U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft Resigns 1275
andyring writes "In a move that will undoubtedly make many /. readers jump for joy (although perhaps not myself), Attorney General John Ashcroft announced he will resign, according to multiple news sources. While many here dislike him, others have more favorable opinions of him. He became the point man on the USA Patriot Act, which typically ignites harsh opinions on both sides of the aisle."
Reader cnsc1rtr , referring to the AP's version of the story, writes "He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated, 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'"
Ashcroft (Score:4, Interesting)
It's almost unbelievable that the USA would allow him to work on bills such as the Patriot act.
What I don't understand is why are you guys not protesting?
Have you given up?
Will Bush appoint a more conservative replacement? (Score:5, Interesting)
As well as secure us from sex, drugs and P2P (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a Christain and a Conservative and I am glad to see him gone. His record on states rights vs federal law proves that the current administration cares nothing about the will of the people and only about the power of Federal law. I dont want the state coming in and telling me what I can and can't put in to my body or who I can have sex with. I could just see this guy dragging homosexuals in if the amendment had passed. I dont want the state to come in to my marrage or a gay marrage anymore than I want the state to come in to my relationship with God.
This guy got his rocks off dragging people in to court over matters that should never have been law in the first place.
See you around John.....
Re:Ashcroft (Score:3, Interesting)
But yeah, I'm glad he's gone, too. Maybe we can finally uncover the statue of Justice.
Question for andyring: (Score:2, Interesting)
- A.P.
Now Up in the batters box (Score:4, Interesting)
Is Mr. DMCA himself, Orrin Hatch.
You will long for the days of Ashcroft.
Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad (Score:2, Interesting)
You're aware that Ashcroft doesn't run the FBI, aren't you? Robert Mueller does. He's not a lightning rod because he's not a religious zealot with no respect for the constitution, see?
Compare that to the last AG, Janet Reno. The only thing I remember her doing was frying a whole bunch of fellow citizens down in Texas...and refusiing to prosecute/investigate a bunch of Clintonistas.
Again with the AG. All the Clinton investigations, incidentally, yielded one conviction. On a plea. Let's look at Reagan's stellar administration for contrast, shall we?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Interesting)
Starting on November 7, 1919, Palmer's men smashed union offices and the headquarters of Communist and Socialist organizations without warrants, concentrating on foreigners. They arrested over 10,000 people (...) In January, 1920, another 6,000 were arrested, mostly members of the anarcho-syndicalist union Industrial Workers of the World. During one of the raids, more than 4,000 Communists were rounded up in a single night. All foreign aliens caught were deported.
The public reaction to these raids was favorable, stirring up a storm of anti-communist sentiment. In a murder eerily similar to the lynching of Germans during World War I, a group of young men in Centralia, Washington hanged a radical from a railway bridge. The coroner's report stated that the communist "jumped off with a rope around his neck and then shot himself full of holes." For most of 1919, the public seemed to side with Palmer.
I don't want to defend Bush & Ashcroft, but it's simply naive to see them as "the worst that happened". No, it's not the worst in American history. When you look on the whole American history it turns out that only the post-WWII period really resembles contemporary understanding of constitutional democracy (and even then there were authoritarian hiccups of McCarthyism or Watergate).
Re:Ashcroft (Score:1, Interesting)
or despite the fact that thousands of terrorist cells _have_ been operating in the USA? or that we have had biological agents (anthrax) used against us, and having been threatened several times over with worse things?
does anyone really care what you guys do in new zealand, i mean seriously? you guys have nothing to worry about, not with us superpowers keeping you guys nice and safe so that you can bask in the sun.
let us folks who know what is going on handle the "big boy" stuff.
Yes, completely out of context! (Score:5, Interesting)
Taken out of context, it loses very little. The man claims we've beaten both crime and terrorism.
Have we?
- A.P.
Sadly (Score:5, Interesting)
While I am absolutely elated that Ashcroft has resigned, I have no doubt that we will most certainly see four more years of the same foreign policy that has dogged the US since Bush's first inauguration. That, combined with the fact that Ashcroft has already done significant domestic damage viz. the PATRIOT act paints a rather bleak picture for the US in the coming years - even if the inside players are different.
The stage has already been set.
your own link disagrees with you (Score:4, Interesting)
Guilliani (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess is that this has all already been worked out and the resignation and nomination were all worked out weeks ago. All part of the plan to groom him to run for Prez in '08 or '12.
His Legacy (Score:3, Interesting)
His legacy lives even now; check the front page of CNN.com [cnn.com].
You'll see a huge photo of Ashcroft's face under the main headline, next to another headline, "Airport X-Ray Sees Through Clothes." [cnn.com]
Paging Dr. Freud.
Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Today Ashcroft (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday."
