Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Are we ready for a more 'engaged' Attorney General? A more conservative one?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 10:43 PM
Original message
Are we ready for a more 'engaged' Attorney General? A more conservative one?
It looks like the criticism of Gonzales coming from the right wing is ramping up. Their complaints center on Gonzales' incompetence rather than his criminal assistance of Bush in subverting the Constitution, due process, and the laws of the land. You know what they want. They already have a replacement in mind. Someone who will project that 'management' style which will win over those senators who are willing to do anything to get Gonzales to resign . . . someone who will orchestrate their toady fascism with the efficiency and deftness that Gonzales lacked.

On the other hand, I'm sure the Bush cabal would like to keep Gonzales in place to take the hits and dance around as they keep a firm grip on his puppet strings.

As Barbara Jordan said in her speech at the Democratic convention: Change . . . From what, to what?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HappyWeasel Donating Member (694 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. That's what has been keeping the Executives scott-free of late...
If you take out one, a more dangerous and deviant one will take its place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I've gotten used to having Rice to kick around
even though she should have been dumped long ago.

I tend to think these relative unknowns come in and do even more damage befor they're outed as the same old stuff: Robert Gates replacing Rumsfeld, for example, ushering in the escalation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Gates is just a flunky, he isn't anything more than a body filling a space.
He wasn't for escalation, he was handed it as Bush's flunky. Why do you think Bush is trying to find a war czar or whatever it is he is calling it now. If I am not mistaken, Rumsfield maintains an office using Pentagon staffers. Knowing this bunch, he is still running things.

---------------------------------------------------------
Rumsfeld 'transition office' raises some eyebrows

Wherever he goes, Donald Rumsfeld is not far from a little controversy.

Seems the former defense secretary, who left office last month after nearly six years at the helm, has set up a government-supplied "transition office" in Arlington, Va., with seven Pentagon-paid staffers to "review secret and top-secret documents," the Washington Times reports today, citing an unnamed Pentagon official. Helping Rumsfeld, who's listed as a "non-paid consultant," is his close adviser Stephen Cambone.

Nothing wrong with a transition office, according to Pentagon rules. Former secretaries are entitled to one. What's set some tongues wagging is the size of the staff, which the Times says includes two officers and two enlisted men, and concerns that the sorting could have been done in the five weeks between the time Rumsfeld announced his resignation and when he actually left the building.

(snip)

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/01/rumsfeld_transi.html
---------------------------------------------------------

Defense Secretary Is Wary of Adding More Iraq Troops

By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
December 27, 2006

WASHINGTON — With President Bush leaning toward sending more soldiers to pacify Iraq, his defense secretary is privately opposing the buildup.

According to two administration officials who asked not to be named, Robert Gates expressed his skepticism about a troop surge in Iraq on his first day on the job, December 18, at a Pentagon meeting with civilians who oversee the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines.

(snip)

http://www.nysun.com/article/45767
---------------------------------------------------------

Just like the war czar post that bush can't fill, folks aren't jumping on board bush's ship, they are bailing and I don't see anyone wanting to jump into the AG post. Matter of fact, that may be why he stands by Gonzo as he does, he can't find anyone willing to take his place.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. so, you think Gates was/is against the escalation?
He talked out of both sides of his face. He was a stalking horse for the escalation, talking it down while crafting a way forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. He was against it before he took office and after taking the job
he spoke out against it. I saw an interview on one of the Sunday morning political shows where he said he wasn't for it.

He is not the commander-n-chief and he really isn't much of a Secretary of Defense. He can't be, rummey is still in the wings, directing things.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Gates has his own influences
The notion that Gates is against the escalation is belied by his prosecution and advocacy of it as Defense Secretary.

but I'll present these:

"Among the names floated (in March) by administration officials were Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and White House anti-terrorism coordinator Frances Townsend. Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson is a White House prospect. So is former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, but sources were unsure whether he would want the job."
http://www.sotublog.com/2007/01/11/672


Gates: Iraq Resolution ‘Certainly Emboldens the Enemy’

Today, at his first Pentagon news conference since taking office in December, Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared that any Iraq resolution opposing President Bush’s escalation plan “certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries.” “It seems pretty straightforward that any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks,” Gates claimed.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/gates-escalation/


"Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense today testified that he believes the White House’s escalation is not the President’s “last chance” in Iraq.

