Breaking on the AP wire mid-week….

The man with the JD from the University of Chicago speaks out.

Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Ashcroft: Supreme Court giving more rights to terrorists
CATHERINE WILSON Associated Press

MIAMI - Attorney General John Ashcroft said Wednesday that the U.S. Supreme Court gave more rights to terrorists in three recent decisions, and Justice Department attorneys are poring over the rulings to determine their consequences.

The orders issued Monday on Guantánamo detainees and enemy combatants Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi indicate "that certain terrorists have more rights," Ashcroft said after a meeting with a regional anti-terrorism advisory council.

"The Supreme Court accorded to terrorists, in a variety of cases this week, a number of additional rights," he said. "We're digesting those opinions in terms of making sure that we adjust or modify what we do, so that we accommodate the requirements as expressed by the Supreme Court."

Ashcroft noted the court preserved the president's right to designate and detain enemy combatants under "a restrained and careful procedure." But the decision also gave the detainees the right to challenge their indefinite jailing in U.S. courts, which the Bush administration opposed.

Asked about how he would address the nearly 600 foreign-born terror suspects captured abroad and held at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Ashcroft said, "I'm not in a position to say what the range of potentials is." …

And an immediate reaction on the web from Atrios -

No, you dickhead, the Supreme Court maybe recognized that under our constitution THE ACCUSED HAVE RIGHTS. The accused who, not being charged with any crimes, are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

John, John, John…

If I managed to be accused of being a terrorist, and I know I’m not a terrorist, and everyone else knows I’m not a terrorist, and there’s no crime, only some hypothetical crime you think might happen, then what am I supposed to do?  You know, a priori, for sure, who the terrorists are (somehow – maybe God’s speaking to you) and you expect the law to catch up to your wisdom, insight and righteousness - your prescience - or slap you on the wrist if you made a little mistake in my case?

You start with a given.  Person X is a terrorist.  That, for you, is not at all an accusation, which may then be determined to be justified, or not, through adjudication.  For you that is a fact.  Hearings, evidence and all that other stuff – and maybe even a trial - are mere fluff?  You know what you know.

John, John, John… you don’t understand the term “accusation” do you?  This is a conceptual problem.  For you, accusation is the same as certain guilt.  No difference.  Just where did you go to law school?

Oh yeah – first you went to Yale, just like Bush and Kerry.  Yale University, where you graduated with honors in 1964.  And your JD was from the University of Chicago in 1967.  Geez.  Didn’t you take notes?