"Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft and one of his hardline lieutenants face the rare prospect of being held personally liable for alleged violations of individuals' rights in the aggressive aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

High-ranking officials usually are protected from such civil rights claims. Not necessarily in these cases.

Three federal courts have left open the possibility that former Bush officials may have to reach into their own pockets to compensate people who were swept up in the law enforcement and intelligence efforts after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In two cases, judges appointed by Republican presidents have refused to dismiss lawsuits at an early stage that were filed against Ashcroft and former Justice Department official John Yoo. One complaint challenges Ashcroft's strategy of preventive detention. The other seeks to hold Yoo accountable for legal memos he wrote supporting detention, interrogation and presidential power.

In a third case, the full federal appeals court in New York is reconsidering an earlier decision by three of its members to toss out a lawsuit by a man who was changing planes in the United States when he was mistaken for a terrorist and sent to Syria, where he claims he was tortured.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco, also named by Bush, seemed to question whether the Bush administration overstepped the bounds set by the Constitution.

In allowing the case to go forward, he wrote: "This lawsuit poses the question addressed by our Founding Fathers about how to strike the proper balance of fighting a war against terror, at home and abroad, and fighting a war using tactics of terror."

The cases have been uncomfortable for the Obama administration, which inherited the task of representing Ashcroft and Yoo from the Bush administration, even though President Barack Obama opposed some of the homeland-security practices under his predecessor. As well, both the Obama and Bush administrations renounced some of Yoo's legal positions.

The Obama administration has yet to spell out its views on when people may be detained because of suspected terrorism links but without evidence of criminal activity.

Critics of George W. Bush's administration see the recent actions of the courts as a chance to wring a measure of accountability from the Bush White House — at a time when Obama expresses reluctance to look backward and Congress has shown little appetite for investigating the past. (Read Full Article)

Earlier this month, seven former CIA directors made a special plea to President Obama that deserves a thoughtful response.

They asked the nation's top law enforcement official to end a Justice Department inquiry into alleged detainee abuse by CIA interrogators.

Their plea came a month after Attorney General Eric Holder opened the probe, which has sent shivers through the intelligence community but pleases those who say the Central Intelligence Agency relied on torture during the Bush administration in dealing with terror suspects. Mr. Holder based his decision in part on his reading of a 2004 CIA internal report that found cruel tactics were sometimes practiced by the CIA or its contractors.

The seven signatories of the letter – Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet, John Deutch, R. James Woolsey, William Webster, and James R. Schlesinger – have a strong ally in their cause.

Mr. Obama's own CIA director, Leon Panetta, also opposes the investigation.

Perhaps Obama and his attorney general believe the rest of the world needs to see that the US firmly stands against torture by prosecuting some CIA agents. During his campaign, Obama argued that Islamic radicals are emboldened – and Americans are made more vulnerable – when the US uses tactics widely seen as torture. In effect, more US lives would be lost if such methods are used than if they are not.

Obama weakens his own case, however, in his recent decision to favor indefinite detention of some terror suspects without a trial. That denial of a basic right can also be seen as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. And he may yet be forced to back off a pledge to close the Guantánamo detention facility by January because of opposition in Congress. (Read Full Article)

In the majority of Muslim countries the government is an intrusive enterprise with eyes and ears everywhere. The result is bleak. Countries reward only sycophants of the "divine" state. Muslims feel stifled by the encroachments of the establishment and lack of religious tolerance. If a man or a woman wanted to organize a protest against the government to gain the right to practice their religion more openly or be politically active against the status quo, may God help him to escape from the wrath of the state.

Many Muslim countries promote homogeneity while their citizens yearn for a right to diversity, which will give them the ability to practice their religious rituals freely.

In America, on the other hand, doors open to accommodate people's religious beliefs. And that, along with citizenship rights and the opportunity to exercise the freedom to practice Islam day in and day out, is what makes the US so good for the millions of Muslims here. (Read Full Article)

    I, like many other Americans, wanted to see former President Bush and other officials in his administration impeached and prosecuted for abandoning the US Constitution and the rule of law in fighting Muslim terrorism. Too many innocent Muslims were unlawfully detained and tortured. The window to prosecute the former Presidential Administration has closed except for individual Muslims suing members of the Bush Administration in American courts for unlawful detention and torture. As I see it,President Obama would do well to learn from the mistakes of the Bush Administration but not prosecute those legal mistakes and wrongdoing for political posturing. America can do more to fight Muslim terrorism by holding to the high principles of the US Constitution and the rule of law than by continuing to use the tactics of terrorist groups and totalitarian regimes. America must fight Muslim terrorists within the boundaries of the US Constitution and the rule of law, to truly win the "war on  terrorism", as I see it.

tags: war on terror  war  warpeace  politics  rule of law  takebackamerica  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit