Bush Picks Ex-Aide to Ashcroft for Homeland Security Post

[Guest guest]

Chertoff sounds fairly benign in the NY Times story. But read the 2003 story

below this one for the truth about Chertoff.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/politics/11cnd-cabi.html

 

Bush Picks Ex-Aide to Ashcroft for Homeland Security Post

By DAVID STOUT

 

Published: January 11, 2005

 

Doug Mills/The New York Times

Michael Chertoff was the president's second pick for the job, after Bernard

Kerik.

 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 - Michael Chertoff, a federal judge who was an architect

of the administration's approach to fighting terrorism when he was a Justice

Department official, was nominated by President Bush today to be the next

secretary of homeland security.

 

" When Mike is confirmed by the Senate, the Department of Homeland Security

will be led by a practical organizer, a skilled manager and a brilliant

thinker, " Mr. Bush said at the White House.

 

Judge Chertoff, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit, based in Philadelphia, said he was " deeply honored " to be chosen to

replace the Department of Homeland Security's first secretary, Tom Ridge.

 

" He leaves some very big shoes to fill, " Judge Chertoff said. " I join the

whole country in expressing gratitude to him for his service. "

 

The judge is President Bush's second choice to replace Mr. Ridge. The first

choice, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik, had to

withdraw amid embarrassing revelations about his business dealings and personal

life.

 

In turning to Judge Chertoff, Mr. Bush tapped a man who has already been

confirmed by the Senate three times. Most recently, he was approved by a vote of

88 to 1 on June 9, 2003, for his seat on the Third Circuit. The lone dissenter

was Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. Mr. Chertoff had been the

Senate Republicans' chief counsel during the Whitewater investigation into

President Bill Clinton's and his wife's business affairs. (The earlier

confirmations

were for United States attorney for New Jersey and for chief of the Justice

Department's criminal division.)

 

The nominee would seem to be assured of another easy confirmation, given the

Republican majority in the Senate, but he will almost certainly encounter some

tough questions about the proper balance between national security and

personal liberties.

 

Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, said he thought Judge

Chertoff could be " an excellent homeland security secretary, " given his

background

and knowledge of the New York City area's security needs. The selection of

Judge Chertoff completes President Bush's Cabinet reshuffling for his second

term.

 

In agreeing to serve as homeland security chief, Judge Chertoff is trading

his lifetime seat on the Third Circuit for a political appointment in which he

serves at the pleasure of the president. But if he felt any ambivalence, there

was no hint of it in his remarks at the White House.

 

" If confirmed, it will be my privilege to serve with the thousands of men and

women who stand watch across the country and overseas, protecting our

security and promoting our freedom, " the nominee said.

 

Judge Chertoff, 51, is a native of Elizabeth, N.J. He was a magna cum laude

graduate of Harvard and received his law degree from Harvard Law School. He was

United States attorney for New Jersey from 1990 to 1994. Early in his career,

he was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, who had

served on the New Jersey Supreme Court.

 

The nominee was a special counsel to the New Jersey Senate committee that

investigated racial profiling by the State Police several years ago.

 

In the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003, he was best known for helping to

craft the Bush administration's antiterrorism campaign following the attacks

of Sept. 11, 2001. As head of the Justice Department's criminal division, Mr.

Chertoff set aside some initial reservations to become a proponent of military

tribunals to try prisoners held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba

after the American-led campaign in Afghanistan.

 

" Would we really want to import those people into the Metropolitan

Correctional Center in New York or in other parts of the country? " he asked

rhetorically

in 2002. " Would we really want to try 10 or 15 or 20 terrorist cases a year -

one after the other after the other - in federal district courts with juries,

with judges who would have to have protection, perhaps for the rest of their

lives? "

 

Mr. Chertoff insisted, in the face of criticism, that the administration's

tactics were constitutional as well as prudent. In particular, he has defended

the Patriot Act, which was passed by Congress shortly after the attacks of

Sept. 11, 2001. Among other things, the act makes it easier for law enforcement

agencies to conduct surveillance.

