John Ashcroft AKA Big Brother

[ShiningIce]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) on Tuesday begins a nationwide campaign to defend the anti-terrorism law adopted after the 9/11 attacks that faces criticism from civil libertarians and others for giving the government broad powers to eavesdrop and detain immigrants.






Justice Department (news - web sites) officials said Ashcroft was kicking off the month-long effort with a speech to a conservative think tank in Washington. He will be traveling to more than a dozen cities to try to drum up support for the USA Patriot Act.


The law, adopted less than six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacked plane attacks, enhanced the government's ability to tap phones, share intelligence information, track Internet usage and cell phones and protect U.S. borders.


The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) has spearheaded opposition to the law and questioned whether Ashcroft's tour was politically motivated. And legislation is pending in the U.S. Congress that would roll back a key provision of the law allowing the government to conduct "sneak and peek" searches of private property.


A Justice Department official said Ashcroft would seek to "clear up some myths" about the law and stress it has been an "essential tool" in the war against terrorism.


"We have been successful. We have had two years without another attack," Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said.


After the speech, Ashcroft planned to travel to Philadelphia and Cleveland on Wednesday and then Detroit and Des Moines on Thursday, speaking to law enforcement officials, as part of the nationwide visits expected to last four weeks.


"An attorney general going on the road, away from his official duties, to favorably spin policies violative of civil liberties is troubling, to say the least," said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington office.


"It raises two serious questions: is this tour -- which incidentally hits Iowa, Michigan and Ohio -- political in nature and how prudent is it to be spending public money on a 'Patriot Act' charm offensive?" she asked.


Corallo denied the states to be visited were picked because they were crucial to President Bush (news - web sites)'s 2004 re-election effort.


Justice Department officials have been concerned that opposition to the law is increasing and might scuttle efforts to adopt new anti-terrorism legislation.


They also worry about the legislation overwhelming approved by the U.S. House of Representatives last month that would block the Justice Department from using any funds to secretly search the homes of suspects and only inform them later that a warrant has been issued to do so.


The legislation was sponsored by Idaho Republican C.L. "Butch" Otter and was approved by a 309-118 vote. Aides said Ashcroft would oppose the legislation in his speech.


About 150 local governments have also approved resolutions objecting to the Patriot Act.

 

[MadKalnod]

Note: The paragraphs in boldface are my emphasis.

Ashcroft gets bad rap

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/printjg20030723.shtml

Jonah Goldberg

July 23, 2003

My wife is an aide and senior speechwriter to Attorney General John Ashcroft. This can be a big drag. First of all, I know she knows all sorts of cool stuff - the real score on Osama, where Jimmy Hoffa's buried, how Col. Sanders puts an addictive chemical in his chicken - and just won't tell me.

But on a day-to-day basis, the most annoying aspect is that whenever I mention John Ashcroft, I have to follow it up with "great dancer." Oops, I mean "full disclosure." And for some readers that "full disclosure" actually means "don't believe anything I say." The fact that my wife works for the AG means that I'm automatically in the tank for him.

What makes this so annoying is that I honestly don't understand what Ashcroft has done wrong.

According to a recent article by Adam Nagourney of The New York Times, there is no single figure more universally loathed by liberals, Democrats and - Nagourney seems to imply - all intelligent and decent carbon-based life forms.

But let's start with Democrats. "In my first five seconds as president, I would fire John Ashcroft as attorney general," Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri recently told a cheering audience of Hispanic leaders in Phoenix.

"We cannot allow people like John Ashcroft to take away our rights and our freedoms," Senator John Edwards of North Carolina told an audience in Concord, N.H., "drawing a nearly instantaneous standing ovation," Nagourney wrote.

John Kerry promises that "When I am president of the United States, there will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights."

Chris Lehane, Al Gore's former press secretary and now an adviser to Sen. Kerry, told the Times, "Ashcroft has become a symbol of ideas and doctrine and ideology that are just unacceptable in the Bush administration." He continued, "He is a living, breathing troglodyte who happens to run the Justice Department."

