I happened to catch some of the confirmation hearings on CSPAN last night. Of particular interest was John Ashcroft's responses to Dianne Feinstein's, (D-Calif.) questions. Basically Ashcroft stated that both Brady and the assault weapon bill are constitutional and that he supported their continuance. He said something to the effect that "We need to move forward on these issues". He also mentioned that he favored closing the "gun show loophole" (A view shared by Republican sellouts). On both 1st and 4th amendment issues, John Ashcroft has one of the worst records on Capital Hill. Ashcroft sponsored the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act" would have criminalized certain drug- and drug policy- related discussions on the Internet, and would have allowed police to conduct secret searches of homes, with the residents never being informed before or after that the police were there. It is my opinion that Yale grad Ashcraft is a phony conservative (aside from the abortion issue) and phony constitutionalist. Please visit http://www.StopJohnAshcroft.org today and help stop the appointment of John Ashcroft as Attorney General -- or, just call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121, twice, have them transfer you to each of your two Senators in turn, and urge they vote "no" on the Ashcroft appointment. Regards, Matt- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/ **************************************************************************
More on Ashcroft's tech record: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=ashcroft But I wonder who really believes Ashcroft is being absolutely genuine in his responses to Feinstein? -Declan On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:55:10AM -0500, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
I happened to catch some of the confirmation hearings on CSPAN last night. Of particular interest was John Ashcroft's responses to Dianne Feinstein's, (D-Calif.) questions. Basically Ashcroft stated that both Brady and the assault weapon bill are constitutional and that he supported their continuance. He said something to the effect that "We need to move forward on these issues". He also mentioned that he favored closing the "gun show loophole" (A view shared by Republican sellouts).
On both 1st and 4th amendment issues, John Ashcroft has one of the worst records on Capital Hill. Ashcroft sponsored the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act" would have criminalized certain drug- and drug policy- related discussions on the Internet, and would have allowed police to conduct secret searches of homes, with the residents never being informed before or after that the police were there.
It is my opinion that Yale grad Ashcraft is a phony conservative (aside from the abortion issue) and phony constitutionalist.
Please visit http://www.StopJohnAshcroft.org today and help stop the appointment of John Ashcroft as Attorney General -- or, just call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121, twice, have them transfer you to each of your two Senators in turn, and urge they vote "no" on the Ashcroft appointment.
Regards, Matt-
************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/ **************************************************************************
1. Cops and Robbers: Exposés Find Ashcroft Encouraged Constitutional Violations in Missouri Asset Forfeiture Cases, Police Agencies Kept Funds Intended for Schools http://www.drcnet.org/wol/169.html#copsrobbers An article by investigative journalist Dan Forbes, released yesterday evening by the Progressive Review (http://www.prorev.org), has confirmed something that drug war observers had strongly suspected: John Ashcroft, as Missouri Governor, agreed to "look the other why" while state police federalized asset forfeitures in order to keep money seized in their agencies -- violating a Missouri constitutional requirement that forfeiture funds instead go to the state's school system. If this information receives the attention it merits, it will raise serious questions about the AG nominee's willingness to obey the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Information provided in recent weeks by DRCNet made the case that legislation sponsored by John Ashcroft as Senator showed a disregard for the 1st and 4th amendments to the bill of rights of the US Constitution (http://www.stopjohnashcroft.org). Now, hard evidence exists showing a disregard for the Missouri state constitution as well, in Ashcroft's actual practice as the state's chief executive. Strongly suggestive evidence of the same was also presented, earlier the same day, by syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington. Asset forfeiture reform is an issue that has recently received bipartisan attention. Legislation championed by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) to curb some excesses of federal asset forfeiture law was passed by an overwhelming margin in the House of Representatives, and unanimously in the Senate, last year. The issue is drawing increased scrutiny in state governments as well; for example, forfeiture was a major topic at a recent conference of southern state legislators, with action promised by some attendees (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/161.html#southernforfeiture). Some states have specifically addressed the issue of forfeiture federalizations. A ballot initiative passed by Utah voters this November diverts asset forfeiture proceeds into education, a similar initiative in Oregon into drug treatment. The Missouri Constitution requires that asset forfeiture funds be transferred to the school system. In Utah and Oregon, a court hearing would be required before any funds are transferred to the federal government, and would mandate that any funds returned would be used as specified in the initiatives. More than spending choices lies at the heart of such requirements. One of the harms of asset forfeiture is the distortion of law enforcement priorities and standards -- police agencies will sometimes choose cases that promise a lucrative forfeiture take over other cases with greater bearing on public safety -- and the lure of forfeited drug money provides an incentive to take shortcuts with suspects' Constitutional rights. Requiring that forfeited funds go to budgetary areas other than law enforcement is intended to reduce those risks. In order to circumvent state laws imposing such requirements, however, police agencies will often turn forfeiture cases over to the federal government, which in turn will return most of the money back to the state or local police, rather than to the places the state legislatures intended. This is what happened in Missouri -- where a provision of the state's Constitution, affirmed by the courts and the legislature, directs that forfeiture proceeds go to the schools instead. The aiding and abetting, by a top state official and the US Department of Justice, of a constitutional violation by that state's police agencies to keep money that lawfully should have gone to the state's schools, could well be seen as having bearing on that official's suitability to head the Department of Justice. Read Dan Forbes' detailed expose at http://www.prorev.com -- and Arianna Huffington's column at http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/011801.html -- and decide for yourself.
I agree with the below. But it is mistaken to treat civil asset forfeiture as an issue marked by broad bipartisan condemnation. Quite the opposite is true; hence, we still have it. -Declan On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:14:46PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
1. Cops and Robbers: Exposis Find Ashcroft Encouraged Constitutional Violations in Missouri Asset Forfeiture Cases, Police Agencies Kept Funds Intended for Schools http://www.drcnet.org/wol/169.html#copsrobbers
An article by investigative journalist Dan Forbes, released yesterday evening by the Progressive Review (http://www.prorev.org), has confirmed something that drug war observers had strongly suspected: John Ashcroft, as Missouri Governor, agreed to "look the other why" while state police
Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> wrote
But I wonder who really believes Ashcroft is being absolutely genuine in his responses to Feinstein?
In the last election in Texas when G.W. Bush was running for governor he was accused by his opponent of only using the governvorship of Texas as a base to run for the presidency of the US. He promised to serve a full term. If the boss doesn't live up to promises why should the troops?? Virtually Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbn.bc.ca "The Physical Layer Experts" http://www.fbn.bc.ca/cable1.html
-- At 11:55 PM 1/19/2001 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I agree with the below. But it is mistaken to treat civil asset forfeiture as an issue marked by broad bipartisan condemnation. Quite the opposite is true; hence, we still have it.
The capacity of police and bureaucrats to rob and kill does not depend on approval by judges and legislators. Rather, the capability of judges and legislators to remain alive frequently depends on the good will of police and bureaucrats. The legislature is in the same situation as a lion tamer. If the lion tamer's whip should by some accident actually hit one of the lions, he would very likely be devoured. I would argue that the the police did not start confiscating drugs because the legislature criminalized possession. Rather, the legislature criminalized possession because drugs were small lightweight high value objects that were commonly in the possession of businessmen with little influence, and were thus frequently confiscated, much as the liontamer incorporates the spontaneous propensities of lions into his act, to make it appear they are doing things at his command. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Inht5xskswIPxL9at9+l43p8TzImO2r00/ohsfH2 4AXEsOjneNq4Ef6yHyR2BsqkfJa/0wsEFc10UTIct
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 01:06:43AM -0800, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:
Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> wrote
But I wonder who really believes Ashcroft is being absolutely genuine in his responses to Feinstein?
In the last election in Texas when G.W. Bush was running for governor he was accused by his opponent of only using the governvorship of Texas as a base to run for the presidency of the US. He promised to serve a full term.
So did Clinton. -Declan
participants (5)
-
Declan McCullagh
-
Harmon Seaver
-
James A. Donald
-
Matthew Gaylor
-
Raymond D. Mereniuk