Posted on 11/13/2004 10:57:06 AM PST by Gone_Postal
Ashcroft says judges threaten national security by questioning Bush decisions
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Federal judges are jeopardizing national security by issuing rulings contradictory to President Bush's decisions on America's obligations under international treaties and agreements, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Friday.
In his first remarks since his resignation was announced Tuesday, Ashcroft forcefully denounced what he called "a profoundly disturbing trend" among some judges to interfere in the president's constitutional authority to make decisions during war.
"The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war," Ashcroft said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers' group.
The Justice Department announced this week it would seek to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge James Robertson in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who the government contends was Osama bin Laden's driver.
Robertson halted Hamdan's trial by military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, rejecting the Bush administration's position that the Geneva Conventions governing prisoners of war do not apply to al-Qaida members because they are not soldiers of a true state and do not fight by international norms.
Without mentioning that case specifically, Ashcroft criticized rulings he said found "expansive private rights in treaties where they never existed" that run counter to the broad discretionary powers given the president by the Constitution.
"Courts are not equipped to execute the law. They are not accountable to the people," Ashcroft said.
During his successful re-election campaign, Bush repeatedly promised to appoint judges who would adhere to strict interpretations of the Constitution. In addition to numerous lower courts, Bush is likely to appoint at least one and perhaps several justices to the Supreme Court during the next four years.
The administration lost a crucial legal battle this year when a divided Supreme Court determined the president lacks the authority to hold terror suspects classified as enemy combatants indefinitely with no access to lawyers or the ability to challenge their detention.
Ashcroft intends to remain as attorney general until his nominated successor, Alberto Gonzales, is confirmed by the Senate.
Is it just me, or is the story quite different from what was actually said?
And to think that there are powers amongst us that fight that mindset.
The ACLU comes to mind....
it is unbelieveable that the US Supreme Court has stepped in on the issue of detaining enemies during war time.
1. People detained in war have not necessarily committed a crime, they are detained because they are the enemy.
2. People detained in war are not detained because of their own actions, but merely because they are the enemy.
3. Troops in a war do not have time to make determinations and thus for safety of the troops have to lock them all up.
4. The US military has already been too liberal about releasing the enemy and have had to recapture or kill some in Afghanistan.
So I believe Ashcroft is right about this.
It's a pity he felt constrained to say this only after he retired. I know he was constantly under a liberal magnifying glass, but they could hardly have demonized him more if he spoke out more often while he was in office.
It was widely understood in the time of the activist Earl Warren court that judges don't touch the military or national security matters. It was still understood by SCOTUS when clinton tried to impose gay rights on the military and the court declined to get involved when activists tried to push them into it. But the present generation of judges are much worse even than the folks who wrote Roe v. Wade. They are shameless, and precedent means nothing to them.
We must take back our courts.
I believe he will be nominated for the USSC justice
I'm on the judges' side in this case; Article 3 of the Constitution pretty clearly gives jurisdiction over all trials conducted by the US government to the courts. The executive branch is 'way out of line claiming that it has any authority at all to hold trials (or tribunals) that are independent of the court system.
I don't know why so many people world wide adhere to treaties as if they're sacred.
When situations change, treaties must be updated. The Geneva Conventions was written for conventional warfare.
It is time we wrote a new treaty or expanded the Conventions to cover unconventional warfare, with unconventional fighters like terrorists.
I hope that is the case. This would be a great opportunity for Arlen Sphincter to exhibit confirmation leadership. Now wouldn't it??
Now for the coup de grace -- INDICT HITLERY KLINTOON!
It is time we wrote a new treaty or expanded the Conventions to cover unconventional warfare, with unconventional fighters like terrorists.
======
Now this would be a GOOD JOB FOR THE UNITED NATIONS, WOULD IT NOT??? (laughing) -- to get the crooks to rewrite the laws governing their ongoing criminal behaviors....
There may be method in the "madness" of Ashcroft moving away from the AG job....just maybe.
The administration is going by the Geneva conventions, here, as they should. Not the Constitution.
That's a pretty cut-and-dried reading of the conventions. They were written that way to keep combatants from endangering civilians by confusing the issue and making civilians more likely to be fired upon. It is the Al-Queda member who is committing the war crime. Their lack of protection was intentional.
Well, when this judge is overturned on appeal, you read that ruling and tell us why it is wrong.
I was thinking the same thing...
Mighty plain spoken there. I like it.
If the Geneva Convention goes against the Constitution, the administration may not enforce it. Treaties don't amend the Constitution.
The Geneva conventions covers military, the Constitution covers the American people.
The Constitution covers the American GOVERNMENT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.