A QUESTION NO ONE ASKED ASHCROFT

Now that the confirmation hearings for Attorney General John Ashcroft
are concluded and his appointment official, I have a question for the
man.

I didn't raise this question earlier, not because I didn't think it
was important, but because on balance, I believed, Ashcroft was a
superior choice for the job. Ashcroft is a decent man. I've met him.
He's sincere, down to earth. He's not power-hungry. And, generally,
seems to revere the Constitution.

All that is high praise coming from me. There are very view
politicians in any party who would qualify for such remarks under my
rigorous standards. That's why I supported his nomination and
confirmation. And that's why I believed most of the questions posed
to him by opponents were sophisticated camouflage to obscure the fact
that they simply didn't want someone in the job who would uphold the
law. They didn't want a moral and ethical man in such an important
position. They preferred someone like Janet Reno.

Nevertheless, I have some very serious concerns about Ashcroft's
approach to law enforcement in the recent past. And they go right to
the heart of how this man views the Constitution of the United States.

As recently as 1999, Ashcroft sponsored in the U.S. Senate a bill,
S486, known as the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act," which
would have allocated $25 million more to the federal government's
insane war on drugs. Furthermore, the bill would have expanded the
unconstitutional use of asset-forfeiture techniques that often end up
victimizing innocent people.

How does asset forfeiture work? Well, let's say a friend of your
18-year-old son drops an illicit pill in your automobile. You don't
know about this kid's drug use. Your son doesn't know. But the police
pull the car over, search the occupants, the car and find the pill.
Do you know that you could lose your automobile -- permanently? It
could be seized by the cops. In fact, it happens all-too-routinely.
And it happens even before a trial occurs.

That's right. The way asset-forfeiture laws are written and executed,
not only are those involved guilty until proven innocent, people not
even involved in the crime are punished before a trial occurs!

I'm not kidding, folks. It happens in America every day. And laws
like this constitute my reason for opposing all federal law
enforcement of drug offenses. We just cannot trust Washington to
respect any common-sense limits when it comes to the rights of
Americans.

One of the reasons asset-forfeiture laws are so popular among law
enforcement officials is that they actually provide incentives for
cops to seize property. You see, under most such laws, it's the cops
who get to keep the booty. They can use it or sell it and buy more
weapons and surveillance equipment so they can go out and round up
more victims and more booty.

I know many of you are shaking your heads in disbelief, right now,
thinking Farah has lost his mind. "Surely this could not be happening
in America today," you're saying to yourself.

Well, I've got news for you. It is happening. And this is why the
drug war has to be called to an immediate halt. It is actually a war
on our civil rights. There's simply no other way to describe it. It's
a horror show -- a nightmare. As a reporter I have seen way too many
innocent victims pay the price for overzealous police work. I've seen
people lose their homes. I've seen people lose their lives -- all
because we have turned cops into pirate-mercenaries.

This would have been a legitimate line of questioning for John
Ashcroft if we had a political system that worked. But we don't. The
people who talked about civil rights during the hearings weren't at
all concerned about the innocent victims of federal storm troopers.
They were concerned about privileged people who didn't get
appointments as ambassadors or didn't get a high-paying government
job as if they had a right to feed at the public trough. Those are
not civil rights. Civil rights are the rights to life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness.

Those are the rights that are being denied by government at every
level as the drug war intensifies -- turning some of our communities
into virtual police states.

But one of the reasons I supported Ashcroft is because I know he is a
decent man. I know he doesn't want to victimize innocent people. He,
like many of you, is probably just unaware of what's happening out
there on the streets. His predecessor knew. While Janet Reno was in
power, there wasn't even much point in talking about issues like
asset forfeiture. The whole nation watched as she burned down a
church full of men, woman and children and got away with it. It would
not have been possible to discuss rationally with her problems like
asset forfeiture and how the drug war was a mistake.

Maybe I'm naive, but I believe Ashcroft just might listen to a
logical argument on this subject. I believe he might just look
objectively at the evidence against such practices. And that's why I
supported him.

Now, Mr. Ashcroft, can you tell me why you introduced that hideous
bill? Do you have any second thoughts about the drug war and the
government's unconstitutional seizure of private property in its
conduct of that war? Now that you are in office, will you take a look
at the evidence against such practices by the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies?