I'm from Missouri, born and bred, lived here my whole life, it's been where every bit of political activism I've ever done has been. And my growing up years in politics coincide very thoroughly with the era of John Ashcroft, aka "the Deacon:" Missouri state auditor 1972-1974, assistant Missouri attorney general 1974-76, Missouri attorney general 1976-1984, Missouri governor 1984-1992, Missouri US Senator 1994-2000. Those of us here in Missouri, especially those of us at all active in politics, saw an awful lot of "the Deacon" over those 28 years, and we know him well. I can't say that I know the man personally, myself, but I do know a bunch of people who do know him well, people who served with or under or alongside him in his various offices, people who've worked on his various campaigns, people who've worked with him on various charitable projects. And here's the thing that everybody who knows the man personally says about him, even his most determined political enemies: John David Ashcroft is flat-out one of the nicest guys in American politics.
This does not change the fact that his politics are deeply, deeply scary. John Ashcroft earned his nickname "the Deacon" not just because he is (or at least was? not sure if he still is) a deacon in an Assemblies of God church, but because in some ways, that's all he is. It is almost the entirety of his personality. When John Ashcroft uses the phrase "the founding fathers," he doesn't mean guys like Tom Paine and Ben Franklin and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, he means guys like John Winthrop and John Cotton and Roger Williams and John Endecott, people that most Americans have never even heard of -- the Puritan founding fathers, the organizers of the 1620-1640 Puritan Migration that provided North America with its first truly large-scale white population. No, contrary to what he feels obligated to say, Ashcroft's level of commitment to founding US principles like the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights is nominal, at best; this is a man who believes that the only point in there even being a United States of America is to be New Jerusalem, Christianity's global capital, one nation entirely under Jesus Christ. He pays lip service to the idea that nobody should be forced at gunpoint to be a Christian, but he sees absolutely nothing wrong, or even out of the ordinary, about all levels of government tilting the playing field that way as hard as possible. He is the absolute epitomé of the Taliban wing of the Republican Party, an absolutely dangerous man and we are all much safer now that he is retired from public office, hopefully this time for good.
But all of that being said, even people who understand everything about why the man's politics are so scary, those among them who know him personally are without exception huge fans of his friendliness, his personal manners, his personal style, his sincerity, his legendary honesty, and his long reputation for personal kindness. And knowing all of that makes this widely-linked headline over at Daily Kos all the more interersting: Elsinora, "John Ashcroft Yelled at Me Tonight. No Joke," under "State of the Nation," 4/22/08. Capsule summary: on a very liberal college campus, the 6-person Campus Republican club raised enough money from the surrounding town, $15,000, to pay John Ashcroft's speaker's fee to come and address an open meeting of the Campus Republicans. What they couldn't have known when the issued the invitation and he accepted was that he would be appearing only a couple of weeks after ABC News broke the story that John Ashcroft is a war criminal: Jan Crawford Greenburg et al, "Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'," ABC News, 4/9/08. So when he walked onto a very liberal college campus, it is entirely unsurprising that almost all of the questions he faced in the Q&A session after his talk were about torture. And something truly remarkable happened: he lost his temper, completely lost it. And that's something that John Ashcroft is legendary for never doing, certainly never for so long, and absolutely certainly never in public.
Something very weird is going on here. And if John Ashcroft remembers his time as a prosecutor, and reflects honestly on how his own behavior resembles that of suspects he's held in custody before he rose to the top, even he must recognize something about himself: if any of the co-conspirators is going to crack, going to confess and testify against the others, it's him. He is clearly losing it. So I'm hoping that those of us who'd like to see almost the entire top ranks of the Bush administration brought up on charges somewhere, ideally at Nuremberg or The Hague but at the very least in front of a US federal court, on war crimes and crimes against humanity charges, not just liberal activists but some very serious and non-partisan constitutional scholars, I'm hoping that we manage to keep the pressure on him about this. He is, after all, the one who is also reported, in the same news coverage, to have been the only conspirator to express moral qualms about this at the time. And now he's the one who's acting out, emotionally, in ways he's never done before. Any police interrogator, any prosecutor, would tell you what that means: for now, stop questioning the rest of them; lean on him, because he's the one who's about to crack. And if he cracks, it'll blow the whole case wide open.
