SIGNALS
FROM THE NEW
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
By
Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D.
Minaret
of Freedom Institute
Now
that John Ashcroft is the Attorney General of the United States,
it is
incumbent on Muslims to watch closely the signals he gives as to
the direction
he intends to take on the issues that are pressing to us: secret evidence,
immigration policy, equal
justice under the law, and religious freedom.
Neither his conduct during the nomination process, nor
his pronouncement
since taking office bode well for Muslims.
The
failure of Muslims to join the bandwagon that sought to stop his
nomination may
have grave consequences. Among
Ashcroft's
strongest critics were African-American activists who have been
strong
allies of Muslims on our issues.
The
testimony of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White of
Ashcroft's
obsessive efforts to prevent him from obtaining his appointment
to the Federal
bench should be a matter of grave import to Muslims. While there is no
evidence that Ashcroft
himself is a racist, his less than meticulous actions in
opposing Judge White's
appointment as well as his appearances at the explicitly racist
Bob Jones
University suggest that he will not go out of his way to prevent
the racism of
other from helping him to achieve his goals.
The decisions that he makes now on the death penalty for
Terry McVeigh
will set a precedent for his actions on cases involving not only
African-Americans, but Muslims of all races and national origins
who may be
prosecuted under the "Counter-Terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty
Act."
In
part, Muslims chose to stay out of the confirmation fray because
the Muslim
leadership feared that opposition might jeopardize the good will
purchased from
the new administration through its endorsement of candidate Bush
during the
election. In part
it was because of
assurances given the Muslim community by sympathetic
Republicans. I was
present when Grover Norquist, head of
Americans for Tax Reform, assured a room filled with Muslim
leaders that Mr.
Ashcroft had personally told him that he was opposed to secret
evidence. Alas, Mr.
Ashcroft's public record is not so
reassuring.
When
he was a U.S. Senator, John Ashcroft voted in favor of S. 735, the
Counter-Terrorism Act that put
secret evidence in place. Thus he was certainly not against
secret evidence
when he was in a position to do something about it.
Of
course, people can grow, can come to understand issues better
and change their
minds. Is that the
case with
Ashcroft? Again,
the record is
discouraging. During
the hearings on his
nomination, Ashcroft was asked by Senator Edward Kennedy whether
he shared
Bush's opposition to secret evidence. He
specifically asked whether Ashcroft would support the Secret
Evidence Repeal
Act of which candidate George W. Bush had spoken favorably. Ashcroft's response
was neither clear nor
emphatic. "I am
troubled by some of
the stories I have heard about the use of secret evidence and
believe that such
uses must be reconciled with Due Process. While I cannot comment
on specific
legislation, I look forward to working with you to find a way,
consistent with
national security, to protect the rights of citizens and
aspiring citizens
coming to our nation" (Vise, 2001).
This
is, of course, gobbledy-gook.
Ashcroft
shows no signs of having changed his mind on the Draconian
legislation that he
helped pass into law. Privately
telling
Republicans who have the trust of the Muslim community one thing
while saying
another in open hearings before Congress confirms the uneasiness
that is
engendered by testimony of Judge Ronnie White and others. Now that he is in
office he has made a
declaration that seems to imply that he will continue to enforce
this
unconstitutional law. At
his first press
conference Ashcroft declared: "I think my conservative view is
that I
should enforce the law as it is written.
I think one of the elements of conservatism is to take
the law as it is
and to work to enforce it, not to supersede the law with your
judgment."
What
does it mean to be a religious man? For
some it is to allow God's will, as they have understood it, to
shape their
lives. For others,
it is to shape the
lives of other people by their own religious opinions. The former is the
definition of a muslim
(small "m" intended), the latter is the definition of a
religious
fanatic. Muslim-Americans
cannot take it
for granted that the Janet-Reno-like persecutions have come to
an end under her
less-than-candid successor.
Having
failed to demonstrate political muscle by being that one last
shoulder at the
wheel that might have stopped the Ashcroft nomination, Muslims
must work extra
hard to make sure that Bush ends secret evidence despite his
attorney-general's
reluctance to publicly condemn it.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
REFERENCES
David
A. Vise 2001. "Ashcroft Faces Tough
Choices
Early," Washington Post (2/20/01) A21.