--- Begin Message ---
A BUZZFLASH HYPOCRISY WATCH SPECIAL EDITION
BuzzFlash readers do the dardnest things, like exposing the hypocrisy of Bush and
Ashcroft on the treatment of people of Arab descent in the United States. Politicians
will say anything to win an election, right George and John!
Here is a BuzzFlash readers research on what they said before the election compared to
the Bush/Ashcroft assault on civil liberties now!
"During the elections last fall, President Bush made clear his stance on the issue.
During the second presidential debate, he stated Arab and Muslim Americans were being
subjected to unfair and discriminatory practices in immigration hearings where secret
evidence is being used." --Source: Islamic Institute of Washington D.C., January 2001
Dear Buzzflash:
Here are some interesting facts about Bush & Co.'s positions on some of the key
elements of the current anti-terrorism legislation from the era I now call B.S.
(Before September). Today, these positions are espoused only by the most
anti-administration voices.
While it's true that people are allowed to change their minds, elected officials,
especially when they have campaigned and gotten many votes and endorsements on issues
they have now abandoned, should at least admit that. For example, it would be
appropriate for Mr. Bush and Ashcroft to say something like, "We used to believe in
the rights of the individual, small government, privacy rights, the right to see the
evidence of a crime you've been accused of, and strongly and vociferously against
government snooping.
But in the light of the attacks of September 11, something we obviously didn't have
in our world view when we were running for election (remember that Bush was unable to
state the name of the President of Pakistan on a Boston radio interview) we've
completely changed our stand on these issues. We now in fact totally support the
stand taken by the courageous former Attorney General Janet Reno and the Clinton
Administration on these issues."
To whit, here are a series of sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/debate001011_trans_8.html -- from a
transcript of the 2nd Presidential Debate on October 11, 2000, here's the important
part, Bush says, "...and secondly, there is other forms of racial profiling that goes
on in America. Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what’s called secret evidence.
People are stopped, and we got to do something about that. My friend, Senator Spencer
Abraham of Michigan, is pushing a law to make sure that, you know, Arab-Americans
are treated with respect." This would be S.3139, repealing the Secret Evidence Act
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/main/doc/000000062878759.html?MAC=91c13013
e077212fb7e045dc9d3bd18b&QIID=000000062878759&FMT=FT -- an article in the St.
Petersburg (Florida) Times (October 24, 2000) reporting that the American Muslim PAC
has endorsed Bush for, among other things, his stand on the repeal of the "Secret
Evidence Act" (it's important to note that this article appeared in Florida!)
http://www.metimes.com/2K/issue2000-49/reg/us_muslims_might.htm
in which the American Muslim Alliance states (November 17, 2000) that over 60,000
Muslims voted in Florida in Election 2000 and that 91% voted for Bush. This bloc vote
was due to unprecedented organizing by the Alliance, which stongly endorsed Bush (see
above). Quoting a chapter chairman of the Alliance, "If we had voted like we did in
previous elections, guess who would be president right now? Al Gore."
It should be noted that the use of Secret Evidence was authorized by Congress and
used by the Clinton Adminstration in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing -- it was
this that the American Muslim PAC was asking its constituents to repudiate.
And as for Ashcroft...
http://www.islamicinstitute.org/fb2001-1-12.pdf -- in which the Islamic Institute
congratulates Ashcroft (January 12, 2001) for his stand against "secret evidence" and
his support for Spencer Abraham's bill S.3139 repealing the Secret Evidence Act. The
article exhorts American Muslims to write their Senators in support of Ashcroft's
nomination for Attorney General.
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0501ashcroft.htm -- (May 7, 2001) --
conservative online journal trashing the Clinton administration, specifically Janet
Reno and Louis Freeh's "unconstitutional use of wiretaps", and reporting on Ashcroft
"reaffirming his commitment to privacy". He is quoted, from his August 12, 1997 op-ed
piece in the Washington Times, titled amazingly,"Welcoming Big Brother," as follows:
"There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that
advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the
government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then,
should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time
to our communications across the Web?" He goes on to say "The protections of the
Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an
indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in
defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting
should never violate the people's Bill of Rights."
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/6497.html -- (January 5, 2001) Reporting
that the tech world and industry leaders support Ashcroft, stating, "The former
senator also has challenged the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation's hotly disputed
e-mail and wire-tapping system, known as 'Carnivore.'"
Sincerely,
BC
A BUZZFLASH HYPOCRISY WATCH SPECIAL EDITION
VISIT BUZZFLASH.COM ALL WEEKEND LONG
_______________________________________________________________________
Powered by List Builder
To unsubscribe follow the link:
http://lb.bcentral.com/ex/manage/subscriberprefs?customerid=9353&subid=0ED0C63708F99607&msgnum=634
--- End Message ---