 

Critics of the law have called it a dangerous erosion of personal liberties,

but while in the Justice Department Mr. Chertoff steadfastly defended it.

Early in 2002, he called the administration's antiterrorism measures " aggressive

but, at the end of the day, fair and balanced. " Mr. Chertoff said he was

following the dictates of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who had told him, " I

want

you to think outside the box, but I don't want you to think outside the

Constitution. "

 

The nominee said today he would continue to follow that principle. " If

confirmed, I pledge to devote all my energy to promoting our homeland security

and,

as important, to preserving our fundamental liberties, " he said.

---------------------------

http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel06112003.html

 

Michael Chertoff: Ashcroft's Top Gremlin

Spreading Mischief from DoJ to the Federal Bench

By ELAINE CASSEL

 

I have been watching John Ashcroft so long that it is getting to be a little

boring. Promising to use all available means to " fight terrorism, " prosecuting

every violation of law " to the fullest extent of the law, " desperately

wanting the death penalty for every possible offense, and, according to his

remarks

last week before the Senate Judiciary committee, wanting laws changed to

impose the death penalty for even more offenses. Ashcroft changes law and

procedure

by signing Executive Orders, and yes, he can get away with that unless a

court stops him. So far, no court has. Some congressional members, damn few,

express mild dismay at his tactics, such as locking up resident aliens after

9/11

and holding some of them for months without access to family or lawyers (or

charges), then deporting many on the most technical visa violations (some of

them

the fault of INS, over which he has authority). It never ends-the Ashcroft

watch. It only gets worse, and more frightening.

 

But now I have a new gremlin to watch, someone who is as intent on

undermining the law and Constitution as Ashcroft. I am referring to the man

behind the

criminal prosecution of terrorists, Michael Chertoff. Chertoff, former chief of

the Justice Department's criminal division, and a scary looking guy if ever

there was one, has been elevated to the level of Court of Appeals judge--the

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Delaware, New Jersey,

and Pennsylvania. What's so scary about Michael? Well, besides having no

judicial experience and being a right-ring radical who does not believe in the

Constitution and wants to rewrite federal law and rules of procedure on an ad

hoc,

case by case basis, as it suits him, nothing I guess.

 

A good place to look for Chertoff's legal philosophy is in the prosecution of

Zacarias Moussaoui , now taking place in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Chertoff is not the prosecutor of course, Paul McNulty of the Eastern District

is. But Chertoff is McNulty's boss and he is calling the shots. So Chertoff

argued the government's case in the super secret hearing before the 4th Circuit

Court of Appeals last week. The government is trying to block trial judge

Leonie Brinkema's ruling that Moussaoui and his lawyers have access to the

government's star witnesses against him. The government has refused and

appealed.

Judge Brinkema, who still believes in the Constitution, rightly ruled that to

deny

Moussaoui that access is a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment right to

confront witnesses.

 

Brinkema indicates that she will not be a party to making exceptions to the

Constitution on a case-by-case basis. She, in effect, suggests that maybe

Justice better take Moussaoui to Guantanamo and try him there in secret, in the

military tribunals they set up. Easy there to not only try him, but convict him,

and execute him . So why is the government insisting on keeping him in federal

court?

 

I have the answer, and it lies in Chertoff. Chertoff's goal, I believe, and

the goal of Ashcroft and Bush in supporting this prosecution in federal court,

is to subject federal trials, as they see fit, to ad hoc exemptions of

whatever laws (be they constitutional, criminal code, or rules of procedure)

that

will suit their purposes. Their grand scheme is to ultimately cripple and

dismantle the federal courts as we know them, one brick at a time.

