BuzzFlash Reader Contribution

CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES  

Ashcroft’s Latest Gaffe

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Mike Whitney

No one expected that Ashcroft would "go quietly into that good night". The Missouri Mullah’s penchant for grandstanding always outstripped his ability to keep his mouth shut. Now, he’s using his upcoming retirement to launch a few parting pot-shots at his longtime nemesis; the judiciary.

The macabre Ashcroft made an appearance in front The Federalist Society on Thursday. He was greeted with a chorus of wild applause and standing ovations. Who better epitomizes the F. Society’s contempt for rule of law then the benighted A.G.? Ashcroft didn’t disappoint them either. His prepared statement fired off a thunderous volley that could be heard in papers across the nation:

"The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war."

The Attorney General’s fulminations were directed at last week’s ruling by US District Judge James Robertson. Robertson had the temerity to suggest that Guantanamo prisoners are "entitled to protections afforded prisoners of war under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention" ... and that they "may not be tried by a military commission."

The ruling is an uncontroversial reading of both the Geneva Conventions and of any normal understanding of due process. Ashcroft, however, is not placated by anything as mundane as treaty obligations or 600 years of legal precedent. After all, we’re in the new epoch now, the age of terrorism; such nettlesome constraints on presidential authority are "obsolete" or at least "quaint".

"Without mentioning the case specifically, Ashcroft criticized rulings he said found ‘expansive private rights in treaties where they never existed’ that run counter to the broad discretionary powers given the president by the Constitution." (Associated Press)

"Expansive private rights"?

Does Ashcroft mean the right to due process or the more basic "presumption of innocence"? Or is he defending the right of the president to dump innocent men in 5’ by 7’ windowless cells for three years with no process in place to challenge the terms of their detention?

"Courts are not equipped to execute the law. They are not accountable to the people," Ashcroft bawled.

Is he serious? The statement is so extraordinary it almost defies comment.

If courts are not "equipped to execute the law" who is? Herr Bush? Ashcroft’s inane ruminations prove why his place in history as the country’s worst Attorney General is never in doubt.

Remember, the ruling he is railing against so vehemently merely establishes that a defendant "was entitled to a legal hearing on whether he is a prisoner of war". This hardly seems radical enough to get your "knickers in a twit".

True, the ruling does demolish the Administrations claim that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to prisoners picked up in Afghanistan or in the war on terror, but what does Ashcroft expect; carte blanche for the Dear Leader? The conventions merely establish the "minimal standards for the humane treatment of prisoners;" standards that democracies should welcome as a sign of their commitment to decency and human rights.

The Guantanamo "mock trails" have been a humiliation for the American people and a sore spot for international relations. Beyond that, they have been a slap in the face to the Supreme Court ruling five months ago that said that detainees had the right to present their case in front of a federal judge. Even the conservative Sandra Day O’ Connor said that, "The war on terror is not a blank check for the President"; a clear jab at a policy that summarily deprives prisoners of all legal protection. (As it turns out, the Supreme Court decision was intentionally vague so that Bush could continue to hold prisoners without charge and without any real judicial challenge. The Hamdan case was the first to appear before a federal judge)

Ashcroft’s anger should be taken for what it is; a staunch defense of arbitrary and unlimited detention at the president’s discretion, the very definition of tyranny. His view, if established in precedent, would confer absolute authority on the President.

It’s no surprise that he would be so resoundingly celebrated at the Federalist Society. The group is widely recognized as a smokescreen for autocrats and elitists devoted to undermining time-honored legal protections. Their unanimous praise for the repressive Patriot Act summarizes their disdain for civil liberties.

The direction of the Administration isn’t hard to fathom. The tendency is to challenge any law, treaty or convention that diminishes the power of the executive. Behind the nonsensical rhetoric of "democratic values" or "spreading freedom" is the insatiable urge for more and more centralized power.

John Ashcroft has been a valuable asset in that cause and his tenure at the DOJ has been broadly praised by supporters on the Right. He wasn’t sacked because of a clash of ideologies, but because he was an ineffective salesman for upcoming repression.

Somewhere in the unlit bowels of the Justice Dept. is a copy of Patriot Act 2, ready to be unearthed following the next terrorist attack. That’s when the Attorney General will storm down the marble steps at Justice, Patriot Act in hand, wielding it overhead like an angry preacher; ready to deliver the American people from imminent doom.

Ashcroft has probably savored the thought of his role in this upcoming morality play many times. Unfortunately, his part has been recast. Ashcroft’s aspirations have gone up in a pillar of smoke, just like most of the Bill of Rights. The baton has been passed to Alberto Gonzales, Bush’s White House Counsel and part time torture merchant. It’s Gonzales who will deliver the next savage blow to our withering democracy. The retiring Attorney General will have to content himself by watching it all unfold on TV stretched out on his Lay-Z-Boy.

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION