[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 158 (Thursday, November 15, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2100-E2102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL LIBERTIES ISSUES

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 15, 2001

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am growing increasingly concerned about a 
series of recent actions taken by the Bush Administration

[[Page E2101]]

which raise important constitutional and civil liberties issues. Many 
of these concerns are set forth in the attached letter I forwarded 
yesterday to Chairman Sensenbrenner requesting that the Judiciary 
Committee hold hearings on these matters, as well as an excellent 
editorial written today by William Safire of the New York Times.
  I am also attaching a copy of a letter I wrote last January detailing 
my opposition to the nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General. 
The Attorney General's recent actions threatening our civil liberties 
only reinforces the concerns mentioned in this letter. I also question 
the timing and need for the Attorney General's recent actions 
undermining Oregon's assisted suicide law and California's medical 
marijuana laws. Both of these actions raise very serious federalism 
issues (since they seek to overturn state enacted referendum) and 
separation of powers issues (since the authorities were each the 
subject of failed legislation in recent congresses).

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, Jan. 31, 2001.
       Dear Democratic Senator: I am writing to inform you that as 
     the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and the 
     Senior Member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am 
     unalterably opposed to John Ashcroft's nomination to be 
     Attorney General of the United States.
       I have reached this decision with much regret and great 
     consternation. In my 36 years in Congress, I have never 
     before publicly opposed a nominee for Attorney General. 
     However, in the present case, my reservations about Senator 
     Ashcroft's ability and inclination to support and uphold the 
     law in such critical areas as civil rights, reproductive 
     choice, and gun safety are so grave, and his pattern of 
     misleading and disingenuous responses at his confirmation 
     hearing so serious, that I believe it is in the national 
     interest that his nomination be withdrawn, or be rejected by 
     the Senate. I am also concerned that Senator Ashcroft's 
     personal lack of responsiveness to me foreshadows a pattern 
     of conscious avoidance or, at best, benign neglect, of me and 
     my Democratic colleagues in the House.
       I have several specific concerns in the area of civil 
     rights. First, I am troubled by the fact that notwithstanding 
     Senator Ashcroft's general statements about support for civil 
     rights enforcement, he declined to state specific agreement 
     with the Department's positions in a host of civil rights 
     cases, including its support of the University of Michigan's 
     affirmative action program, a position that was recently 
     ratified by a federal court. Also, with regard to equal 
     rights in the area of education, I am dismayed that Senator 
     Ashcroft has taken public positions opposing voluntary school 
     desegregation. Unfortunately, Senator Ashcroft's testimony at 
     his confirmation hearing with regard to this matter only 
     served to compound my reservations. For example, he asserted, 
     in response to written questions from Senator Kennedy, that 
     the state had ``done nothing wrong'' and was ``found guilty 
     of no wrong'' in the Missouri desegregation cases. However, 
     there were two separate federal courts of appeal decisions 
     and numerous district court decisions holding the state 
     expressly responsible for the unconstitutional discrimination 
     that occurred.
       Similarly, I remain profoundly disappointed in the manner 
     by which Senator Ashcroft thwarted Judge Ronnie White's 
     nomination to be a federal district court judge, the first 
     African American justice ever to serve on the Missouri 
     Supreme Court. As I have previously written to him, I believe 
     Senator Ashcroft grossly mischaracterized and distorted a 
     good man's record in this case. Senator Ashcroft's 
     unwillingness at his confirmation hearing to acknowledge or 
     express a scintilla of regret for the manner in which he 
     orchestrated Judge White's defeat can hardly be seen as a 
     promising omen to those of us in the African American 
     community who have worked so hard to integrate the federal 
     judiciary.
       I also believe Senator Ashcroft has not been forthright in 
     describing the reasons for his opposition to the nomination 
     of James Hormel to become the ambassador to Luxembourg. When 
     Senator Leahy asked the nominee to explain the reasons for 
     his opposition to Hormel, he referred, without elaboration, 
     to the ``totality of [Hormel's] record.'' When Senator Leahy 
     again asked Senator Ashcroft in a written question to 
     ``specify the factors that led you to oppose [Hormel],'' he 
     failed to do so, stating merely that his opposition was based 
     ``on the totality of Mr. Hormel's record of public positions 
     and advocacy.'' To this day, Senator Ashcroft has failed to 
     provide a single specific reason for opposing Hormel other 
     than his sexual orientation.
       The cause of civil rights for all Americans also has not 