Nagourney even approvingly quotes a student from Dartmouth who says, "I think he might be the most loathed man in America."

This is all nonsense on stilts - on top of a ladder, on the roof of a very tall building. First of all, someone needs to tell these people that America isn't populated entirely by irrational liberal Ashcroft-phobes.

A Harris Interactive poll last month found that 54 percent of respondents had a positive view of Ashcroft's job performance and only 32 percent had a negative view. This makes Ashcroft more popular than Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Dick Gephardt or John Kerry. His positive rating is higher than the Congressional Democrats as a group and Congressional Republicans as a group. He is 20 points more popular than the avuncular Denny Hastert and a few points better than Dick Cheney.

Now I don't put much stock in polls, and I'm sure other polls say different things, but only someone deeply enmeshed in groupthink could believe that Ashcroft is the most hated man in America. It reminds me of when Richard Nixon said that it's obvious the world's overpopulated since everywhere he goes he sees huge crowds.

The Ashcroft-haters also say that all clear-thinking, liberty-loving people know that Ashcroft's demon child - the Patriot Act - is a Great Evil. The problem is that 99 percent of these people don't know what they are talking about. When I ask people why they think my wife's boss is the devil or what's wrong with the Patriot Act, I get ill-informed mush or untrue propaganda.

Just to be quick: Despite the ACLU's insistence that the Patriot Act gave the executive branch "sweeping new powers that undermine the Bill of Rights," all of the snooping, sneaking, spying and other prying powers allegedly granted to the Feds still have to be approved by judges, as always.

Most of these powers already existed for criminal investigations, but the government thought it might be a good idea to use them against al-Qaida as well as the mob. What about the government's newfound power to read all of your e-mail through systems like "Carnivore"? Well, maybe that should bother you, but the Patriot Act constrained the scope of the government to use Carnivore, not the other way around.

I'm not saying a sane person cannot quibble with the Patriot Act or that you have to be crazy to dislike John Ashcroft. But the rhetoric is so far above the reality on both scores, it makes many people and institutions look crazy.

In fact, the Patriot Act is so reasonable it passed the Senate 98 to 1 and the House by 357 to 66. Indeed, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, all of the senators and representatives currently running for president on John Ashcroft's back voted for it.

So again, I ask, what in the world are these people talking about?

 

[ShiningIce]

All 100% percent grade A B.S.

 

[MadKalnod]

All 100% percent grade A B.S.

Ah, such a scathing rebuttal. Let's eximine Ice's response in depth, shall we?

Ice posts a news item with absolutely no comment of his own, save for changing the headline. I know Reuters has an ideological axe to grind, but even they wouldn't risk a libel suit for openly comparing the Attorney General to the fictional eptome of totalitarianism. The article itself certainly makes no such claim. Ice is apparently unable to distinguish between a man who advocates using the exact same techniques that have been in use for years to hunt the Mafia in order to hunt terrorists, and a Socialist dictator who mandates torture chambers for anyone who fails to expres sufficient love for him. Either he has no understanding of who John Ashcroft is, or he has absolutely no idea what Big Brother and 1984 were actually about. My money's on C: All of the above. It's funny, because Ice is proving George Orwell right when he lamented that the language was becoming so abused for political purposes (one of the major themes of 1984, mind you) that "Fascism" has come to mean "anything I don't like" in place of its Merriam-Webster definition of "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." But I digress.

Anywho, this being America where one is allowed to express opposing views (I mean, that is the only good thing many on the left are willing to admit about this country; which is kind of like saying that the best thing about intimacy is that you can say horribly cruel things to someone and they still have to love you...), I post another article to rebut Ice's statement, with several points that seem to disprove his implication that our civil liberties are being discarded faster than movie theaters are dropping "Gigli" from their screens. I would imagine that Mr. Goldberg, being as he is only Two Degrees of Kevin Bacon away from the Big 'Croft, and paid as he is to keep well-informed about such topics, might actually know what he's talking about when he discusses the Patriot Act. Silly me.

