posted 11-27-2001 07:04 AM            

Posted By: TimelessMind
Date: Monday, 26 November 2001, 8:38 a.m.

On 11/21 evening news, Tom Brokaw was interviewing AG Ashcroft regarding his decision to try suspected 'terrorists' in military courts. Ashcroft began by saying that 'in a time of war' (paraphrasing here...from memory) such extraordinary 'liberties' were often taken. He spoke of World War II, for instance.

'But...' argued Tom in a blatant no-holes barred challenge: 'Congress has NOT declared a War!'

It was almost as though Brokaw were ALERTING us to something that had been 'lost' in the translation of the anti-terrorism bill, and Bush's 'declared war on terrorism'. Fact is, Bush CANNOT declare a war on anything! Only Congress can. SO WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

Ashcroft rode over his objections like a bulldozer by simply ignoring them!!! And continued talking about the NON-EXISTENT/COMPLETELY ILLEGAL (take your pick) WAR as though Brokaw had not said a word. It was interesting to note that my Mind tuned into Tom's frustration; and something else...I saw FEAR. A sense that the man no longer is under any illusion about what is happening in this country. Perhaps it was the Anthrax letter that sent him over the edge or perhaps he was already there, but there was a distinct sense that Tom Brokaw is considering his role as a Real American. Who knows: Maybe he is actually 'tuning in' to his own Source!

posted 11-27-2001 07:10 AM            

The chairman and ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee are increasingly frustrated by the failure of Attorney General John Ashcroft to respond to any inquiries concerning his broad new powers in dealing with accused terrorists.

Underscoring rising tensions between the White House and Congress, the committee has demanded that Ashcroft appear as the lone witness at a hearing next week.

Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the Judiciary chairman and ranking member, respectively, sent a terse three-sentence letter sent to their former colleague on Friday.

"We suggest Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2001, and ask that you make yourself available for several hours," the senators wrote.

The committee staff and Department of Justice staff are negotiating the exact date, according to Leahy spokesman David Carle.

Lawmakers want information about the more than 1,000 people detained in the criminal investigation, changes allowing law enforcement to listen in on lawyer-client communications in some cases, what law enforcement might have done to prevent the attacks, and how to ensure civil liberties under sweeping anti-terrorism legislation signed into law.

Leahy has sent six letters to Aschroft and has signed two with other lawmakers. Ashcroft personally has yet to respond to any of them, but Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant responded to one issue on Nov. 14.

The letters -- sent between Oct. 25 and Nov. 16 -- even include personal notes from Leahy such as "Looking forward to your response," and, "Many people are concerned about this -- I do need the questions answered."

Susan Dryden, a Justice Department spokeswoman, failed to return several phone calls from The Hill.

"Given the grave importance of this matter and its implications for basic civil liberties, I would appreciate a response to these questions by no later than Nov. 13," Leahy wrote on Nov. 9. "I would also respectfully request that full and responsive answers to my earlier letters of Oct. 25 and 31 and Nov. 7 and 8, 2001, be provided without delay."

Leahy, who included in the letter a list of seven questions he wanted answered, was especially critical of the provision allowing the government to listen to conversations between inmates and their lawyers in certain situations. He has expressed anger that he was not consulted before that decision.

Leahy had pointed criticism for Ashcroft's lack of response to the many questions raised by lawmakers since Sept. 11. "They tend to ignore us over here once they've been confirmed," Leahy told The Hill.

But Hatch was more willing to give Ashcroft the benefit of the doubt.

"I'm always concerned about the appropriate utilization of law enforcement techniques," Hatch said. "On the other hand, I don't want to interfere with properly utilized law enforcement that may be protective of our American citizens."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), the only senator to vote against the increased investigative powers included in the anti-terrorism legislation signed into law last month, has been a key ally on the issue, as has Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). In the House, conservative Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) joined a group of liberal Democrats on Friday calling for hearings as well.

Carle said Ashcroft testified once during consideration of the anti-terrorism legislation but refused to return for two subsequent hearings.

"There's a feeling on both sides of the Hill and both sides of the aisle that the lack of consultation is becoming a problem," Carle said.

Leahy made his displeasure known in most of his letters.

"I have felt a growing concern that the trust and cooperation Congress provided is proving to be a one-way street," Leahy wrote in the Nov. 9 letter. "You have declined several requests to appear before the committee to answer questions and have not responded to requests to provide information on such basic points as the number of people S currently detained without trial."

Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen said he supported Congress holding hearings on his top concern -- an executive order allowing for military tribunals to try suspected terrorists.

"No matter how well-meaning any government is, and no matter how much trust we have in individuals, over a period of time, that power, once granted, can be seriously abused," Cohen told The Hill. "So I think it's important that Congress play a major role, start holding hearings, give the public an opportunity to really speak about it as well."

The American Civil Liberties Union and American Bar Association have also registered their complaints concerning similar issues. A broad coalition of human rights organizations, including the ACLU, the First Amendment Foundation and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to try to obtain answers from the Justice Department specifically on the detainees.

The ABA, the nation's largest lawyers' organization, said the monitoring provision runs "squarely afoul" with the Fourth and Sixth amendments. The ACLU released a similarly critical statement and labeled the move an "unprecedented power grab."
http://www.truthout.com/11.28D.Ashcroft.Silence.htm

posted 11-27-2001 06:44 PM            

It's interesting to watch things unfold, but too bad we can't monitor TV and media 24hrs a day. But then, I guess someone, somewhere always is.

I wonder why Ashcroft and Justice Dept. seem to have totally dropped the cases against Alan Greenspan, Bill Clinton, etc. since evidence was reportedly destroyed in FBI offices at WTC. The 'War on Terrorism' conveniently has negated their responsibilities in enforcing laws that don't seem to apply to TPTB?