Do tea partiers care about the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments?
Like many civil libertarians, I have been deeply disappointed in President Obama’s insistence on keeping many of the same disturbing, unconstitutional policies that President Bush employed during the so-called war on terror. Those policies include detaining citizens without any charge.
You’d have thought that tea-partiers would express outrage against those policies, since they advertise themselves as restorers of the constitution and advocates of individual liberties or “freedoms.” The Fourth, Firth and Sixth amendments are clear about the rights that citizens have to be free of imprisonment by the state.
In a case about to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Bush administration imprisoned a man, supposedly because he was a “material witness” holding valuable information about the commission of a crime. It wasn’t true and authorities never even interrogated him about any crime. From The NYT editorial page:
It can be hard to distinguish between the Bush administration and the Obama administration when it comes to detainee policy. A case the Supreme Court agreed last week to hear, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, is one of those occasions.
It turns on a principle held sacrosanct since the country’s early days: the government cannot arrest you without evidence that you committed a crime. An exception is the material witness law, which allows the government to keep a witness from fleeing before testifying about an alleged crime by somebody else.These principles were horribly twisted when John Ashcroft was President George W. Bush’s attorney general. The Justice Department held a former college football player in brutal conditions on the pretext that he was a material witness in a case in which he was never called to testify and which fell apart at trial.
The Bush administration’s behavior was disturbing, and so is the Obama administration’s forceful defense of this outrageous practice of using a statute intended for one purpose for something very different. Judge Milan Smith Jr. of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals called it “repugnant to the Constitution.”
The Justice Department arrested Abdullah al-Kidd, known as Lavoni Kidd when he was a star football player at the University of Idaho, at Dulles airport in March 2003 before he boarded a plane to Saudi Arabia, where he was going to work on his doctorate in Islamic studies. For over two weeks, he was treated like an enemy of the state — shackled, held in high-security cells lit 24 hours a day, and sometimes humiliated by strip searches. When Mr. Kidd was released, he was ordered to live with his wife and in-laws, restrict his travels and report to a probation officer. The restrictions lasted 15 months.
The government said Mr. Kidd was a material witness against Sami Omar Hussayen, who was tried for supporting an Islamic group that the government said “sought to recruit others to engage in acts of violence and terrorism.” A jury acquitted Mr. Hussayen on some charges and didn’t reach a verdict on others. Mr. Kidd was not called to testify. Nor was he ever charged with a crime.
Kidd has sued John Ashcroft, who was the attorney general at the time of his detention. Previously, courts have held that the attorney general would be immune from lawsuits. The Obama administration has supported that position. Where is the tea party?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
330 comments Add your comment
Marie
October 25th, 2010
8:39 am
Wow Cynthia how do you tie this case to the Tea Partiers? This is really a wierd column since the Tea Party is a loose grassroot organization and is really not headed by any particular spokesperson. To assume that any one of these grassroot organizations have read this article in the NYT or know all of the particulars of this case is beyond comprehension. It seems that you are just taking a swipe at the Tea Party for no reason other than that you can.
jt
October 25th, 2010
8:39 am
Ron Paul was there before the tea partiers or Obama. And he will remain there after this national nightmare is over.
Unlike the fair-weather “civil libertarians” and other “anti-war” democrats after the annointing of the “one”.
TheTruthHurts
October 25th, 2010
8:41 am
We are gonna find out on Nov. 2 where the tea party is as we vote out all of the corrupt, fake, phony, socialist democrats…YAH BABY>>>HOW YOU LIKE ME NOW!!!!! LOL SUCKERS!!!
T-Town
October 25th, 2010
8:41 am
Enter your comments here
Bob
October 25th, 2010
8:41 am
Cynthia, did the tea party people give us forfeiture laws ? You know what I mean don’t you ? If a black kid is driving down the road on the way to pay his rent and gets pulled over, the policeman sees a wad of cash and puts it in his pocket. If the black kid wants his money back, he has to hire a lawyer and pay money to recover his money. Why did democrats vote for forfeiture laws Cynthia and why don’t you have a problem with it. The obo admin is for tracking people without warrants, by putting a gps on someones car and tracking thier cell phones, but you can whine about the tea party all you want.
TnGelding
October 25th, 2010
8:43 am
Paul will be there, alright. Practicing his profession in KY.
Bob
October 25th, 2010
8:45 am
“hereBefore the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was enacted in 2000, the government only had to establish probable cause that the property was subject to forfeiture; the owner had to prove on a “preponderance of the evidence” that it was not. The new law holds the government to the “preponderance of evidence” standard and shifts the burden of proof to the federal government instead of the property owner.[1] The property owner still need not be found guilty of any crime.