I apparently lack Ice's penetrating insight to see through such propaganda and recognise that anyone saying something Ice doesn't want to hear is a base purveyor of lies, bringing falsehoods by the duffel bag. Here I was thinking that the Dixie Chicks hadn't been herded into Room 101 at the Ministry of Re-Education to get rat cages strapped to their faces until they profess their boundless love for George W., and that there were no Thought Police in faceless black armor resting their jackboots on my trachea to convince me that 2+2= whatever Ashcroft wants me to say it is, but it would seem that it's only my abyssmal powers of observation that prevent me from seeing what an Orwellian nightmare of repression this country is hurtling towards. That, and that pesky "logic" thing which insists upon telling me that A: If Ashcroft were really Big Brother, he'd have Ice and the rest of his critics shot for critcising him, and B: If Ice and the rest of the critics are not only unshot but free to continue criticising Ashcroft to no small amount of praise from like-minded parties, then C: Ashcroft is not really Big Brother.

And the killer thing is, I'm not even an ardent proponent of the Patriot Act. I think it's mainly a PR move whose hype will far outweigh its actual effects, much like the Homeland Security Department in general, rushed through as a excuse to say that "something is being done" to answer the backseat drivers demanding to know what the Gov't was doing about terrorism while the truly important anti-terrorist measures remain necessarily classified. Still, it's hardly the orders to shoot traitors and heretics on sight, eat their babies, and get their little dogs too that its detractors make it out to be. I'm far more concerned about the genuine loss of freedoms enacted by the Campaign Finance Reform law that forbids people from airing issue ads within 60 days before an election; or the recent Supreme Court decisions which effectively set the precedent that State Legislatures elected by the people make State Laws only at the whim of the un-elected Judiciary.

Let's look at Ice's response again, shall we?

All 100% percent grade A B.S.

I mean, what is that? There's no wit, no grace, no style, no facts, and no points or counter-points of his own advanced. Hell, it isn't even a complete sentence. Come on Ice, if I'm wrong, prove it. Find some evidence of Justice Department Death Camps or a plan to put cameras and Political Overseers in every home, and rub my face in it. But you can't do that, can you? Krutz, you can't even figure out that if you type the "%" symbol, then you don't need to type out the word "percent" right after it. This is the best you could come up with, a response that boils down to "Neener-neener-neener, you're a big fat doody-head"? My god, Ice, debating you is like a dogfight between a Yorkshire Terrier and a Velociraptor: So one-sided it makes a Moebius strip look like a hecatohedron. It's the apparent intellectual laziness and lack of effort that offend me far more than any position you could take.

It's clear you have no interest in discussing this, or else you'd have put together a coherent thought, to say nothing of a reasoned argument, to support or at least defend your position. You aren't even trying to debate, so why post the article in the first place? Did you expect people to rush out and verbally tongue-bathe your genitalia for being so smart and brave to bring to our attention the foul perfidy of Herr Ashcroft's New Reich? I suppose you must, since you did that very thing for August Spies so much. Indeed, the very presence of my contary viewpoint and evidence to support it causes you to react with reflexive incoherent denial unseen since "Baghdad Bob" asserted that the American tanks rolling up the street behind him were captured vehicles driven by the victorious Elite Republican Guard. And am I the only one who finds it absolutely hysterical that Ice is so violently opposed to my disagreeing with him when he's the one who seems to think that Ashcroft is the Anti-Christ who wants to silence anyone who openly disagrees with him? Ah, Irony: the new fragrance from the California Clueless.

For those of you playing the home game, you've guessed correctly if you said that this is the part where Ice calls me a Nazi, accuses me of being a mindless thrall of Bill O'Reilly, and generally fails miserably to counter any factual arguments. He'll especially use the "eye roll" and "so wrong" emoticons to demonstrate his razor-sharp wit. Hey, I'll even save him the trouble, and post a response for him, so he doesn't have to interrupt his busy schedule of keeping afloat the endless nonsense threads about marmalade and such in the humor forum.

damn right Ashcroft's the anti-christ. if you can't see it yore a fashist too. I don't know where you get these crazy ideas. You listen to too much Rush Limpballs 🙄

 

[LVTicklr]

John Ashcroft is a very bad man who doesn't belong in the position he's currently in,and I hope that he eventually gets recalled from his position,just before he does some very serious damage to our great nation with his all-too-fascist tactics.

