John Ashcroft is a Bad Attorney General

Great Debates
1

I’ve finally made up my mind. John Ashcroft is a bad attorney general. He was Bush’s worst apointee.

I see absolutely no interest in civil rights being expressed by him whatsoever. Every solution he has proposed in the ‘war on terror’ has involved restricting more rights of citizens. The FBI is up to its old excessive tricks again with Dr. Hatfield, apparently with Ashcroft’s approval and even encouragement.

As someone who was a (lukewarm) supporter of his nomination, I’ll admit I was wrong. His opponents were right.

So, since this is a debate and not a confessional, is there anyone willing to step up and defend him? Or, are there any others like me who originally supported him and have now changed their minds?

I’m just wondering what the collective wisdom of the SDMB has to say about Mr. Ashcroft now. We don’t really need more bashing from the longtime opponents of his - we already know where you stand. But are any other conservative/Libertarian types ready to withdraw their support of him?

2

Let me just say that folks who can admit making an error in judgement demonstrate that they have open minds.

But no, I won’t defend Mr. Ashcroft.

3

I also supported Ashcroft’s nomination, from totally political reasoning that Bush had to put someone somewhere to be “red meat” for the radical right. And I figured he couldn’t be any worse than Reno.

I was wrong. He is worse. Way worse. A danger to the very fabric of our country, and every civil right on our books.

4

Has anyone noticed he has been very quiet the last few weeks? Has Bush gagged him?

5

I think it’s sufficient to say that I cringe whenever I see that he’s about to make an announcement. I can see it now…“My fellow Americans, as of this moment, the Government of the United States of America is suspending all civil rights, and I am deposing George W. Bush and placing myself as Emperor of All There Is”.

Well, maybe I can’t see that happening quite like that, but close enough: the restriction on ANY civil right is preposterous!

I mean, I’m for GWB and am a middle leaning conservative, but man, this guy gives me a tingly feeling. Like he’s trying to shake my hand while at the same time trying to handcuff me.

I was indifferent, really, to his nomination, as I didn’t know much about him…but I think he’s the one people should worry about, not GW.

6

—But are any other conservative/Libertarian types ready to withdraw their support of him?—

I don’t think many conservative/Libertarian types ever thought he was a great choice. The only people who did were the religious right and those conservatives that are happy with any conservative, without much care for who. Ashcroft has always been totalitarian. His testimony in Congress demonstrably demonstrated that he was willing to lie under oath (but then, that’s okay unless you’re a Democratic President). I don’t think most lib/conservatives are/were able to look over his record and conduct simply because he’s conservative. Not when there are so many other more qualified and truly libertarian candidates out there that Bush COULD have appointed instead.

7

Sorry, I’ve always hated him with a passion. Following his meandering crusades against medicinal pot dealers and suicide assistance (priorities over counter-terrorism,) his lunacies (calico cat & curtain) and his clear tolitarian megalomania, my already low opinion of him has found a new floor in the basement.

I’m prepared to say, in terms of damage done to the institution, damage done to the constitution, damage done to civil rights, and the offense to common sense…

Ashcroft: Worst appointee ever.

8

OK, I’ll defend him, for the sake of this debate. That secret court just gave him credit for ending the process of having the FBI routinely lie to get wiretap permission. That’s a good step.

The positions he has taken have been legal or arguably legal. Some are being litigated. If any of them are ruled out by a final court, there’s no reason to think he will disobey their decision.

I agree with the OP:

Given the high degree of risk, it is arguably the better policy to take all legal steps to protect American citizens, even those that violate some normal civil liberties. These are unusual times.

I cannot defend Ashcroft or the FBI on this issue. For all we know, he may be doing something useful behind the scenes, but I must admit that’s wishful thinking.

An AG’s performance depends on many areas, not just maximizing civil liberties. Is he corrupt? Are his appointments capable? Is the Justice Department effective in fighting crime? And, given the current situation, are they effective at protecting the public from terrorism?

On the first question, he seems to be totally honest. Frankly, I don’t have any knowledge one way or the other on the next three criteria. No doubt, there are other important criteria as well.

Also, Sam Stone’s criticims are fair ones, but unfortunately, Ashcroft has also been the target of a bunch of unfair criticisms.

It’s a hijack, but I felt that my ex-governor, Christie Whitman, was Bush’s weakest appointment. She has no expertise in science nor in law nor in economics – key areas of EPA involvement. Her performance so far has not changed my opinion.

9

Heck, I’ll defend him because I rather like him.

What civil liberties has he infringed? Seriously, a lot of ‘sky is falling’ is being tossed around, but what has he done to infringe on liberties? (Specifics, if you will)

For the first time, and at his encouragement, the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted by the DoJ as an individual right. That adds to our civil rights, not detracts.

He not only has to deal with the ‘usual buisness’ of the DoJ, he is now in at the head of the department responsible for prosecuting a portion, a large portion at that, of the war against terrorism.

Apos, how about a cite for that?

10

Tell that to Ben Franklin:

“Those who would trade essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”

11

During int Vietnam era we had:

“We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

“Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.”

Today we have:

12

Guinastasia, Duckster – it’s important to protect all Constitutional civil liberties. However, the Constitution permits different standards during a time of emergency. AFAIK Ashcroft has followed the Constitution.

Please, let’s not pretend that he created a police state. He has taken an expansive view, in some cases, of what the Constitution permits. Some of these practices are in the courts. I have no doubt that he will follow Court rulings.

I’m sure there are specific things he has done that you disapprove of. If you tell us what they are, we can debate them.

13

Show me where the Constitution say you can void anything in it in times of trouble.

14

I think the only real reason he was against assisted suicide was that he was afraid one of them would assist HIM. :slight_smile:

Debi J

15

Nowhere, TIKO, in the Constitution does it allow anyone, certainly not the Attorney General, to infringe on civil liberties. And if it did, such a clause would surely require a declaration of war.

WE ARE NOT AT WAR. It’s time to stop acting like we are.

Kirk

16

I commend him for that… but that doesn’t make up for his ignoring the other 9 amendments in the Bill Of Rights.

17

Would someone provide just one wee-little cite as to specific infringements on our rights that the AG has commited?

There is a lot of hot air being tossed around, but lets see some specific complaints.

18

Brutus, you have yet to hear about Jose Padilla, the US citizen being detained indefinitely, without seeing an attorney, even though he hasn’t been charged with any crime?

Have you also never heard of the constitutional right of habeas corpus, which requires the government to justify continued detentions, and the Sixth Amendment, which assures a speedy and public jury trial with assistance of counsel?

19

It’s one thing to support the 2nd amendment, but quite another to think it means that there cannot be reasonable controls on the purchase of guns, and certainly not in tracking them or doing background checks. If Ashcroft disagrees, I don’t see that his rationale is based on the 2nd amendment. How come there are reasonable limits to free speach, but none on amassing an arsenal regardless of who you are and what you’ve done?

However, both attacking and praising Ashcroft on this one, for anything other than his views, is a little off: in this case he has simply been largely following the laws. Blame his compatriots in Congress for this one, not him.

20

There are reasonable limits. Hell, I think many of them are unreasonable. Ever heard of the Brady Bill which banned certain types of semi-automatic weapons called “Assault Rifles”? Of course, less than 2 percent of all murders and assaults with guns were comitted with such weapons, but the hysterical cries of the gun grabbers won in Congress back in 1994.

Let’s not forget about the 5 day waiting period before purchasing firearms.