It was the third straight annual increase in a row under Bush. Just like during Reagan and Bush Sr., the wealthy have been doing very well, and the poor very poorly. And these numbers are actually worse than they sound, because many other expenses have been going up at the same time, largely due to administration policies (college tuitions due to state aid cuts, gas prices due to a tight reserve policy and the weak dollar policy (and that whole "invasion" thing), etc)
A stable Iraq? What, you mean like there was BEFORE we made it a terrorist haven and gave the middle east a rallying cry?
What if we had left Germany and France after World War II? You mean, we shouldn't leave countries that aren't resisting our occupation of them? Good idea! Now what are your ideas for countries that *are* resisting our occupation of them?
Re:your own link disagrees with you (Score:2, Interesting)
(The Tories at the time were "liberals" -- believers in small government and personal liberty -- while theses days Americans seem to use it as a synonym for socialism, democratic or otherwise.)
Maybe we need a new political vocabulary, since everyone's talking at cross-purposes... and I don't think two dimensions are enough, you can't (usefully) reduce every issue to a binary problem.
Re:Stalking horse (Score:5, Interesting)
He's not just a postmodern bureaucrat. He's a bloody nihilist.
NPR had a stroy on the other day (Score:3, Interesting)
Some thoughts on Ashcroft (Score:5, Interesting)
This is too late in the discussion, but I just saw it a little while ago and Ashcroft strikes a nerve. So here goes.
Ashcroft reminds me of Ministers of Interiors in Third World dictatorships. He is a tool for the dictator and the regime, and not there for his main job, that is protect the people.
His argument that he did achieve his objectives in protecting America from crime and terror is much like the guy who sprayed pepper on his front lawn, to ward off elephants. When his neighbor told him there are no elephants here, he says : "See! It works!"
Not a single case in the past 3 years was prosecuted successfully as a terrorism case, with conviction. All of the high profile arrests where Aschroft made press conferences with huge pomp, touting them as major victories in the war on terrorism, are just for show. For example, the Lakawanna Six (Buffalo, NY) Yemeni-Americans all pleaded to lesser charges and were convicted. The case of the African American bunch in Oregon is similar. The same goes for the Holy Land Foundation in Texas, and other Muslim charity cases. Most cases that Ashcroft said to be terrorism end up getting convictions for immigration irregularities or ID fraud (SSN, Driver License, Food Stamps, ...etc.). No terrorism at all, except the constant drumming up of fear in the masses, and no one remembers what happened to the poor souls who got caught and made examples of.
Of course, the Patriot Act, Secret Evidence, and the eroding civil liberties that goes with it, is exactly what is wrong, since terrorists have achieved an objective with these things.
There are other incidents that show his short comings as well, such as making a big deal of a statue with the bare breast, his fundamentalist view, him attacking Islam while in office, and more.
Someone should really make up a web site about Ashcroft Watch or something, lest people forget all this.
Well, his letter of resignation says "I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons." What does that mean? Is a Supreme Court Justice position waiting for him (despite the poster above who said that it has to be someone with judge qualifications)?
Ashcroft wasn't always a civil liberties foe (Score:5, Interesting)
Date for letter (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:SAFE! (Score:4, Interesting)
So he wants to sit on the Bench with the other SCOTUSes and burn heretics?
Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Today Ashcroft (Score:4, Interesting)
A mythical group of people who are neither rich nor poor, generally believed to own real property of significant, if minor, value. They would have reasonable balances in savings accounts and/or retirement accounts, and the means to retire to a comfortable life before they die of old age. In much the same way that biology can prove that there isn't enough fish in Loch Ness to support a sea serpent, simple economic theory relegates a supposed "middle class" to works of fiction such as sunday paper editorials and presidential campaign commercials.
See also: compassionate conservatism, journalism, projected deficit
Re:Sadly (Score:2, Interesting)
Am I *really*? Rumsfeld is the one who was given the latitude to take Iraq however he felt best. That's his job. He overrode the skilled, experienced military planners/commanders in the Pentagon regularly over things like troop counts, he had no plan for occupying, no plan for exiting, and so on. These are his albatross, circling his head of his own accord.
Such conspiracy theories are bullshit. PNAC does not tell George Bush what to do. I hate him greatly, but I'm not so blinded as to believe that kind of hogwash about him. That's not to say that he doesn't like PNAC or agree with it - I have no idea - but to say they're pulling the strings is garbage. Bush did what he wanted to do, and gave Rummy the power to do his job in the process. Rummy fucked it up, plain and simple, and needs to go.
Re:SAFE! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:SAFE! (Score:4, Interesting)
There are people in the senate who, if the have to, will take turns ceding the floor to each other for 8 hours at a time until someone else gets nominated.
Ashcroft will not sit on the supreme court (besides...he is clearly biased and has predetermined verdicts on many possible cases) as long as there is somone reasonable on the floor or the senate.
Re:SAFE! (Score:4, Interesting)
Who will dilligently protect the Americans who would be murdered otherwise? Don't think unborn children are lives; then I guess a misscarriage would be a noneven in your family?