“No, it is not the last chance,” Gates said in response to a question from Senator Warner (R-VA)."
http://www.thedailybackground.com/2007/02/06/secretary-of-defense-gates-says-iraq-escalation-not-last-chance-most-disagree/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. Hello, is there anyone in there
READ THE BLESSED POSTS

He is a flunky, he is doing the bidding of the the Commander in Chief (and Rumsfield).

What he wants stopped mattering once he became their head piece.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. you can't resist the urge to insult my integrity, can you?
I think that's why you respond to my posts.

Is it so hard for you to accept that there can be a disagreement on this. I could post an entire book on Gate's personal complicity in this and other military muckraking. His position is as pernicious as Rumsfeld's. He's an enabler. He's an accomplice. He's an apologist. He's a strategist for the 'way forward.' He's a flunky, but so are the others. He's as responsible for the illegal occupation as Bush. If he doesn't agree with the policy he should resign before we impeach him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Not insulting your integrity
Edited on Fri Apr-20-07 10:37 AM by merh
just wondering your motives and why it is you refuse to acknowledge what is posted to you. I don't want to think you have a comprehension problem so it only stands to reason that you are refusing to recognize what has been posted to you. You post as if you are the expert, your opinion alone is what matters and all who dispute your findings are fools, yet, you adopt what has been posted to you as if you created it all by yourself.

I could post a book on Richardson's and some of the DLC's complacency in the destruction of our republic, should we go there?

You keep touting views that are suspect, why would we fear HOLDING GONZO or anyone else in this admin accountable? Why would you want to discourage holding them responsible (as your OP attempts to do)?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. "You keep touting views that are suspect"
You would think that the depth of my opposition to Bush alone would allow me to come here and argue fine point about the events as they unfold, but you insist on treating me like some operative or a pol. I've said, over and over here that I'm just a writer at a computer with an opinion. And, it's not like I can't just turn around and posture like some truth and motive detector like you are here. I think you get some false elevation from casting me as some villain for having some contrary viewpoint or another. It needs to stop. I know something of your own history from reading your posts here. I have enough respect for you to answer without trying to label you as an enemy. I would like the same consideration. It's more than nonsense to cast around suspicious based on the arguments we make here. I don't need to prove my loyalty to some ideology that you think is correct, with my every utterance.

The fact that you raise the candidate I've chose to advocate for here is revealing. You're waging whatever campaign you support against me, and not merely engaging in a respectful discussion about the views I post. I still think the debates over ides and initiatives we have are well worth responding to and engaging in, but the negative personalizations are destructive and should stop.


BTW, the OP is not a discouragement of action. It's a posit on the outcome of a resignation. As more things change, more things remain the same. That's not my wish, it's reality. Until the entire republican WH leaves town, we are going to be subject to their treason. Changing the praetorian guard that does their bidding amounts to little more than window dressing. Gonzales takes the fall (deservedly so) for what was clearly Bush and Rove's initiative, and folks assume that the problem is solved. The actions of these replacements in this game of musical chairs makes it mostly an exercise in futility.

I called Gates the 'New Pimp for the Bush Occupations' when he was nominated. That he is. Doesn't mean that Rummy was alright or should have stayed, but you can't expect folks to buy into the proposition that changing these department heads is going to make any difference in Bush policy or doctrine as it translates into actual action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Direct opposition to bush does not give you a pass to
post of "acceptance" by pushing the fear agenda. Oh my, we can't try to get rid of Gonzo, just think of what villian that is even worse than him that they could put in his place. That is promoting fear, the tactic of that hateful admin.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. what in the hell are you talking about?
Edited on Fri Apr-20-07 04:08 PM by bigtree
I've written nothing here that says fear anything. I wrote nothing that says he shouldn't resign. The post is about the non-effect that I think the resignation will have. All of the responses are about that. The effect of a resignation won't fix anything much at Justice though with regard to Bush's abuses. That's my opinion that I've expressed.

