Worse Than Ashcroft (by Nat Hentoff)

The Village Voice ^ | 29 NOV 04 | Nat Hentoff

[hosepipe]

[ Worse Than Ashcroft (by Nat Hentoff) ]

You got it Nat.. Grab your shoes and socks, your Barney Fifeness.. Ashcroft was a pussy.. a kitten.. this guy is full grown cat.. Un-herd-able and he eats RATS for breakfast..

[Parley Baer]

Thanks Nat. Like some of the above posters I was not so sure about Alberto. However Nat you have convinced me he is going to do OK. Thank You, Parley

[Reactionary]

Ah. I see that the little liberal is mewling about how his pals, the terrorists, are being treated.

That's par for the course. These degenerate liars consider the Unites States to be a terrorist regime, anyway.

[SuziQ]

I have no problem with Gonzales take on the Geneva convention as it supposedly relates to the jihadists. They are not under it's protections because they are mercenaries!

[gidget7]

Farn right it does!! Sounds like he's the MAN!!

[ladyinred]

Well here they go again. Loser whiner leftist traitors.

[grounhog]

Better than Ashcroft; and thats real good.....

[middie]

While no disclaimer is needed, I will state that I'm very distant from any hint of being what you so derisively refer to as a leftist. That said: As a person dedicated to the rule of law and putting my kiester on the line for our Constitution and way of life for 30+ years, I had assumed, silly me, that there could not ever be an attorney general who could possible be worse for our system of constitutional protections, immunities and privileges that John Ashcroft. Wrong! Alberto Gonzales is a pleasant, hail fellow, well-met, a great fellow lawyer to share a happy hour beer with. But as the U.S. Attorney General we would quickly come to realize that Ashcroft was a screaming liberal by comparison. It is a serious mistake, and a potential grave injustice to support him merely because our guy is President and has nominated him. Yes, Gonzales is really smart, and yes, he is highly intelligent in addition---and yes, he rose from humble origins and struggled to attain his many honors; to which he has been properly entitled. None of that warrants sacrificing our liberties, protections and immunities guaranteed by our most sacred organic document.

He would be the first attorney general since the immediate post-WW I in the early 1920s to cut dissent, disagreement, and controversy over public policy with a blunt instrument and without regard to those long-standing constitutional protections so important to our society and way of life. There are probably only 100 -200 equally and better qualified men and women who would be excellent without transgressing the historic rights of anyone subject to U.S. jurisdiction as he has shown a propensity to do.