Is this what the tea party are for Cynthia ? The laws were worse before the reform in 2000, but hey, lets blame the tea party.
Charles
October 25th, 2010
8:46 am
WHY are you folks reading Tucker? She’s a boring has been, with the same ole, same ole agenda. Get a life people.
Union
October 25th, 2010
8:46 am
sfd.. just stating the facts.. glad youre proud.. you dont like it.. leave.. i will be glad to help you pack
Rob
October 25th, 2010
8:47 am
“I quote the Constitution when convenient for me.”
dawg
October 25th, 2010
8:48 am
CT: Wait until 11/2 and you’ll see enough of the Tea Party to last a lifetime and Obama’s ONLY term.
Equality 7-2521
October 25th, 2010
8:48 am
After more than a year of attacking and denigrating members of the tea party, CT asks where they are?
They have been too busy fending off your constant attacks of racism, for starters.
Here’s an idea Cynthia. Interview Herman Cain and get some answers from one member of the Tea Party. He’s local. You know who he is.
Or just lean back and keep typing out allegations….
Peadawg
October 25th, 2010
8:48 am
“but hey, lets blame the tea party.”
Atleast she isn’t blaming Bush anymore…that’s a start I guess.
stands for decibels
October 25th, 2010
8:49 am
I actually don’t know what you’re talking about.
ah. sorry, I was merely posing a hypothetical.
I’ve no idea if that was ever an issue for Al Franken v. Norm Coleman in MN in 2008.
For what it’s worth, in CT my inclination would be to allow the always-tasteful-and-in-fashion WWE shirts, if perhaps only to give her something like a sporting chance in this matchup.
(after all, the WWE was always about the integrity of the game, right?)
Pulitzer = Charmin Extra Soft
October 25th, 2010
8:49 am
civil libertarian, aka Social Program Hack. Also, if I am not mistaken, didn’t they just uncover a large Chemical Weapons lab in Iraq. I suppose that it will just be explained away by the Libbies as a candy factory or something.
Rey
October 25th, 2010
8:49 am
Frankly, the average teabagger knows less about the Constitution than a 5th grader. O’Donnel et. al have proven that over and over again….
jt
October 25th, 2010
8:49 am
This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order.
PJ O’rourke
quod erat demonstrandum
October 25th, 2010
8:54 am
CT,
From you isolated ivory tower called Washington, DC – do you even care what America thinks? How America feels about what this administration has done?
Did you even read this mornings AJC regarding what Obamacare is doing to the working man who gets health care through his employer?
I guess not, it is better being in an ivory tower instead of having to sweat to earn a living. I guess you forgot your roots and where you came from. I would guess your family was ordinary working folks.
David
October 25th, 2010
8:54 am
I suppose if I thought Ms Tucker had two brain cells to rub together I would take the time to explain why her question isn’t even a question. However she is nothing but a left hack so why bother.
A Patriotic (unlike CT) American
October 25th, 2010
8:56 am
Well, Cynthia, a better question is……”Where is your favorite Extreme Left Wing Liberal Organization, the ACLU”? BTW, come January 1, 2011 when all the dust settles from the November 2, 2010 Elections, you’re gonna find out where the “Tea Party” is. You liberals will do absolutely anything to keep your god obummer in power……I’ll be glad when the AJC bites the dust and we won’t have to put up with your crappy journalism????any longer. Remember to vote on November 2nd
paleo-neo-Carlinist
October 25th, 2010
8:56 am
I’m gonna try to make this as terse as possible. as noted by my lord and savior George Carlin; “rights do not exist. they’re a concept.” let’s look a little closer. if we have been “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” why did it take a punch of guys in Philadelphia, or the Magna Carta, or any other POLITICAL DOCUMENT to cover the bet? I have argued this ad naseaum; ALL LAWS EXIST TO PROTECT PROPERTY/WEALTH. the “Bill of Rights” was a “roophy” slipped in our drink, or at best a balloon animal, made by a circus clown to keep the children occupied (as in: it’s really a ballon filled with air, and not a dog. monkey or pirate hat). again, as Carlin noted, “rights are not rights if they can be taken away…” he notes Japanese internment in 1942 (the first “war on terrorism”). at the end of the day, some sort of civil order is preferable to anarchy (I suppose), but I would submit that anarchy is preferable to oligarchy, which is what we have. I have suggested before, “freedom” or “rights” are no different than any commodity, equity, or currency in the financial markets, when viewed in the political market.
quod erat demonstrandum
October 25th, 2010
8:57 am
Rey,
Beg to differ – Coons couldn’t answer what the 5 freedoms enshrine in the 1st Amendment were.