The rest that you've made up is either an amazing attack on my integrity or an inability to read through the thread and see that I've said nothing about fearing a resignation or resisting one. You keep the bullshit coming though.

edit: AND YOU DEFEND GATES! AND ACCUSE ME OF ACCEPTANCE of bushshit! what bullshit.

And my opposition is more than enough to call myself a Democrat and not be expected to be accused of supporting ANYTHING from this administration. You can't quote ANYTHING I've said which is in support of this administration. Your attacks on my opinion here are a load of dishonest bullshit lacking fucking any intellectual honesty at all, much less any grain of reason or truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. LOL, you did write of fear.
Edited on Fri Apr-20-07 04:28 PM by merh
OMG, maybe we shouldn't get rid of Gonzo, they will hire someone even creepier to take his place. :scared:

Tell me, if you had a bad employee, would you hesitate to fire him because you might replace him with someone that was just as bad or worse?

Defended Gates, not me. I merely pointed out that he is just a flunky, doing the bidding of the weed-n-chief and that Rummey is still in the background.

I specifically have stated over and over again that not only do we need to push to get rid of Gonzo, we need to push to hold him accountable. He should be charged with the crimes it appears he has committed and be held to answer to them.

I never challenged your membership to the DEMOCRATIC party (though you keep using the democrat bit the republicans like to use), I do have issues with the DLC and you tend to rally with them. To me, and this is merely my opinion, too many who are DLC are easily confused with the RNC. Pro-business and pro-corporations to the detriment of the individuals and individual rights and freedoms.

I haven't made anything up, I have merely responded, with concern, to your position and reasoning.

edited for typos

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. you have the thread right here. where's the quote from me about fearing anything?
Edited on Fri Apr-20-07 05:04 PM by bigtree
there isn't one, is there?

there's this one where I'm rejecting the notion that there is something to fear.

"It's not fear that I'm querying, just a caution."

The caution I posted about is that the resignation isn't the fix which will stop Bush. All of the histrionics you describe are your own ridiculous invention.

Also, the rallying to the DLC crap ignores and attempts to marginalize all of my other defenses and beliefs. You expect me to either agree with your every word or you'll attack me from the standpoint that I'm DLC (as you say).

I told you the last time you stalked me in a thread, that I have no membership or affiliation with any organization except the Democratic party. Fuck all of the attempts to marginalize me or characterize me and my beliefs into some DLC box just because you happen to disagree with something I've said. I'm *46 years old. (edit: lol, I got that wrong) I've held MANY beliefs and opinions. I'm under absolutely no obligation to pour out ANY of whatever you claim to believe in, whether I do or not. You don't want a discussion, you want a confrontation. You think you are winning something by attacking my character here and labeling me as some DLC supporter. It's bullshit. It's sickeningly transparent, and it should end here.

You made your argument about Gonzales. Let it rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Yup, I have the thread and your warnings can be found throughout
as they say, your words speak for themselves. Your OP alone is a warning, trying to strike fear.

If you want me to stop replying to you, then stop replying to me with posts that warrant a response.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. get a goddamn life
go trash someone else's post.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. What wonderful debate skills.
:sarcasm:

So in order to post in your thread, I have to agree with you, is that it?

LOL, you are on the wrong board for that :rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. your world, of course
bullying. stalking. bullshitting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. I have not bullied, stalked or bullshitted.
I have posted in response to your replies and only posted what your posts warrant.

Debating political issues, stating a different opinion are not, in any way, bullying or stalking.

If you think my opinions are bullshit because they don't embrace your's or because I don't agree with you and bow to your insights and reason, well, like I said the last post "great debate skills" - not.

Again, if you don't want to continue with me then stop replying back to me. It is really that simple.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. full of it
you came here to debate me because of some earlier fight over your insistence on labeling folks as DLC'ers. The other thread you came at me for(and incredibly brought up here, out of the blue) was about Richardson. Now you come to this thread and tell me that "my views are suspect." Full of it.

This is some kind of personal thing. You need to move on. You made your point about the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Go back and read my posts.
I debated you relative to your efforts to instill fear in others, fear of the next AG to be appointed should/when Gonzo goes.

You are the one taking the debate personal, thus, you have made it personal.