 

Support for this theory of mine includes their prosecution of attorney Lynne

Stewart, for, in effect, zealously representing her client; rules created by

Ashcroft that subject attorneys and their clients to surveillance, be they

under secret wiretaps issues by the secret FISA court or monitoring of all

contacts in prison settings. These procedures came about by fiat from Ashcroft.

They

make any attorney who represents someone charged with an act of " terrorism "

(and a terrorist crime is one defined by Bush and Ashcroft-that is an ad hoc

determination, as well).

 

The Moussaoui case has many examples of legal changes. Moussaoui and even his

attorneys (!) cannot receive all documents related to the case, because of

" national security " interests. Witnesses may appear in court behind screens (!)

so that they cannot be seen. And, the Fourth Circuit hearing last week was

closed-closed-for the first time in history. Under Ashcroft we have had secret

warrants (or no warrants), secret hearings denying bail, secret trials, and now

secret appellate court arguments. Next, we can expect the Supreme Court to be

closed, can't we?

 

The 4th Circuit hearing was close to all but those " screened " and approved by

the Justice Department, the Defense Department, and the CIA. The judge

presiding over the hearing told the " security " official to jump up if any

attorney

arguing the case said anything that would jeopardize national security-so that

the room could be cleared! Then, as will happen in a trial, the government can

proceed out of the presence of the defendant or his attorney. Oh, of course,

Moussaoui was not allowed to be at the appellate hearing last week. How is

that for a legal system.

 

Chertoff argued to the 4th Circuit that the Court could not order the

government to produce its start witness against Moussaoui because (are you

ready?)

he, the witness, is out of the country at an undisclosed location. True, but the

witness is in the custody of the federal government! The out-of-the country

argument is a sham. This is similar to a ruling recently by the federal court

that ruled that Guantanmo Bay prisoners had no access to federal courts for

claims that they be charged or release because-they are out of the country!! Of

course, in federal custody, but that does not matter.

 

The absurd arguments contrary to the letter and spirit of all that not only

the Constitution, but current federal law provides, is appalling and shameful.

Chertoff will be making those arguments for the government when they appear

before his court (and if you think that appellate judges don't make arguments,

you did not hear Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist make Bush's arguments

for his attorney, not Solicitor General Ted Olson. And you have not read the

rulings of the Fourth Circuit when it denied an American citizen, Yasir Hamdi,

the right to see a lawyer. He is locked up in some military brig. He has not

been charged with a crime and has been in custody for close to a year. The

opinion was a political treatise, not a legal argument. And the treatise-opinion

supported the government's argument that courts step back and not conduct

meaningful judicial review or, heaven forbid, overrule the government in a time

of

" war. " And that treatise said that the " war " on terror will only be over when

the President says it is over, and that the " front " of the war may change from

time to time. When the " front " changes, then the government may tighten up

surveillance and arrests on that " battleground, " which could be Alexandria,

Virginia or any city in the country.

 

This same court will rule on Moussaoui's right to have access to a witness

who, by all counts, may help his case and hurt the government. If the 4th

Circuit rules that the witness may not be produced, federal law, procedure, and

the

Constitution will have been violated to support the Bush-Ashcroft agenda. The

Senate Judiciary Committee approved Michael Chertoff with hardly an argument

(though they did conduct an " investigation " into charges that he engaged in

some misconduct while at DOJ, which turned up nothing, or so we are told).

 

Keep your eye on Michael Chertoff. As bad for the law and Constitution as

many of Bush's judicial appointees are, Chertoff has been the architect of

prosecutions in the " war on terror. " And he may have big changes in mind for

you,

me, the courts, and the Constitution.

 

Elaine Cassel practices law in Virginia and the District of Columbia, teaches

law and psychology, and writes Civil Liberties Watch under the auspices of

The City Pages. She can be reached at: ecassel1

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.freewebs.com/tcfactory/ecosolidarity/freeclick.html

" Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing

health care to all Americans is socialism. " -- anon

http://www.sharedvoice.org/unamerican/