opposition to the Patriot Act. The administration clearly is worried by recent votes in Congress to limit the scope of the Act, votes that reflect the willingness of even GOP loyalists to buck the president on the issue. So Mr. Ashcroft is visiting several cities to give a stump speech that essentially says this: Trust us – we’re the government, and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.

But the attorney general misses the point. Government assurances are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden must always be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers.

Furthermore, Mr. Ashcroft is an administrator, not a legislator. It is not his job to write laws or say what the law should be. His job is to execute the laws passed by Congress. It is not his place to chide Congress or the American people for not supporting his viewpoint. He certainly should not be spending taxpayer money to lobby for his political positions.

Mr. Ashcroft complains that the Patriot Act is misunderstood. But it’s not the American public’s fault nobody knows exactly what the Patriot Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress before it was voted on – which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. The Act’s complexity is even more troubling when we consider how powers given to the Justice department today might be abused by future administrations.

It is clear, however, that the Patriot Act expands the government’s ability to monitor us. The Act eases federal rules for search warrants in some cases; allows expanded wiretaps and Internet monitoring; allows secret “sneak and peek” searches; and even permits federal agents to examine library and bookstore records. On these grounds alone it should be soundly rejected.

Mr. Ashcroft was not always so cavalier about civil liberties. Consider the following statement by then-Senator Ashcroft during the Clinton years:

Phaedrus interrupts this posting to tell you that the following Clinton-era quote by Ashcroft will make you howl like a monkey. Like a monkey I says!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Clinton administration would like the federal government to have the capability to read any international or domestic computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information sent abroad – all in the name of national security.

The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications...The implications here are far-reaching, with impacts that touch individual users, companies, libraries, universities, teachers, and students.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The attorney general’s blatant flip-flop can of course be ascribed to partisan politics. Like many conservatives, Mr. Ashcroft correctly understood that the Clinton Justice department did not believe in the rule of law and terribly abused its power. Yet even after the Janet Reno debacles, he wants us to believe that his Justice department – and future departments – can be entrusted with more power.

 

[Phaedrus]

Hehehehehehehe. Apparently the tour isn't going so well. Even in Idaho, an almost entirely Republican state (all of their federal congressmen, House and Senate, are GOP) Ashcroft is getting his ass beat.

Phaedrus

 

[bblight]

Where do you people come from?

It seems to me that you people like to bitch about someone who disagrees with your point of view as though they have done something wrong - when in fact, they've done nothing at all!

What has Ashcroft done? Whose rights has he infringed on? Please, no diatribes - only facts.

 

[bunyon]

Posted by bblight
Where do you people come from?

It seems to me that you people like to bitch about someone who disagrees with your point of view as though they have done something wrong - when in fact, they've done nothing at all!
______________________________________________

What are you doing ?

 

[Phaedrus]

bblight

You might start with the fourteen stories/threads above. My own dislike of Ashcroft has nothing to do with the fact that he and I have different political beliefs. Anyone that can look at his behaviour in the two and a half years since he was confirmed and not see that he is going power-mad has serious issues with reality.


Phaedrus

 

[bblight]

Typical!
You won't give a straightforward answer. All I see is misrepresentation and inuendo; what has he done?
Bunyon, what are you talking about? I ask for facts and you come back with some crap about my bitching. What has John Ashcroft done that's wrong?
Phaedrus, I looked at several of the links you posted, and I still don't see what he's done wrong? He's followed the law and been meticulously careful in his handling of terrorist suspects; He's been sued and taken to court by dozens of individuals and organizations - and he hasn't lost yet - so he apparently hasn't broken any laws! So, again, what has he done that's wrong!
I believe that the issue here is that we have a conservative heading the Justice Department - he's interpreting and prosecuting criminals as a conservative would, and you don't like it!

You CAN'T tell me what he has done wrong, because he has done nothing wrong!
I support the Patriot act, and I support John Ashcroft; You KKK and ACLU type of people are a joke; your arguments are all air and no substance.

 

[drhockey]

How can you support a man and an ideal that in the name of "terrorism" will contrive to destroy the very fabric of the American ideal of liberty and personal freedom. Simply put Americans are not terrorists, however with the expanses of power desired by the grand inquisitor himself, the line will be further blurred, and such powers used against Americans. Look at the Anthrax, and the microbiologist “person of interest scandal,” which is just a shred of evidence, against Mr. high and mighty. It is you who are the problem, not the solution, like every other typical American, stand by and let the wool be pulled over your eyes, and exhibit the "well as long as it does not affect me, in my little suburbia" mentality. However, the sad truth is that such actions already affect you. Case in point, you like to gamble, well Mr. Ashcroft, as well as the U.S. congress is threatening to take away that right, under the supposed auspicious that such a recreation is a terrorism conduit. That is the problem, people such a yourself and other Americans exhibit reactionary politics only when it is too late, why not take the bull by the horns now, rather than after the fact. This administration is a far cry from the laissez-faire principals of previous Republicans. However, Bush is a pseudo republican, lacking in any real political expertise, consumed with power and a redneck obsession to destroy a threat that is over dramatisitised, and pounded into the heads of the American people on a daily basis. Unfortunately terrorism can never be directly stopped, however shrub, and Ole Croft want the American people to believe that by throwing money at the problem, and the stripping away of the rights of the American people, will solve the problem. I have a simple solution, de-align with Israel, however we will not because those of the Jewish faith do exhibit too much money and political control. Simply put give Palestine their statehood and the bombed out rocky piece of nothing that they want to call home. The Jews should have been moved to the U.S. after WW II, however it was Britain’s doing in 1948, however the U.S. fields 99.997 percent of the repercussions. If the United States really wants to stop the problem, why not curb its immigration policy, which was a large 9/11 pressing issue that is now not even discussed or mentioned. Why is this no longer an issue? Because it is not possible, with previous legislation scores of “legal” immigrants come into this country on every Visa known to man, H1-B, etc, and why is this not stopped because American big business, wants to keep it’s bottom line, and pay out even less, which means potential terrorists, and no jobs for American workers. However lets pour endless amounts of money down Iraq, homeland security, patriot act, and every other assbackwards law enforcement “sit with my thumb up my ass police force”, and “we” the American people will solve this problem. Such an idea is purely preposterous.