You may want to brush up http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/basicskills.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. weird
you're not making it personal, but you're accusing me of using my post to 'instill fear' in the community in which I've had thousands of meaningful conversations for several years. what bullshit. that's pretty personal, to me.

How am I 'instilling fear' by stating the obvious fact that these resignations have, so far, changed very little and that we will almost certainly get one of those 'efficient' conservatives or shill who will clean up the public act and keep the fascism humming on the inside. That's what happened when Powell left. That's what happened when Rumsfeld left, and that's what happened when Ashcroft left. We opposed all of them as the embodiment of all of Bush's evils -settled in with some promised reformer - and got more of the same.

That's exactly the point I made in the OP. You put your own ridiculous spin on it.

Trying to 'instill fear' . . . what complete nonsense. bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. You make it personal when you take my voicing my opinion
as something personal.

And you can't give up can you?

If you don't want to read my posts, stop replying to me with attacks on me (such as I have personally attacked your or am a bully or a stalker).

Your OP and all of your threads speak for themselves. Your emotional response and defensive posturing just confirms what I have suggested. Debating is not your strong suit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. who started this thread?
who jumped in here to attack my ideas as suspect?

Who accused me of being DLC?

Who attacked my support for Richardson?

I don't know, for the life of me, how I invited all of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. LOL, as I have said, your posts speak for themselves.
eom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. yet you insist on interpreting them for me
using your own words
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. And if you don't want an opinion posted that might differ from your
own or interpret your words as they are written, may I suggest you not post them.

If you can't handle debate and are expecting adulation and fawning, you are in the wrong place.

Have you considered a blog with the comment section turned off?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ends_dont_justify Donating Member (367 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Now children
Stop complaining or I'm going to turn this topic around and we won't get to go to disneyland! :P

Bigtree...why not ignore them? Not worth your time, your points aren't any less validated if you don't get the last say.

Merh...stop insulting, if you're not bullying or intentionally bothering someone, you can just as easily walk away.

Was that so hard?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. I haven't insulted but you have by accusing me of being insulting.
My posts were on the issues and they did question the reasoning behind the OP, that is valid on a discussion forum. If the OP found them insulting, then the OP has options, "alert" "ignore" or "get thicker skin".

You go to disneyland without me, I'm not big on vacations with folks that don't know how to handle debates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. I know we will get amore conservative one, but as much as I
hate myself for saying this, at least Ashcroft was intelligent and apparently ethical. I'm more than willing to accept a new ETHICAL AG! Now can Shrub find someone like that? I don't know. It seems all his friends are corrupt and friends are the only people heever considers for a nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Amen.....I can live with a conservative ETHICAL AG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. There hasn't been an AG like that
since probably the Eisenhower administration
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. should I list the abuses of Ashcroft here?
is there anyone who could ethically execute Bush doctrine?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. If you recall, the idiots aproached him in theintensive careu nit to OK the wire taping and he said
NO! Hey, I thought he was a nut with hisdraping thestatues and things like that, but I really think he wasan ethical man. I don't agree with all of his decisions, but compared to Gonzo, he's terrific!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. well . . .
"AHA president Edd Doerr observes, "While Ashcroft feels the purchase records of those who buy guns is sacrosanct, he has had no qualms suspending habeas corpus, ignoring client attorney privilege, and secretly detaining and investigating hundreds of persons not charged with crimes. While Ashcroft overlooks pleas for action on civil rights violations, claiming his department is absorbed in the antiterrorism effort, he has no trouble finding time to pursue Oregon physicians who attempt to provide comfort for patients in the last stage of life. While Ashcroft is assisting a war effort on behalf the American people, he is also engaged in his own battle to shift rights and liberties from the individual citizens to the government."

http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/Ashcroftpersonal.html



"Repeating a point he has made for weeks, Ashcroft said investigators believe there could still be terrorists at large. And he again called on Congress to pass an anti-terrorism package sought by the White House

"It's very unlikely that all of those associated with the attacks of September 11 are now detained or have been detected," Ashcroft said. "And that's why we need the kind of robust surveillance capacity that's provided for in the legislation. It's time for Congress to act."