This does not change the fact that his politics are deeply, deeply scary. John Ashcroft earned his nickname "the Deacon" not just because he is (or at least was? not sure if he still is) a deacon in an Assemblies of God church, but because in some ways, that's all he is. It is almost the entirety of his personality. When John Ashcroft uses the phrase "the founding fathers," he doesn't mean guys like Tom Paine and Ben Franklin and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, he means guys like John Winthrop and John Cotton and Roger Williams and John Endecott, people that most Americans have never even heard of -- the Puritan founding fathers, the organizers of the 1620-1640 Puritan Migration that provided North America with its first truly large-scale white population. No, contrary to what he feels obligated to say, Ashcroft's level of commitment to founding US principles like the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights is nominal, at best; this is a man who believes that the only point in there even being a United States of America is to be New Jerusalem, Christianity's global capital, one nation entirely under Jesus Christ. He pays lip service to the idea that nobody should be forced at gunpoint to be a Christian, but he sees absolutely nothing wrong, or even out of the ordinary, about all levels of government tilting the playing field that way as hard as possible. He is the absolute epitomé of the Taliban wing of the Republican Party, an absolutely dangerous man and we are all much safer now that he is retired from public office, hopefully this time for good.
But all of that being said, even people who understand everything about why the man's politics are so scary, those among them who know him personally are without exception huge fans of his friendliness, his personal manners, his personal style, his sincerity, his legendary honesty, and his long reputation for personal kindness. And knowing all of that makes this widely-linked headline over at Daily Kos all the more interersting: Elsinora, "John Ashcroft Yelled at Me Tonight. No Joke," under "State of the Nation," 4/22/08. Capsule summary: on a very liberal college campus, the 6-person Campus Republican club raised enough money from the surrounding town, $15,000, to pay John Ashcroft's speaker's fee to come and address an open meeting of the Campus Republicans. What they couldn't have known when the issued the invitation and he accepted was that he would be appearing only a couple of weeks after ABC News broke the story that John Ashcroft is a war criminal: Jan Crawford Greenburg et al, "Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'," ABC News, 4/9/08. So when he walked onto a very liberal college campus, it is entirely unsurprising that almost all of the questions he faced in the Q&A session after his talk were about torture. And something truly remarkable happened: he lost his temper, completely lost it. And that's something that John Ashcroft is legendary for never doing, certainly never for so long, and absolutely certainly never in public.
Something very weird is going on here. And if John Ashcroft remembers his time as a prosecutor, and reflects honestly on how his own behavior resembles that of suspects he's held in custody before he rose to the top, even he must recognize something about himself: if any of the co-conspirators is going to crack, going to confess and testify against the others, it's him. He is clearly losing it. So I'm hoping that those of us who'd like to see almost the entire top ranks of the Bush administration brought up on charges somewhere, ideally at Nuremberg or The Hague but at the very least in front of a US federal court, on war crimes and crimes against humanity charges, not just liberal activists but some very serious and non-partisan constitutional scholars, I'm hoping that we manage to keep the pressure on him about this. He is, after all, the one who is also reported, in the same news coverage, to have been the only conspirator to express moral qualms about this at the time. And now he's the one who's acting out, emotionally, in ways he's never done before. Any police interrogator, any prosecutor, would tell you what that means: for now, stop questioning the rest of them; lean on him, because he's the one who's about to crack. And if he cracks, it'll blow the whole case wide open.
- Mood:
okay


Comments
I see a meltdown, or things that were never meant to be revealed spoken in a court.
Or will the fear of that result in his being involved in an 'accident'?
He should probably avoid flying - the administration might decide to "Wellstone" him.
