Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

John Ashcroft Testifying Before Congress Today!

Foxxy Feminist Fury

11:59 / 06.12.01

And you can listen to what he has to say in defense of secret military tribunalsat NPR's web site!

Or of course, if you're in the states, just listen to your local NPR station.

He's starting in just a few minutes (10am EST) so now's the time!

12:46 / 06.12.01

Jesus, they just wheeled out Strom Thurmond...

Foxxy Feminist Fury

12:47 / 06.12.01

Wow, I never knew how old 99-year-old Senator Strom Thurmond sounded until this very moment!

12:48 / 06.12.01

Sounds pretty old. Couldn't really understand what he was talking about.

13:16 / 06.12.01

Och... could someone please post updates? I've got a heavy workload all week and can't access radio at all here at work. I really want to know what the fucker has to say for himself. (hate..Ashcroft...)

Thanks.

13:24 / 06.12.01

I'm at work as well so I can't really give it the attention it probably deserves, but it's pretty much Ashcroft and other Republicans saying: 'Trust us. And shame on anyone who would question our actions in any way.'

Foxxy Feminist Fury

15:28 / 06.12.01

I've been very busy at work today, too, but my work doesn't require a great deal of my brainpower so I've been able to listen to the whole thing (sorry I didn't see your message Ierne, otherwise I would've updated!)

-Big issue has been gun control. I.e., Ashcroft's liberal breach of every other amendment in the bill of rights other than the right to bear arms. He's kind of skated around the issue but has claimed if "legislation is brought to him he'll review it, and if it's passed he'll enforce it."

-There has been some question as to the lack of right to counsel for some people tried under the military tribunal, and the power of the U.S. government to eavesdrop on attorney-client conversations falling under this act. Ashcroft claims that of the over only 16 people in the entire penal system at this moment are subject to this at the moment.

He also says that the government must inform the attorney and client before they can begin monitoring any conversations, and information gleaned from such conversations can be used only if the U.S. could prevent a terrorist attack in its usage.

Overall, Ashcroft has been remarkably vague with his answers (surprise surprise), and the republicans who've jumped in have been rather sycophantic.

More later!

15:36 / 06.12.01

Thanks folks! We have no radio here, and if I'm scanning my computer can't do much else.

Are the Democrats making any interesting points?

Foxxy Feminist Fury

15:41 / 06.12.01

Verrry interesting: Senator from NC just pointed out that even if someone is acquitted in the Military Tribunal the president and defense secretary can overturn it!

Ashcroft says "I don't think that will be used."

NC Center: "There's No need for burden of proof in these military trials -Will someone be convicted and will death penalty be imposed with greater preponderance of evidence? "

Ashcroft: "the president has asked the gov't to develop 'full & fair' ways of determining evidence. Death penalty needs 2/3 majority vote.

NC: "Will you require that burden of proof be more than preponderance of evidence in the case of death penalty?"

Ashcroft: "We're still working it out."

NC: You're the attorney general, you're an experienced lawyer, do you think it's fair to give out the death penalty based on preponderance of evidence?

Ashcroft: "I'm not going to try to answer this question based on the information at this time. I haven't given it a lot of thought."

NC: "You said tribunal needs 2/3 vote. Does that mean if 3-person tribunal, someone could be executed based on a 2-1 vote?"

Ashcroft: "This states a minimum standard in the military tribunal."

The Knowledge +1

16:17 / 06.12.01

The death penalty? Fuck!!! Total fascism is back in a big way!

Someone tie the president to a chair, inject him with enough LSD to kill a cow and put him on live TV, then we'll find out exactly what his intentions are.

19:00 / 06.12.01

Hate...Ashcroft...

"To those who pit Americans against immigrants, 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," Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "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.

Who writes the swill that comes out of these politicians' mouths?

Hello, EVERYONE'S DESCENDED FROM AN IMMIGRANT IN THE UNITED STATES!!!!!

19:30 / 06.12.01

this discussion becomes even more relevant in light of the uncertain fate of mullah Omar after the surrender of the last taliban outpost...

How can you be certain of a full and fair trial when it is not subject to the rigours of public scrutiny?

If justice litterally cannot be seen to be done, what then?

The Knowledge +1

09:23 / 07.12.01

its fucking terrifying.

The Knowledge +1

09:23 / 07.12.01

I never thought I'd say it, but...

Thank God for the British Government!!!

Opposition peers have inflicted seven defeats on the Government's anti-terrorism Bill.

Among the changes pushed through was the restoration of the right of judicial review of the detention of suspected terrorists.

It received backing by a 74-vote majority.

Tory and Liberal Democrat peers also altered, by 71 votes, the proposed derogation from Article 5 of the Convention on Human Rights guaranteeing the right to liberty.

The proposal was intended to allow the detention without trial of suspected terrorists who cannot be deported because they have claimed asylum.

The Bill goes back to the Commons next week after further consideration by peers on Monday and Tuesday.

Ministers say they are determined to reverse damaging defeats. They want the Bill to become law by Thursday.

Before the latest votes Home Office Minister Lord Rooker warned Opposition peers that their changes to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill would "taken together, as a group if passed will wreck the Bill."

But they voted on five separate amendments in a bid to restrict police powers to investigate personal tax and data solely to the pursuit of terrorists and defence of national security.

09:23 / 07.12.01

Thank God for the upper house of the British parliament, rather. Not that this actually means a great deal - govt whipping tactics probably mean that this appalling piece of legislation will get through the Commons before Christmas. Is there a thread for this somewhere? Must go and look...

09:23 / 07.12.01

And let us remember that The Government are trying to tack the upper house in their favour- oh, i mean 'reform' the house of lords. In making it more 'reprisentative' new labour are actually leaving the way open for future governments to stack the upper house with their supporters greatly increasing the chance of bipartisan politics.

09:23 / 07.12.01

Oh yes. This is a real bugbear for me too. It's a throwback to C18 style politicking - placemen, patronage, politics of commercial interest and no bloody representation for the populace.

16:22 / 07.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Ierne:

Hate...Ashcroft...[/URL]

"To those who pit Americans against immigrants, 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," Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "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.

quote:Originally posted by Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering:
It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

02:07 / 08.12.01

Of course, the reason the US government wants to use military tribunals is that they need to get convictions and, of course, executions, to maintain their artificially inflated popularity, and the only way to do that is to avoid the whole nasty little issue of lack of evidence. That the majority of Americans approve of the idea of military tribunals in any way, shape or form just goes to show that we are a nation which would sell its freedom for sattelite TV, and maybe a case of beer. No, wait, we did that already, didn't we?

Forgive my cynicism, but as a law student I get to see, in intricate detail, how narrow the edge upon which freedom finds its purchase, and that so many people don't realize this is profoundly disturbing.

The Knowledge +1

02:07 / 08.12.01

Yep, couldn't have put it better myself. The whole fuck principle let's get 'em line is sickening. Only in America...