He said lawmakers should pass the legislation -- which would broaden the government's wiretapping abilities, grant the Immigration and Naturalization Service more latitude in holding aliens suspected of terrorism and make it a crime to harbor suspected terrorists -- by October 5.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/30/inv.ashcroft.terrorism/


Attorney General John Ashcroft's Assault on Civil Liberties (Updated September 2003) (10/30/2002)

Since becoming Attorney General John Ashcroft:

* Has had a negative impact on civil liberties issues ranging from reproductive choice, religious liberty, freedom of speech, criminal defendants' rights and equal opportunity.
* Has worked to undermine and eliminate the authority of the federal judiciary to review certain actions of the Attorney General and federal law enforcement agencies.
* Has appointed individuals who have poor civil rights/liberties records to high-level DOJ positions.
* Has not conferred with Congress or interest groups before attempting to undo settled areas of civil rights and civil liberties law.
* Has demonstrated a disregard for court orders that do not favor the DOJ

Bold and Regressive Steps to Violate Civil Liberties in the Wake of September 11

* Pressured Congress to hurriedly enact his legislation, the USA Patriot Act, which gave astonishing powers to federal agencies:
o The Act dramatically increases the government's surveillance, search-and-seizure and wiretapping authority.

The Act greatly expanded government policing powers, even in cases unrelated to terrorism.

The Act allows for the sharing of secret information on American citizens among federal agencies.
* During Congressional testimony, asserted that anyone who raised concerns about his actions would "aid terrorists" and "give ammunition to America's enemies," statements which are antithetical to the spirit of the First Amendment right to dissent.
* Authorized DOJ officials to monitor the discussions that attorneys have with clients who are in federal custody, including those detained, but not charged with a criminal offense in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
* Rounded up and imprisoned over 1200 men of Middle Eastern descent based largely on pretextual immigration violations and refused to disclose their identity and location and the reason for their detention. The detainees have been denied fundamental due process rights.
* Sought to question roughly 8,000 men of Middle Eastern descent, who are legal residents of the U.S., a flagrant form of racial profiling.
* Imposed a policy of selectively enforcing deportation orders against men from Middle Eastern countries.
* Formed regulations that deny federal compensation to the partners and non-biological children of lesbian, gay and bisexual victims of September 11.
* Helped draft the presidential order creating secret military tribunals which bypasses the U.S. court system and contains significant due process violations. Allows for the imposition of the death penalty.
* Reversed the presumption of openness that is an underpinning the Freedom of Information Act by supporting agency decisions to withhold information if there is a sound legal basis for doing so, thereby rejecting the Reno position that information ought to be released under FOIA unless such release would be harmful.
* Indicated that he is considering relaxing domestic guidelines that prohibit the federal law enforcement agencies from spying on First Amendment-protected activities.
* Has called for the use of local police for enforcement of immigration laws.
* Has asked Neighborhood Watch groups to work with the federal government to identify terrorists.
* Has asked local law enforcement to submit proposals seeking federal funds to expand their capacity to identify and spy on suspected terrorists in local communities.
* Initiated a project in August of 2002 called Operation TIPS (Terrorist Information and Prevention System) that would recruit and train 1 million volunteers (including postal workers, utility personnel and the like) in 10 cities who would be encouraged to report suspicious terrorist activity.
* Directed all federal prosecutors not to agree to judges' downward departures from the federal sentencing guidelines except in rare cases. In addition, Ashcroft requires that prosecutors, within 14 days, report when a judge imposes a downward departure from the guidelines.
* Continues to misrepresent and misled the American public about the scope and impact of the USA Patriot Act, through his Patriot Act Tour. Ashcroft will visit 16 states and 18 cities for three weeks during his Patriot Act Tour to shore up support for the legislation that was passed in October 2001 as well as laying the groundwork for the introduction of the Victory Act.
* Encouraged the 93 US Attorneys to lobby members of Congress who voted for an amendment that would prohibit DOJ funds to be used to enforcement "sneak and peak" warrants. The US Attorneys were also asked to turn out law enforcement officers and the citizens to community meetings around the country as well as write op-eds in local papers in support of the USA Patriot Act. This request was made to coincide with Ashcroft's Patriot Act Tour.
* Further restricted DOJ's centralized control over plea-bargaining of cases by federal prosecutors.

