september 2004

In another move towards federal tyranny, the Attorney General John Ashcroft has ordered the American Library Association to destroy all copies of the federal laws on asset forfeiture and to deny access to those laws to the general public.

The unprecedented move, in which US citizens would be unable to read or know the text of the laws they are expected to obey, was another stage in the growing power of President George W Bush.

The American Library Association has refused the request of the "Justice" Department to destroy copies of the law, and made the following statement:

Statement regarding DOJ request for removal of government publications by depository libraries

The following statement has been issued by President-Elect Michael Gorman, representing President Carol Brey-Casiano, who is currently in Guatemala representing the Association:

July 30, 2004

Statement from ALA President-Elect Michael Gorman:

Last week, the American Library Association learned that the Department of Justice asked the Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents to instruct depository libraries to destroy five publications the Department has deemed not "appropriate for external use." The Department of Justice has called for these five these public documents, two of which are texts of federal statutes, to be removed from depository libraries and destroyed, making their content available only to those with access to a law office or law library.

The topics addressed in the named documents include information on how citizens can retrieve items that may have been confiscated by the government during an investigation.

The documents to be removed and destroyed include: Civil and Criminal Forfeiture Procedure; Select Criminal Forfeiture Forms; Select Federal Asset Forfeiture Statutes; Asset forfeiture and money laundering resource directory; and Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA).

ALA has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the withdrawn materials in order to obtain an official response from the Department of Justice regarding this unusual action, and why the Department has requested that documents that have been available to the public for as long as four years be removed from depository library collections. ALA is committed to ensuring that public documents remain available to the public and will do its best to bring about a satisfactory resolution of this matter.

Librarians should note that, according to policy 72, written authorization from the Superintendent of Documents is required to remove any documents. To this date no such written authorization in hard copy has been issued.

Keith Michael Fiels
Executive Director
American Library Association
(800) 545-2433 ext.1392

LEGAL MATERIAL
Padilla Redux

U.S.'s Ashcroft Won't Release or Discuss Torture Memo (Update1)
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aynk7_r_cQik&refer=us

June 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, warned that he might be risking a contempt citation from Congress, told lawmakers he won't release or discuss memoranda that news reports say offered justification for torturing suspected terrorists.
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Ashcroft about reports in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the New York Times that the Justice Department advised the White House in 2002 and 2003 that it might not be bound by U.S. and international laws prohibiting torture. Ashcroft said he wouldn't reveal confidential advice he gave to President George W. Bush or discuss it with Congress.
``This administration rejects torture,'' Ashcroft said as he refused to answer whether he personally believes torture can be justified under certain circumstances. Bush ``has not directed or ordered any conduct that would violate the Constitution of the United States,'' any U.S. laws or any international treaties, Ashcroft said.

The Washington Post, citing a Justice Department memo, said government lawyers told the White House in August 2002 that torturing captured al-Qaeda members abroad may be justified in the war on terrorism.
Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, challenged Ashcroft to say whether he was invoking executive privilege in refusing to give Congress the Justice Department memos. Ashcroft said he wasn't invoking executive privilege.

``You might be in contempt of Congress, then,'' Biden replied. ``You have to have a reason. You better come up with a good rationale.''

Prison Photographs
Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, held up copies of some of the photographs that have been released that depict abuses against inmates at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. Seven U.S. military police soldiers have been charged in the abuses.
``This is what directly results when you have that kind of memoranda out there,'' Kennedy said.

Ashcroft disagreed. ``The kind of atrocities'' depicted in the photographs ``are being prosecuted by this administration,'' he said. ``They are being investigated by this administration. They are rejected by this administration.''He also challenged the lawmakers on whether their questions were appropriate. ``We are at war,'' Ashcroft said. ``And for us to begin to discuss all the legal ramifications of the war is not in our best interest, and it has never been in times of war.''
larnold4@bloomberg.net

Arbitrary Imprisonment:
a Symbol of Tyranny
By MIKE WHITNEY©August 6, 2004
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08062004.html

  "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive."
  Judge Antonin Scalia

  The results of the Padilla case pose "a unique and unprecedented threat to the freedom of every American citizen... At stake is nothing less than the essence of a free society... For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."
  Judge John Paul Stevens

By refusing to hear the Padilla case the Supreme Court condemned an innocent man to continued incarceration without any opportunity to challenge the terms of his detention. Their refusal serves as a de facto guilty verdict and overturns the long held principle of "guilty until proven innocent."
Additionally, their ruling reinforces the muddled position of the Bush Administration that prisoners in the apocryphal war on terror can be dispatched as "unlawful combatants"; the spurious rhetoric that is without any legal meaning.