At least O’Donnel knew that Separation of Church and State was NOT in the First Amendment.
Union
October 25th, 2010
8:58 am
bottom line.. this guy is gonna be well compensated for his two weeks in jail.. he more or less hit the lottery..
Nice Guy
October 25th, 2010
9:01 am
Cynthia-
You forgot to mention that the Tea Party is also in favor of protecting this country and it’s citizens. There are exceptions to every rule and the example the NYT points out above is just that, an exception. I would much rather have to apologize to this al-Kidd character than to let him wild and free only to find out that he WAS, in fact, a material witness and therefore has material connections elsewhere in the world.
All you Left-nuts just love to point out the exceptions and then wave it in the air while you scream “But, but, what about this?” as you stick your tongue out. Some on this and the Bookman blog have perfected that skill.
ken R
October 25th, 2010
9:02 am
First Tucker couldn’t stand the Teaparty, now she wants them to save the World. Don’t worry Tucker they will. Nov.2
Jeffrey
October 25th, 2010
9:04 am
I guess nobody told the Tea Partiers to care about those amendments yet. They’re still learning the first and second. Somehow, I don’t think they’ll take your cue Cynthia (but nice try).
Bob
October 25th, 2010
9:05 am
REY, the Tea Party people knew more about the healthcare bill than dem reps did.
granny godzilla
October 25th, 2010
9:06 am
Morning Troll! How are ya’ this rainy morning?
Let’s nip the new lie du jour in the bud shall we?
The nearly 400,000 Iraq war log documents released by WikiLeaks on Friday were full of evidence of abuses, civilian deaths and the chaos of war, but clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction – the Bush administration’s justification for invading Iraq – appears to be missing.
Jimmy62
October 25th, 2010
9:08 am
Yes, the Tea Party cares. They care about all the Constitution, but you can’t fight every battle, and violations of the 1st and 2nd and our pocketbooks are far more egregious and the current topic at hand.
I’m not out protesting against murder, but that doesn’t mean I think murder is a good thing. What a waste of a column, when you could have been writing about something significant!
Cynthia isn’t put protesting the sexual exploitation of children, thus she supports the sexual exploitation of children!
Your logic, not mine.
Union
October 25th, 2010
9:11 am
gg.. makes sense to me.. an anti us.. anti bush.. anti war.. website releases data to prove their point.. lmao.. you believed obama too didnt you?
verbal kint
October 25th, 2010
9:11 am
around 200 words, a cut and paste from the NY Times…Hell, I could do this job at the AJC. Just throw in some sob story about how “the man” is keeping us down…whatever
Education
October 25th, 2010
9:12 am
AJC headline…”Employers may drop health insurance”…. but Comrade’s Obama, Nancy and Harry promised this won’t happen…that we will be able to choose…..Nancy told us…”We need to pass Obamacare so the public can find out what is in it” If you didn’t know then…now you know.
paleo-neo-Carlinist
October 25th, 2010
9:12 am
Union, and your astute observation illustrates the link between financial markets and political markets. to wit; Kathryn Johnston had rights, but when her rights were ignored (they were not violated, the APD simply ignored her rights in favor of a “no knock warrant” as it prosecuted the rightless war on drugs). how about CT’s Friday post re: marijuana laws? how about the legal challenges to the Obama healthcare law? we will have states litigating against the federal government in or to have a judge or judges determine the pecking order of certain “inalienable rights”. do you folks undertsand this? in anarchy a person’s “right to life” or “property rights” are determined by his/her ability to defend himself and his property against those who would take by force. is “the law” any different? either our rights are universal and “inalienable” or they are a card trick. does it take a politician (lawmaker who is owned by a special interest) or a judge. for heaven’s sake, women didn’t have th right to vote until the 20th century. slaves had no rights (or dissimilar rights to free men) until the 1865. were the “Founding Fathers” simply not paying attention when then divined the wishes of the “Creator” when they drafted the original bill of rights? again, as Carlin notes, if the original Constitution was so brilliant, why has it been amended 23 times since it was ratified?
lovelyliz
October 25th, 2010
9:12 am
tea partiers care as much about the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments as they do the 9th Commandment (8th if you are Catholic)
ken R
October 25th, 2010
9:13 am
Granny true, but you forgot who the Congress was and how they voted, don’t stop short, tell it all.