Undermining the Effective Enforcement of Civil Rights Laws

* Said that he believes that "there is no evidence of racial bias in the administration of the federal death penalty," despite various studies to the contrary, including one from the DOJ itself.
* Considered releasing the Adam's Mark Hotel chain from a racial discrimination court ordered settlement, which would set an unacceptable precedent in public accommodations law.
* Abandoned a landmark civil rights case against the Philadelphia transit system. The transit system used a harsh physical test that has nothing to do with the job requirements, but excludes nearly all women applicants from transit police positions.
* Has failed to bring any new cases against any police departments for police misconduct or abuse. Is attempting to change the definition of racial profiling in a way that would undermine future litigation.
* Undercut minority-voting rights by failing to fully enforce the Voting Rights Act in Mississippi.
* Under his leadership, DOJ has brought only one new case for civil rights violations in the workplace.
* Said that the disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine is "proper," making DOJ one of the few groups that clings to this position.
* Justice Department determined that the Monterey County, CA plan to reduce the number of polling places for the Oct. 7 recall election compiled with the federal Voting Rights Act. This decision further frustrates efforts to provide access to voting facilities in a county with a history of low voter turnout and racial and ethnic discrimination.
* Released racial profiling guidelines that were little more than rhetorical smoke and mirrors. The policy guidelines provide no rights or remedies and include a broad and largely undefined exception when "national security" concerns come into play.

Other Concerns

* Eliminated a pilot program that provided federal money to pay for DNA testing to exonerate innocent inmates.
* Issued an order that certified federal agents to repeal the licenses of any doctor who prescribed lethal drugs for terminally ill patients, an express challenge to Oregon law.
* Has blurred the line between church and state by conducting daily sessions of prayer and Bible study at the DOJ. (According to a recent report in the New Yorker, these sessions have not been occurring since September 11.)
* Has been a major proponent of Bush's faith based initiative. Has worked to create a legal theory that would withstand a constitutional challenge to direct federal funding of religious groups including churches, synagogues and mosques.
* Refused to meet with civil liberties groups as well as fellow Republicans regarding concerns about potential civil liberties violations in the Patriot Act.
* In the government's case against Zacarias Moussaoui, the DOJ announced that it would defy a court order to allow the defendant to depose a material witness. DOJ officials have stated that if they lose this issue on appeal, they will simply remove the case to a military tribunal. This approach clearly illustrates the DOJ operating with a predetermined verdict, and points to a willingness to disregard the Judiciary when it suits them.
* Ashcroft violated a federal judge's gag order in a terrorism case. US District Court Judge Rosen has given Ashcroft until September 12th to explain why he should not be required to appear in front of the judge regarding this violation.
* Continues to use demagoguery to intimidate those who would question his policies. He has now called the amendment that would prohibit DOJ funds to be used to enforcement "sneak and peak" warrants the "Terrorist Tip-off Amendment."

*Prepared by the staff of the ACLU Washington Office and update September 5, 2003.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17658leg20021030.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. I don't understand your reasoning or why the OP.
Ashcroft was a more diabolical AG, he was better at what he did than Gonzo. How can I say that? Ashcroft never found himself in the hot seat that Gonzo was in today. Gonzo is sloppy and arrogant. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and that is where we are at now. This bunch think that they can get away with anything they want and that no one will hold them accountable.

I seriously doubt anyone will be clamoring to fill Gonzo's shoes and if they do find someone, Gonzo will keep his transition office and continue to run things behind the scenes, just as he did when Ashcroft was AG. As Bush' WH counsel while Ashcroft was AG he was so involved in so much of the perversion that has damaged our nation, that is probably why Ashcroft left. Can you imagine those idiots telling you what to do and how to do it. Can you imagine telling them that you can't do certain things, such as fire folks for political reasons, without raising questions and causing investigations.

You give this bunch far too much credit while at the same time, you don't appreciate how they operate.

Rumsfield is still running the war, Cheney's finger is on the pulse of the nation and Gonzo will still be involved in the "legistics/politicizing" of the DOJ unless he is charged with contempt of congress/perjury or unless Bush and Cheney are impeached.

