These two articles, one, an address by Attorney General John Ashcroft to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and the other, an article written by David Cole that appeared on the Amnesty International web site, deal with the ethics and Constitutionality of the United Stated Patriot Act. David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, argues that the Patriot Act violates citizen’s civil rights and unfairly imprisons innocent individuals. Attorney General John Ashcroft counters that the Patriot Act is justified as a preventive measure to aid in the war on terrorism. Differences in Facts/Interpretation of Facts Both authors try to put an exact number on the number of individuals that have been detained sine the inception of the Patriot Act to suit their respective arguments. David Cole states that the Justice Department had the number at 1, 147 less than two months into the Justice Department’s investigation. The Justice Department, according to Cole, reportedly “responded by simply stopping its practice of announcing the running tally” (p 3) due to “mounting criticism over the scope of the roundup.” (p 3) Attorney General John Ashcroft gives a substantially lower number of individuals.
In three month’s time, he states that 60 individuals had been placed into federal custody, and that 563 have been detained due to immigration violations. (p 17) Attorney General John Ashcroft states that the Patriot Act is Constitutionally sound, and that he and the Justice Department work closely with Congress and brief them with any developments that come as a result of the Patriot Act. David Cole counters that the detainees are denied their Constitutional right to due process, are held with no contact with legal counsel, and that their hearing are held in secret with no legal observers, press, or family allowed to be in attendance. (p 5) Differences in Values The arguments made by both parties clearly define their respective beliefs and loyalties.
The Term Paper on Patriot Act – Paper
ENG 122 Elizabeth Myers June 6, 2011 The PATRIOT Act Individual Privacy vs. National Security has become a hot topic since Osama bin Laden orchestrated the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001 where over 3,000 Americans lost their lives in a senseless act of terrorism. On May 2, 2011, almost 10 years after the September 11th assault on America, the United States hit a historic milestone with ...
Attorney General John Ashcroft states in no uncertain terms that his office requires him to “exercise these core executive powers the Constitution so designates” (p 37).
He would like us to believe that the Patriot Act is justified because it will save the lives of Americans, and that his primary concern (s) are to God and Country. David Cole is quite a contrast to Ashcroft’s nationalistic views and actions, seemingly more concerned with the civil liberties of the individuals the Patriot Act has targeted and detained. It seems as if Attorney General John Ashcroft has made an exception to certain due process procedures due to our current wartime environment, and has in effect unilaterally condemned all those individuals whether the United State’s suspicions have been confirmed or not. Differences in Definitions/Analogies David Cole uses the example of the “Palmer Raids” of 1919 (p 1) in an attempt to draw a parallel between J. Edgar Hoover’s then detention of thousands of immigrants from across the country based solely on their political associations, (p 1) and Attorney General John Ashcroft’s detention of immigrants as a result of the United States Patriot Act.
David Cole would have us believe that the past actions of J. Edgar Hoover were unjust, and that they played a pivotal role in America’s first “Red Scare” (p 1) Attorney General John Ashcroft uses very patriotic language, stating that his duty to the United states compels him to take whatever measures he can to aid in the war against terrorism, and that his loyalty is to his country and to his President. David Cole uses the examples of two men, Ali Maqtari (9) and Osama El far (p 10), who were seemingly detained for no other reason than suspicion on the part of the United States government. He goes on to state that many of the detained are held with no charges for several weeks. Attorney General John Ashcroft states that the Patriot Act’s efforts “have been carefully crafted to avoid infringing on Constitutional rights while saving American lives” (p 30).
The Essay on State Vs John Scopes The Monkey Trial
Evolution and State Science is one of the most important fields of study in our society. People also make religion an important part of our lives. So who decides which one is really right when they contradict each other? In the State vs. John Scopes trial, or "The Monkey Trial", the state of Tennessee made their own laws based on the thoughts of the people with power. Tennessee had an anti- ...
Attorney General John Ashcroft’s use of words like “fear mongering” (p 29) and referring to the opposition’s charges as “phantoms of lost liberty” (p 29) shows that clearly believes that the Patriot Act’s flaws, whether conceived or not, serve the greater good that is the security of the United States.
Evaluation I feel that while both authors make persuasive arguments for their respective case (s), that Attorney General John Ashcroft’s primary motivation, the well-being of the United States and its citizens, outweigh David Cole’s fuzzy numbers of the concerns over the civil rights issues of suspected terrorists in this country. While Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to be working on strengthening the country’s defenses against terrorists and aid in the war on terrorism, David Cole appears to be attempting to undermine his efforts by making accusations of unfair due process and illegal detention of individuals. In conclusion, while I do not necessarily agree with the unilateral power Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to be exercising over the country’s investigation (s) into terrorism, I think that he would be neglecting his responsibilities as Attorney General if he did not do everything in his power to ensure the safety of all Americans.