 

[Haltickling]

MK

I think we already had a lengthy discussion on the Patriot Acts in another thread, quite a while ago. I will not go into this any further, because that's not the topic here. The question is whether a state attorney or judge should run a purely partisan political campaign. I realize that state attorneys and judges get elected in the US, thus the office is largely political. But it is a big difference to run an important office according to one's political opinion, or to actively participate in a political campaign. This is a severe violation of the constitutional separation between executive, jurisdictional, and legislative powers, IMO. As far as I know, that barrier exists in practically every constitution of democratic states, something that distinguishes them from totalitarian regimes.

As to MK's quoted article, I'd just like to ask two rhetoric (and slightly provocative) questions:

A Harris Interactive poll last month found that 54 percent of respondents had a positive view of Ashcroft's job performance and only 32 percent had a negative view. This makes Ashcroft more popular than Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Dick Gephardt or John Kerry. His positive rating is higher than the Congressional Democrats as a group and Congressional Republicans as a group. He is 20 points more popular than the avuncular Denny Hastert and a few points better than Dick Cheney.

What does this tell us about the American public?

In fact, the Patriot Act is so reasonable it passed the Senate 98 to 1 and the House by 357 to 66. Indeed, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, all of the senators and representatives currently running for president on John Ashcroft's back voted for it.

What does that tell us about American politicians? (Or about politicians in general, regardless of nationality?)

Like all rhetoric questions, these require no reply. Just think about them.

 

[ShiningIce]

Well Kalnod I could have a logical debate with you.....but your post is so rediculous its not worth the effort. You really need to get over this I'm a poor abused republican and liberals are wrongfully persecuting me and my fellow right-wingers crap. Its really pathetic. Come up with something worth me responding to and I will.

 

[MadKalnod]

Tell you what, Ice. Let's just put it all on the table. Here's the ugly truth:

I don't respect your opinion, and I never will, because I believe you're an ignorant sheep.

You don't respect my opinion, and you never will, because you believe I'm a pompous ass.

We may both like gaming and SF and tickling and tons of the same stuff recreationally, but the fact that each of us pasionately hates everything the other holds dear politically means that we will never, ever, look at the other and say "He's an okay guy after all." We will always come back to this inescapable rift. In fact, here's a really ugly truth: The fact that you gave a compliment to the short story I posted a while ago gets under my skin far worse than any argument we've ever had, because I don't want to be liked by someone whose judgement I hold in such low regard. I hate the fact that I'm that petty about it, but it's true.

I'm sure people may look at that and see it as a tragic waste or something, but I no longer care. In the past two years since September Eleventh I have long since burned through whatever reservoir of respect, sympathy, or patience I may once have had for the left. We will never agree on substantive matters, and I'm strangely comfortable with that. There's no point in discussion, not because our positions or techniques are "rediculous", but because I'm not remotely interested in changing my mind and I know you certainly aren't either.

So here's the deal: I'll ignore your posts, you ignore mine, and we'll both do our damnedest to forget we share a forum with each other. I know you like B5, so you ought to get this reference: I'll be Londo, you be G'Kar, and we''l stay the hell out of each other's way until it comes time to die with our hands locked around each other's throats twenty years from now.

I'm sorry that I let things get this ugly, and I don't blame the Mods in the slightest if they want to delete this or even ban me altogether, but let's face it. It would only get uglier if we kept pretending that we could ever agree on anything but our mutual disrespect.

 

[ticklebutton]

It's incredible...

that this "madkalnod" would spend so much time and effort to post a reply of such viciousness & contempt in response to a genuine concern.

Getting off the steroids and getting back into the anger management therapy is recommended.

 

[ticklebutton]

Interesting points, Hal...

Thanks for a thoughtful & reasonable response.

Button

 

[ShiningIce]

No Kalnod I dont believe you're pompous. I think you're a fool. A very dangerous fool, people like you would welcome facism with open arms