The only way we can regain our nation is to start holding them accountable.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Asscroft was more slippery, you say?
The point of the OP was to discuss what the effects of replacing Gonzalez might be. I think the evidence is clear that it won't make a wit of difference who this bunch chooses. They always present themselves as trusted reformers, but turn out to be enablers.

I'm not going to get too excited about changing the window dressing of this decrepit White House. I think Gonzales is a simple-minded toady, not an orchestrator or architect of the Bush plutocracy. There's no guarantee that anyone who accepts the job and is approved would be any more accountable than Gonzales is now. There will be an inevitable cushion for the new AG.

And, more efficient with these folks means more tact, not less mischief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. These folks wouldn't know efficency if it bit them on the ass.
Read my posts again.

They are the teflon admin, they have gotten away with so much, they think they are unstoppable and they have gotten sloppy (the RNC email server, "we lost 5 million emails", etc).

If we don't hold them accountable then they will continue to get away with their corruption and destruction.

I want to see them all fall and if Gonzo is the first domino, then let's push him over.

I'll be damned if fear of what might replace him will ever be a concern or would stop me from wanting him out of the post.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. It's not fear that I'm querying, just a caution
I don't think Gonzales will be any more of a 'domino' than Ashcroft was when he left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. READ AGAIN
that is if we just let him leave

He has committed crimes and he needs to BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!

dayum, don't know how plainer I can put it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelly Rupert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
11. You realize, of course, that the Democrats control the Senate.
Alberto McAshcroft II won't fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Gates did.
Negroponte's tool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelly Rupert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Gates has been far more reasonable than Rumsfeld.
He's continued the war, yeah, but that was to be expected. The Dem goal for SecDef was "someone who isn't going to be a crazy egomaniac who runs the entire Pentagon into the ground by micromanaging every single employee," and Gates seems to fit that rather-simple bill.

The Dem goal for Atty. General is going to be far more specific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. How is escalation "progress'?
We all lobbied for Ashcroft to leave, then we got Gonzales.


"Among the names floated (in March) by administration officials (to replace Gonzales) were Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and White House anti-terrorism coordinator Frances Townsend. Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson is a White House prospect. So is former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, but sources were unsure whether he would want the job."

http://www.sotublog.com/2007/01/11/672
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelly Rupert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Yes, we got Gonzales for Ashcroft,
when the Republicans had the Senate. The Dems have the Senate now; Bush has little choice but to pick someone halfway-reasonable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. like Betraeus and Gates?
two sides of the same coins. What is reasonable about anything this administration has done with Justice or Defense? Is that really a reasonable prospect that there will be someone who can/will temper the administration's treason?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
23. Cheney would pick another John Roberts type
Bush doesn't pick anybody (his nose and feet excepted).

If Gonzo goes, they'll look for someone just as beholden
to their extremist views, and just as unlikely to uphold
the constitution as the first two Bush Lite AGs. Just
figure they'll find someone who has kept so far out of
the limelight that they can push him through confirmation
due to what is NOT known rather than what is known.

If there is any justice (small J), quite a few of the Bush
gang will be doing hard time in two years for the sole reason
that there will be no more room in the country club prisons
to house them all.

On the other hand, maybe some of the more posh hotels on the
Cayman Islands are fully booked starting in January 2009, and with
no listed date of departure..........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
24. I'm ready for an honest Attorney General, who isn't a nutbag fundie
and who doesn't suffer from Republican amnesia. Hope I don't have to wait until 2009, but I'm resigned to the possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
30. I'm ready for one who will respect the Constitution...
instead of trying to redact all the parts of the Bill of Rights he doesn't like (4th amendment, that pesky habeus corpus thing, etc. etc.).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warren pease Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
33. Keep him where you can see him...
He's been exposed as a dumb ass who can't remember what he had for breakfast. He's a laughingstock. He's lost all credibility.

Why do you think the wingnuts want to get rid of him? His replacement will be just as religiously insane and fascistic, but non-confrontational, better at media manipulation, lower key, and a better salesman.

I want a marginalized idiot who will be the subject of Letterman monologues, political cartoons and jokes spread overnight on the internet to a billion people.

In short, he's as good as it gets from this administration. Anybody else will be slicker, more dangerous and more effective. We don't need that.


wp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 04:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC