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 2^nd 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 (10/24/00) 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 (11/17/00) 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 (1/12/01) 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 - conservative online journal (5/7/01) 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 4^th 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 - reporting that the tech world and industry leaders support Ashcroft (1/5/01), 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