If you would have served your country, something few Liberals ever do , you would know that those things happen in any War, that’s why they say War is Hell.
Nice Guy
October 25th, 2010
9:13 am
Granny –
I love the line about the WMDs not ever being found, I just love it! See, what people forget to mention is that the US and the rest of the world TOLD Saddam for months, that, on a given date the inspectors were going to come to Iraq and search for the WMDs. They kept telling him that even as that given date approached. What would anybody with a lick of sense do? I’ll tell you; they would get rid of their WMDs. And that’s exactly what happened. So, it should be a suprise to no one that nothing was found.
James
October 25th, 2010
9:17 am
Keep Up- sorry dude- you sound like the Black Knight on Monty Python- defending the indefensible is an unusual calling.
Bobby
October 25th, 2010
9:18 am
Obama has been a hugh disappointment. He is little more than more tanned Bush. He has kept us involved in the Bush Wars, done little for the economy, and failed to deliver a transparent health care policy. I am not voting for him in 2012 as I did so enthusiastically in 2008 unless the choice comes down to Palin or Newt Gingrich and him. Change simply has not happened during his administration.
T-Town
October 25th, 2010
9:18 am
Granny; Most of the items listed by Wikileaks are probably true and can’t be argued with, but this is looking at the problem with 20/20 hindsight. What has to be looked at is what was known at the time the decision was made. I would venture to say Bush, just like LBJ did with Vietnam, listened to his advisers prior to going to war. I, like you, wasn’t there, but now believe the war was a mistake. Again, this is also with 20/20 hindsight.
granny godzilla
October 25th, 2010
9:18 am
Union
CBS…yep real anti-us…..in fact they have you scheduled on the CBS sponsored bus to the internment camps.
CBS has been watching your house for years. They have implanted a chip
in your brain and can track you everywhere.
You do know they have been keeping Walter Cronkites head alive in
an iced tea pitcher?
granny godzilla
October 25th, 2010
9:20 am
ken r
nope and nope
and a real big nope
hat trick!
Robert
October 25th, 2010
9:21 am
The “tea party” are a very dangerous home grown terroist group that has demonstrated its anger against Blacks, Hispanics, gay & lesbians, Muslims and Jews. The “tea party” weapons of choice are hatred, fear and rage/mob mentality. The NAACP did not go far enough by labeling the “tea party” as racist. The NAACP should treat the “tea party” as a terroist group whose membership includes klansmen and skin heads.. The American People are sick and tired of ALL terroist, home grown or foreign.
williebkind
October 25th, 2010
9:21 am
“Contrary to what some of what you post, our hostess does not always agree with our President.”
This is just misdirection by the liberal media! AJC is like the VIEW. It’s my view or you are racist bigot. Things are getting scary for the progressive liberals and now their tone has changed. It is merely a ploy to glean votes at the last minute.
granny godzilla
October 25th, 2010
9:21 am
T-Town
For me opposition to the war in Iraq began BEFORE the war in Iraq.
Not hind sight, fore sight.
Jimmy62
October 25th, 2010
9:22 am
Nice Guy: We should also define WMDs. Before Saddam, it meant nuclear and chemical weapons. We found plenty of chemical weapons in Iraq designed to cause widespread harm to large groups of people, but since the left and the media don’t want to admit WMDs were found, all of the sudden chemical weapons are no longer WMDs.
But if you think chemicals designed to be dispersed over a large area and negatively affect the health of a large number of people are weapons of mass destruction, then yes, lots of WMDs were found all over Iraq, with signs of lots more that was hidden or removed.
Buzz Gross
October 25th, 2010
9:22 am
Goodbye Ms. Tucker and the lefty Democrats. Don’t let the door hit you in your over-sized bottom on your way out.
Go Tea Party!
quod erat demonstrandum
October 25th, 2010
9:22 am
paleo-neo-Carlinist,
Counting the original bill of rights – make that 27 times the Constitution was amended.
I guess you also think we have 57 states like our President does.
Kamchak
October 25th, 2010
9:22 am
So, it should be a suprise[sic] to no one that nothing was found.
Ah yes, the ol “the absence of something is proof positive that something existed” argument.
Nice Guy
October 25th, 2010
9:24 am
Jimmy62-
You are spot on.
T-Town
October 25th, 2010
9:24 am
Then you Granny, were one of the few. Many, including numerous leading Democrats, believed Iraq was hiding WMD and supported going after them.