Months earlier, the 2nd Court of Appeals dismissed the nonsensical category that was invented by the Bush Administration and ruled that Padilla be released immediately. That ruling was ignored by the Administration, and the case made its way to the High Court. Now the "felonious five" have again paid homage to the executive by refusing to try the case on its merits. Instead, they have returned the case to the lower court for review without even addressing the fact that Padilla has been deprived of all due process rights.

Their response can only be construed as a complete victory for the administration who (although they could not get the court to openly overturn the Constitution) achieved the very same result; "imprisonment into perpetuity" without any way of disputing his internment. It is impossible to overstate the significance of the Padilla case. By any objective standard, it is the most important case in the history of the court. This is no exaggeration.

Significance:

What makes it so extraordinary is that, in its essence, it does not merely deal with "what rights citizens have" or "what the parameters of those rights are" but, "whether or not citizens have rights at all."

Remember, Padilla has not been deprived of particular rights ...He has been stripped of ALL his rights. As yet, he hasn't even been charged with a crime; just the periodic and prejudicial allegations from a Justice Dept that has worked tirelessly to demagogue the case.

Bush is making the untenable claim that he may dispose of all constitutional protections and imprison suspects indefinitely ENTIRELY AT HIS OWN DESCRETION. If this is so, then "inalienable rights" are nothing more than provisional gifts of the state which can be removed at the pleasure of the President.

This, in fact, is the president's view on the matter. It is a perspective that is openly shared by the majority of the court who have endorsed this position by default.

Their message is quite clear; THEY WILL NOT DEFEND EVEN THE MOST BASIC TENANTS OF THE CONSTITUTION, but will defer to the executive as the sole arbiter of justice.

We are no longer a nation of laws; the Padilla case proves that convincingly.

There were warnings of this earlier in the Court's history. This same court refused to instruct Vice President Cheney to release the Energy Task Force papers to the public. These documents certainly would have shed light on the manipulation of energy markets in California, as well as, exposing the 60 oil companies who colluded with Cheney in dividing up Iraq's oilfields and, ultimately, leading the country to war. The content of these papers is clearly in the public interest and the Court's refusal to force their exposure demonstrates the depth of their venality.

Similarly, but more spectacularly, this is the same court that subverted the democratic process by applying a cynical reading of the 14th Amendment to overturn the 2000 election. By invoking the "equal protection" clause to suspend the counting of votes in Florida, the court established its partisan bone fides and savaged the foundational principle of democratic government.(the right to have one's vote counted)

In this regard, the Padilla case just finishes the work that began long ago; dismantling the institutions of self-government. By eviscerating the safeguards that protect the citizen from the vagaries of the state, the court only adds to its litany of dubious triumphs.

"Arbitrary imprisonment" remains the enduring symbol of tyranny. (Apologies to Alexander Hamilton)

Justice will not be restored until the five occupants of the present court are duly impeached and removed from the bench.

Mike Whitney can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

Thanks to Jennifer Van Bergen's Counterpunch article "The Death of the Great Writ of Liberty" for the Scalia quote Thanks, also, to Marc Norton's Counterpunch article "The Supreme Court and Enemy Combatants" for Steven's quote

Summary and how the justices voted

- Padilla vs. Rumsfeld, Case No. 03-1027, holding that Jose Padilla should have filed his appeal in federal court in Charleston, S.C., because he is being held at a Navy brig there, rather than in New York. The ruling overturns a lower court's finding of proper jurisdiction and unlawful detention.

Majority: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas. Kennedy filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by O'Connor.

Dissent: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.