     been well-served by Senator Ashcroft's granting an interview 
     with Southern Partisan and then implying that slavery was 
     something other than a ``perverted agenda.'' I also cannot 
     accept his explanation at his hearing that he was unaware of 
     the magazine's extreme and racist positions when he granted 
     the interview.
       (It is especially implausible given Senator Ashcroft's 
     explicit endorsement of the Journal's agenda when he said 
     that it ``helps set the record straight''--this from a 
     journal that has published articles arguing that slavery was 
     beneficial for black families.)
       Second, given Senator Ashcroft's past record and statements 
     at the hearings, I do not find his apparent acknowledgment of 
     a woman's constitutional right to an abortion as settled law 
     under Roe and Casey as being at all credible. I say this 
     because in 42 out of 43 Senate votes concerning reproductive 
     rights, he cast a vote aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade. In 
     addition, in his written answers to a question from Senator 
     Kennedy, the nominee replied that he would defend federal 
     legislation outlawing so-called partial-birth abortion, even 
     though the Supreme Court has already declared 
     unconstitutional virtually identical legislation under those 
     very cases. Also, when Senator Leahy asked Senator Ashcroft 
     to justify his sponsorship of the Human Life Act of 1998, he 
     responded that ``[a]s introduced, [the legislation] is not 
     constitutional under Roe and Casey.'' If Senator Ashcroft is 
     willing to introduce admittedly unconstitutional legislation 
     in Congress, notwithstanding his oath, his assurances provide 
     little comfort that he will not defend blatantly 
     unconstitutional policies or legislation designed to 
     undermine this settled law as Attorney General.
       Thirdly, with regard to Senator Aschcroft's record of 
     opposition to gun control legislation, I remain unconvinced 
     that he is the appropriate person to uphold and enforce our 
     nation's firearms laws. I find little solace in the fact that 
     in response to Senator Schumer's question as to whether he 
     supports the Brady law, Senator Aschcroft merely stated that 
     ``[t]he President has indicated that he supports this law, 
     and I support his position on this matter.'' Such a weak 
     answer is particularly troubling in light of Senator 
     Ashcroft's written response to Senator Leahy, in which he 
     acknowledged his disagreement with ``some of the policy 
     prescriptions that Mr. [Jim] Brady has advocated''; Senator 
     Ashcroft's past wholehearted embrace of an extreme view of 
     the Second Amendment; his active support for legislation in 
     Missouri that would allow individuals to carry concealed 
     weapons; and his unwillingness to commit to relinquish his 
     membership in the NRA, which has sought to undermine almost 
     every federal gun safety law that is on the books, in advance 
     of his confirmation.
       Finally, I am severely disappointed by the fact that 
     Senator Ashcroft failed to meet with me or respond to any of 
     my written questions to him, despite his personal request to 
     me that I refrain from taking a position on his nomination 
     until we met. This is problematic to me because in addition 
     to delaying my taking a position on the very important matter 
     of Senator Ascroft's nomination, I do not believe he has been 
     forthright in explaining why he has failed to respond to my 
     questions. (For example, in Senator Ashcroft's written 
     response to a question from Senator Carl Levin asking whether 
     the nominee had answered my letter, Senator Ashcroft wrote 
     that my letter, ``though written on January 12, was only 
     received by me on January 17.'' I do not understand how this 
     could be. To ensure that he would receive my letter 
     immediately, my staff contacted the Bush-Cheney Transition 
     Office, informed a transition official there that my letter 
     to Senator Ashcroft was forthcoming, and was instructed to 
     fax the letter to a telephone number reserved for facsimile 
     communications from Members of Congress. We have confirmation 
     that the fax was received at 4:02 p.m. on January 12, one 
     week before the conclusion of Senator Ashcroft's confirmation 
     hearing and before he received any written questions from the 
     Senate. Even though his responses to the questions from the 
     Senate were filed last Friday, January 26, I still have yet 
     to receive any response from Senator Ashcroft, 
     notwithstanding the fact that he wrote to Senator Levin that 
     it was his intent to turn to the questions posed by me 
     following the submission of his written answers tot he 
     Senators.)
       In sum, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that 
     Senator Ashcroft is the wrong man for the job at the wrong 
     time. When our nation urgently needs an Attorney General who 
     can bring us all together, we have been offered a person 
     known for extreme right wing positions and divisiveness. I 
     have spent my entire career fighting for the cause of civil 
     rights, reproductive choice, and common sense crime and gun 
     safety laws. In my view, Senator Ashcroft's record is simply 
     too inconsistent with these goals to justify my support for 
     him.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John Conyers, Jr.
                                                   Ranking Member.

