Say, I'd like to know what specifically Ashcroft has done that's so bad. I've heard that he's not doing a good job (or at least not doing the right job), but I've not heard the details. Thanks, Starkman
Okay, let me say it this way . . . Thirty-six reads and no comments? Hmm! I think Ashcroft's done a great job, lived up to all the great expectations so many of us had of him, and . . . Well, how about now? Can someone toss me a bone here! Starkman
Who's John Ashcroft? Obviously not one to stir the passions of the good citizens. Must be way too boring.
Even if you don't mind Ashcroft's tireless attempts to turn the U.S. into a police state, I suspect you will be deeply troubled by this: http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2002/02/25/ashcroft.sings.wbtv.med.html
The ACLU has loads of stuff on various things he's done that they disagree with and, for the most part, I'm in the ACLU's ballpark on such issues. But I do think that Ashcroft, mildly priggish and homophobic though he may be, is a decent human being in the final analysis (his senate record actually shows a nominal libertarian streak). He just happens to be in a position where he has to be the administration's "bad cop" on civil liberties issues, because that's part of the job description for an attorney general. (Remember Janet Reno?) Call me crazy, but I think the Gore administration would have signed the Patriot Act, too. Such laws are forgivable in a time of national crisis, as long as the judiciary does its job by keeping them off the books. Cheers,
The latest issue of the Economist has an article about Ashcroft and the fears he ignites even amongst conservatives. I will have to read it this weekend.
Geno: The latest issue of the Economist has an article about Ashcroft and the fears he ignites even amongst conservatives. I will have to read it this weekend. Do comment on the contents for us, if you will, or give us a web site. Rich: Trampling the U.S. Constitution isn't. See, here's what I'm after. What's he done so badly, and in disrespect, to the constitution? Where's some solid information on how he's done this? Admittedly, I'm not in-the-know. Thanks, Starkman
I've agreed with Tom's take... I've given Ashcroft a wide berth, since most critics have been of the stripe "anyone but Bush!" It's too wide a brush to paint the man with, and besides--as a Senator he was well respected by his colleagues! The back and forth debate over the Patriot Act, and the even more egregious Patriot Act II, is a necessary part of a constitutional process where different branches check each other. This has consoled me from undue outrage. But a recent excerpt from "After: How America Confronted the September 12 Era," by Steven Brill, posted online, makes me wonder: Ashcroft, in working with career Justice Department attorney's, did not appear to be familiar with the pro and cons on a civil liberties issue that their work affected! It was a shock, even though the source may be questioned. Perhaps Ascroft IS out of his depth if he can't even familiarize himself with the objections of Justice filings with the Supremes. It challenges the optimistic conclusion of the book:"Although American freedoms and the legal system that protects its people have been tested and even changed, Americans are still fundamentally free." So if you want the latest dirt, I'd troll the index of After--but be ready to be braced! It worried even me. --Orson
What a sensitive gentleman he was too. Even though there were reports that some shady stuff went on to aid the democratic wife of the senator on election day, John Ashcroft gallantly did not contest the race even though it was close and there were reports of some issues. North