No nation victorious in war has ever been charged with a war crime. And while it's a cold laugh in hell to call what the U.S. is doing to Iraq "victory," the U.S. can at least walk away from it.
That aside, I'd settle for a thorough and absolute discrediting of the religious / neocon wing of the right, so this is still good news.
"Oh, Mr. Ashcroft, you're so brave! I pray each night that God will give you the strength to stand for the truth. Oh, here, I baked you these snickerdoodles, they're my grandsons' favorites..."
His office staff was decent, but he himself, no i'm sorry he was a creep. You can call me a liar, and i can call shenanigins, but i was within 6 feet of him routinely for 1 1/2 years.
... but i never shorted his office in all that time, he may be a creep but i got standards ;)
The only thing standing between that story and jail sentences for those involved is one prosecutor, and one inside witness willing to testify under oath. As to whether it's true or not, that is literally no longer in question.
- At literally the highest levels of government, decisions were made to authorize "enhanced interrogation techniques" that included waterboarding. This is not in dispute.
It may be argued (as Brad suggests) that there was in fact active attempts to insure this information was not released to the general public. I think it would be fair to call that a conspiracy, but frankly that's all beside the point at the moment.
- Despite attempts to lawyer around the subject, waterboarding is unquestionably torture, and the authorization of such torture is illegal and is quite explicitly proscribed in multiple treaties signed by the USA, which according to the Constitution are by definition the law of the land.
- The conspiracy in question being perpetuated by the administration is one of denial. They deny that they are bound by the laws in question (all evidence contrary in fact, to the point of basically saying "it's legal because we say it is"), and they deny that waterboarding is torture. This is not (any longer) a secret conspiracy: it is right out in the open. It relies on all the principals involved sticking to their stories, maintaining their denials.
- If one of the principals breaks with the others, and admits that waterboarding is torture, and admits that yes, the law of the land was broken and yes, what was authorized by is can be defined as a war crime, then the spell is broken, and the door to charges being laid is opened.
That as I understand it is the conspiracy that Brad is hoping Ashcroft will betray, that his moral nature will require him to face and expose.
Regardless of what semantic games are played here to try and redefine "torture", regardless of what legal tricks are played to define these 'detainees' in a way that gives them no legal rights, regardless of what crimes those being questioned may or may not have committed, these people okayed and instructed agents of our government to torture people.
It's morally wrong. It's illegal. It is not unreasonable that these people be called to account. It is not unreasonable that they be charged with the crime that they already admit they committed.
If you find flaw in this argument, I invite you to show it.
Columbia Encyclopedia: "conspiracy, in law, agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal or otherwise unlawful act. At common law, the crime of conspiracy was committed with the making of the agreement, but present-day statutes require an overt step by a conspirator to further the conspiracy."
(And actually, in terms of moderator status, you're moving back in the safer direction, now: you're engaging the topic in a meaningful manner, without attacking the people you disagree with or otherwise trying to be disruptive or dismissive. Is the difference really so hard for you to understand?)
The only question that has remained, as in the free-fire zones of My Lai, is who were the actual torturers, and from how far up did the orders come? ABC News' unnamed sources insist that the orders came from the Principals Group, from a group of people lead by Dick Cheney. But so far, nobody has been fingered who will testify under oath to this. If they do, then there will be no remaining question, legal or political; contrary to what you may think, the law on this is entirely clear and unambiguous.
Bybee, Yoo, and Gonzales are all documented giving their sought-after opinions on things like child-testicle crushing and pronouncing the Geneva conventions "quaint." So, why is it "legislating from the bench" when the Judicial branch does their job and interprets the law, but it's suddenly "very technical issues . . . uncharted territory" when the Executive branch does it? There's a whiff of apologism in your posts, sir, and giving wider latitude to those who do not deserve it.
On the other hand, I'm glad you're not a torture apologist. Listening to people defend that nearly makes me ill. And very, very angry.