                                  ____
                                  

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 15, 2001]

                       Seizing Dictatorial Power

                          (By William Safire)

       Washington.--Misadvised by a frustrated and panic-stricken 
     attorney general, a president of the United States has just 
     assumed what amounts to dictatorial power to jail or execute 
     aliens. Intimidated by terrorists and inflamed by a passion 
     for rough justice, we are letting George W. Bush get away 
     with the replacement of the American rule of law with 
     military kangaroo courts.
       In his infamous emergency order, Bush admits to dismissing 
     ``the principles of law and the rules of evidence'' that 
     undergird America's system of justice. He seizes the power to 
     circumvent the courts and set up his own drumhead tribunals--
     panels of officers who will sit in judgment of non-citizens 
     who the president need only claim ``reason to believe'' are 
     members of terrorist organizations.

[[Page E2102]]

       Not content with his previous decision to permit police to 
     eavesdrop on a suspect's conversations with an attorney, Bush 
     now strips the alien accused of even the limited rights 
     afforded by a court-martial.
       His kangaroo court can conceal evidence by citing national 
     security, make up its own rules, find a defendant guilty even 
     if a third of the officers disagree, and execute the alien 
     with no review by any civilian court.
       No longer does the judicial branch and an independent jury 
     stand between the government and the accused. In lieu of 
     those checks and balances central to our legal system, non-
     citizens face an executive that is now investigator, 
     prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer or executioner. In an 
     Orwellian twist, Bush's order calls this Soviet-style 
     abomination ``a full and fair trial.''
       On what legal meat does this our Caesar feed? One precedent 
     the White House cites is a military court after Lincoln's 
     assassination. (During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended 
     habeas corpus; does our war on terror require illegal 
     imprisonment next?) Another is a military court's hanging, 
     approved by the Supreme court, of German saboteurs landed by 
     submarine in World War II.
       Proponents of Bush's kangaroo court say: Don't you soft-on-
     terror, due-process types know there's a war on? Have you 
     forgotten our 5,000 civilian dead? In an emergency like this, 
     aren't extraordinary security measures needed to save 
     citizens' lives? If we step on a few toes, we can apologize 
     to the civil libertarians later.
       Those are the arguments of the phony-tough. At a time when 
     even liberals are debating the ethics of torture of 
     suspects--weighing the distaste for barbarism against the 
     need to save innocent lives--it's time for conservative 
     iconoclasts and card-carrying hard-liners to stand up for 
     American values.
       To meet a terrorist emergency, of course some rules should 
     be stretched and new laws passed. An ethnic dragnet rounding 
     up visa-skippers or questioning foreign students, if short-
     term, is borderline tolerable. Congress's new law permitting 
     warranted roving wiretaps is understandable.
       But let's get to the target that this blunderbuss order is 
     intended to hit. Here's the big worry in Washington now: What 
     do we do if Osama bin Laden gives himself up? A proper trial 
     like that Israel afforded Adolf Eichmann, it is feared, would 
     give the terrorist a global propaganda platform. Worse, it 
     would be likely to result in widespread hostage-taking by his 
     followers to protect him from the punishment he deserves,
       The solution is not to corrupt our judicial tradition by 
     making bin Laden the star of a new Star Chamber. The solution 
     is to turn his cave into his crypt. When fleeing Taliban 
     reveal his whereabouts, our bombers should promptly bid him 
     farewell with 15,000-pound daisy-cutters and 5,000-pound 
     rock-penetrators.
       But what if he broadcasts his intent to surrender, and 
     walks toward us under a white flag? It is not in our 
     tradition to shoot prisoners. Rather, President Bush should 
     now set forth a policy of ``universal surrender'': all of Al 
     Qaeda or none. Selective surrender of one or a dozen 
     leaders--which would leave cells in Afghanistan and elsewhere 
     free to fight on--is unacceptable. We should continue our 
     bombardment of bin Laden's hideouts until he agrees to 
     identify and surrender his entire terrorist force.
       If he does, our criminal courts can handle them 
     expeditiously. If, as more likely, the primary terrorist 
     prefers what he thinks of as martyrdom, that suicidal choice 
     would be his--and Americans would have no need of kangaroo 
     courts to betray our principles of justice.

     

                          ____________________