Posted on 11/28/2001 7:14:14 AM PST by truthandlife
Today Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy begins an intensive series of hearings designed to examine military tribunals, detention of suspects and witnesses, and other aspects of the Bush Justice Department's response to terrorism. But Republicans believe the hearings have a secondary purpose as well: to renew the attacks on Attorney General John Ashcroft that began during his confirmation hearings ten months ago.
Today's session, titled "Department of Justice Oversight: Preserving Our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism," ran into trouble even before it began. Although Leahy proposed to probe Justice Department policies, he did not schedule anyone from the Justice Department to testify. Last week, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant wrote a letter to Leahy saying, "Given that the stated subject of the November 28 hearing is Department of Justice oversight, it is appropriate that a representative of the Justice Department be present as a witness." Bryant suggested criminal-division head Michael Chertoff, who, Bryant dryly added, "would be an excellent witness on issues related to Justice Department actions since September 11." Leahy added Chertoff to the list at virtually the last minute.
Leahy had originally made several requests for Ashcroft to testify. After putting the chairman off, the attorney general is scheduled to appear before the committee next week. Although his testimony will undoubtedly draw an enormous amount of press coverage, it will be just one of many committee sessions in coming weeks. Democrats have scheduled full committee hearings and subcommittee hearings on the war on terrorism at the rate of one, and sometimes two, sessions a day.
Although most Republican lawmakers approve of Bush administration policies, they also believe the Justice Department's actions in the war on terrorism are a legitimate area for congressional oversight. However, the sheer number of hearings, plus the involvement of a coalition of liberal interest groups that attacked Ashcroft at his confirmation hearings early this year, suggests, at least to the GOP, that Democrats are also interested in inflicting political damage on the attorney general.
The leader of one of those interest groups, Ralph Neas of People for the American Way, recently called Ashcroft "the most dangerous threat to civil liberties in the federal government," and accused the attorney general of waging a "relentless assault on constitutional rights and civil liberties." A report released this month by Neas's group says the Justice Department's antiterrorism policies "vindicate many of the fears expressed by civil rights and civil liberties organizations when John Ashcroft was first nominated for the position of U.S. attorney general. In fact, many of those fears had been vindicated even before September 11."
Republicans believe Leahy and other Democrats have chosen to concentrate their fire on Ashcroft as a way of scoring points against the Bush administration without appearing to attack the president, who enjoys high job approval ratings. For example, Republicans point out that the issue of military tribunals was a Bush executive order that will be carried out by the Defense Department. Why not go after the White House instead of focusing on Ashcroft? While that might be the more direct approach, at the moment even Neas seems inclined to exempt Bush from criticism. "The sense I get is that the president has focused primarily on what's going on overseas and has delegated what's going on domestically to the attorney general," he says.
Finally, some in the GOP believe another name for the flurry of Judiciary Committee activity might be "What We're Doing Instead Of Confirming Judges." There has been little if any progress on the issue of judges since the failure of a GOP plan to block appropriations bills as a way of forcing Democrats to consider more of the president's judicial nominations. Now, with no pressure to act, Leahy is virtually ignoring the issue. Will Republicans renew a push for more confirmations before the end of the year? "There's no point in it," says one frustrated aide.
Sen Hatch threw in a ringer when he told that Leahy suggested military tribunals during the discussions of the anti-terrorist bill. Can't give exact site, but I did hear it. Leahy had no comment, as one would expect him to interrupt if untrue.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.............{sound of gnashing of teeth}
Nice job by your staff, Senator Hatch. I think you have found the talking point of the day...
By the presstitutes for sure. Can't let the facts or truth cloud the agenda, ya know....
I believe that Bush has already said that he will not use recess appointments to put judges on the bench. I don't know why he unilaterally disarmed himself on this issue.
Leahy's stalls on these judges are absolutely unconscionable.
I'm curious to see who Bush picks for Surgeon General, and am hoping for Dr Bernadine Healy--she is a very good candidate, and her only "crime" was avoiding telling the public about the underhanded dealings of the Red Cross.
Look for eventually some Dems and liberal politicos to start saying that the death count in NYC is not *that* high and maybe we are overreacting. That would be horrific, but I believe very possible.
How about, for example, announcing a major criminal investigation into the vote fraud that occurred in the 2000 election. Start with the late polls and phony registrations in Missouri. Then, every time the Rats stall something, expand the probe.
This could even get to be fun. Imagine announcing the indictments of prominent Rats on a regular basis. Also imagine an extensive PR campaign in South Dakota and places with conservative Rat senators detailing the obstruction going on in the Senate. (Cue the announcer: historically, the senate has confirmed 88% of a president's judicial nominees in the first year of his term. Under Tom Daschle and the Democrats, only 28% of Bush's nominess have been granted hearings. Is this the way you think the senate should be run?
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.