Dr.

[This message was edited by drhockey on August 31, 2003 at 12:19 PM.]

 

[Phaedrus]

Sigh ... I know that these arguments are futile, but I will give it a shot anyway ...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Typical! You won't give a straightforward answer.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I only thought that the volumes of stuff I have already posted and forwarded on the subject might explain my position perfectly well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
All I see is misrepresentation and inuendo; what has he done?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see no examples of misrepresentation or innuendo. Please clarify. (caution: this will require you to actually read the stuff posted.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
[Ashcroft has] followed the law and been meticulously careful in his handling of terrorist suspects;
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I know that you haven't actually read the posted items. He's only followed the laws which he himself has helped write.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
He's been sued and taken to court by dozens of individuals and organizations - and he hasn't lost yet - so he apparently hasn't broken any laws!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if you were correct this would be specious at best. Ashcroft and the DoJ have hit numerous hurdles in their misguided quest. The fact that he hasn't been unseated or thrown in jail does not mean that he is right.

And I defer to William Penn on that matter:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Right is right, no matter how many people are against it; and wrong is wrong, no matter how many people are for it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I believe that the issue here is that we have a conservative heading the Justice Department - he's interpreting and prosecuting criminals as a conservative would, and you don't like it!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? That's strange, because as a staunch conservative I'd say one would have to be delusional or stupid to consider Ashcroft or any other representative of the Bush administration a "conservative." "Towing the party line" doesn't mean much when the party line is no longer about conservatism.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I support the Patriot act, and I support John Ashcroft;
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone who supports USA-PATRIOT as to be misinformed, an idiot, or a treacherous person indifferent to the principles upon which America was founded. Which are you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You KKK and ACLU type of people are a joke; your arguments are all air and no substance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, while I consider the KKK to be a despicable organisation, they are certainly within their rights to harbour the belief in white supremacy, up to the limit at which the activities motivated by those beliefs infringe on the rights of others. White seperatism, while I personally consider it an ill-conceived belief as well, is a platform more rooted in the principles upon which America was founded, the right of association being implicit in these principles. (Just ask the NAACP or the United Negro College Fund.)

Weird, that's the second time that I've been insinuated as being a "KKK type" on this forum. I would think that I represent myself better than that.

Interestingly enough, Ashcroft is far more of a "KKK type" than I -- he is a known racist; this was one of the main sticking points in his confirmation hearings and a big reason why he made it through on the narrowest margin (52-48) of any AG in recent memory. Perhaps ou do not follow the process by which politicians are put into office, and just assume that if they get there they must have special powers of politicking that surpass your own.

As far as the ACLU goes, they are only slightly less offensive to me than the KKK, so I really don't consider myself an "ACLU type" either.

What I do consider myself to be, is a conservative -- a true conservative, something which the Republican party abandoned long ago. Ron Paul is one of the last true conservatives left in Washington; take a look at his website and voting record and I'm certain that you will agree. Perhaps Congressman Paul's own scathing review of his former colleague (Ashcroft was a senator prior to losing his seat to a dead man in the 2000 election) might have more weight with you than my own.

I'm certain that your response, if you deign to respond, will be "You won't answer me because you can't! Liberal! Frenchman!" The examples are already cited, and you will not look at them, or see them, whichever is the case. So I leave it as is for now.


Phaedrus

 

[corey]

I would like to change my vote to 'All of the above".

 

[BigGamesOnly]

Ashcroft is a person who believes "the end justifies the means". He will take any action to deprive Americans of their liberties as long as in the end the bad guys are caught.

"He who is willing to trade freedoms
in the name of security deserves neither." -- Benjamin Franklin

 

[drhockey]

Machiavellian yes no doubt, however "the end" is in serious question.

"Those who want to deceive
will always find those willing to be deceived"
Chapter XVIII

 

[Fishhead]

Funny thread

 

[Prosportsgambler]

The IRS is more of a threat to your freedoms and liberty than the Patriot Act, and has been for years. Why is it none of the libs in here are concerned about the IRS infringements on liberty and privacy? The IRS is by far the most threatening of all government agencies and many of the tactics used are illegal despite being condoned by the judges that are in their pockets. Money is freedom - the more taken from you, the less freedom you have. Could it be that the socialist agenda supported by the libs might have something to do with the contradition? Of course it does. Redistribution of wealth is the key to everything they stand for. Now, be consistent you libs. If you are against the Patriot Act then you must also be against the IRS and their illegal income and property confiscations.

 

[Phaedrus]

Posted by Prosportsgambler
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The IRS is more of a threat to your freedoms and liberty than the Patriot Act, and has been for years. Why is it none of the libs in here are concerned about the IRS infringements on liberty and privacy?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a liberal myself, and I agree that the IRS should be shitcanned (WTF do they spend $ 8 billion a year on anyway? Hire a couple of dozen computer programmers and automate the process; let the Treasury Department use BATF as field agents/enforcers and put that $8b back in the taxpayers' pockets.) However, the fact that the IRS is bad does not mean nothing else, USA-PATRIOT or otherwise, is. A kick in the nuts won't make me learn to ignore or appreciate a punch in the jaw one bit -- I feel I'd be better off without either.


Phaedrus

 

[wilheim]

Come on now, please don't beat yourself up over this issue.


wil.