Given the realities of abortion in the US before Roe v. Wade, I don't think that it is any question that it is a good thing. But everyone should be happy because abortions are actually declining in the US.
Who will protect a terminally-ill patient who really wants to live out their remaining days from being pressered into giving them up by greedy relatives or physicians with a social agenda?
What about those with sound mind who plainly claim that they don't want to suffer any longer? Are you requiring their lives to be prolonged?
Is it your suposition that Atheist students are so unsure of their quote faith that whitnessing others expressing this will shake it. Its it bad for someone born to an Atheist family to whitness others practing perhaps enjoinging their faith thus provinging opertunity to understand and perhaps decide personally if it might be for them?
The issue isn't whether it is so horrible that an atheist might
Look, I don't know if you actually believe what you are saying, so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. But you seem to be arguing from the premise that everything should be organized around religeous principles. The only religion whose scripture teaches this is Islam, and this is only because Islam is the most pure (and extreme) form of monotheism. Indeed the idea that one can describe in any way the will of God perhaps leads one to this premise. And if you do this, then the clergy are the ones who are really in power (look at the role of the democratic institutions in Iran, for example).
No thank you. I don't want to live in a theocracy, and this is one of the great things about Western society-- we inherited from our pagan ancestors a healthy separation of church and state. While the complex cosmology which was the foundation for this is now gone, we have retained the institutions.
Abortion should be protected because it is good governance to do so. Evolution should be taught because it undermines the mission of our schools not to. School prayer should be banned in the interests of a more inclusive society. Marijuana should be legalized because it is good governance to do so. Terminally ill patients should be allowed to die in conditions of their own choosing, even if this is with the assistance of another, and simply because it is in the interest of the dignity of our people.
Re:Misson Accomplished!! (Score:1, Interesting)
Sorry, but that is blatant political spin that is contradicted by the stories you link to. But, just to clarify things [armytimes.com]:
It is sad that the so many leading Democrats, like soon to be former Senator Daschle, just couldn't pass up the opportunity to twist the thank you to the sailors of the Abraham Lincoln battle group to try and make the President look like a fool. You apparently join them.
If the Bush administration wanted to get a mantra of "Mission Accomplished" out for the entire war they would have repeated it at every opportunity. That didn't happen. Why? Because the purpose of the "Mission Accomplished" banner was to thank the sailors. But hey, the truth be damned if a lie can hurt Bush, right?
By the way, who is it that keeps saying that the United States is in a war that is going to last years? The Bush administration.
Well, if it was a banner meant for the ship's crew, to celebrate the completion of their mission, why did the White House make up the banner and bring it to the ship? Not the sort of thing you would expect if it was just something the Navy does as a matter of course at the end of a long voyage.
This will no doubt come as a shock to you, being as you seem to be more acquainted with political spin than military considerations, but an aircraft carrier is a warship, not a floating print shop. If you want 20 F-18s with fighter cover and radar jamming support to drop 2 x 2,000 pound bombs each 250 miles away to help a Marine regiment take a beach, they can help you. You want a very large, professional, beautifully printed sign to thank the sailors, you go somewhere else.
But please, if you have some special insight into why it isn't possible for the President's group to print and bring the sign as part of their thanking the sailors, please tell us.
The President and his people are saying that the banner was the "Navy's idea" so they don't have to take responsibility for their gaffe.
There are, without a doubt, people in America who think that thanking American sailors for successfully completing their mission is a gaffe, but the members of the Bush administration aren't likely to be part of them. Apparently you are. That is sad.
What I hate about the PATRIOT Act... (Score:4, Interesting)
What I hate most about it is not the Act itself (though it has its despicable parts) - but the fact that as a citizen, I wasn't represented by my congressmen when they passed it. It came out of the blue, it was voted on, and nobody read it...
Worse, my fellow citizens don't seem to care about this important fact: that a law so broad and reaching as this Act became law without their so-called representatives reading it, understanding what it said, and debating its merits! This isn't what these guys were elected for, right?
But this is what America has become - don't read the fine print on that contract you sign - and don't read it if it only likely will affect others who elected you - fuck 'em, right? Because you are now in office, and who gives a damn about the people, right? Just give me some more cash, err, donations - Ms. Rosen and Mr. Valentti, all will be OK. The people - screw them!
Who cares about the people - they'll elect me again, right? Shit, Bush is the dumbest motherfucker on the planet (you know they are thinking this) - yet the people spoke up for him again, too. Me - I'm a shoo-in!
Damn - I would at least have a little more respect for my so-called representatives had they at least read it (how many pages was it - 500?), questioned it, debated it, discussed it - and then, only then - voted on it in full conscience on what they were voting for. Hell - you would have thought at least one of them (well, there was one guy - Russ) would have had issues. I also wonder why no one even bothered to ask how such a large piece of legislation just "suddenly" appeared out of thin air - like it was waiting in the wings for just this sort of thing (9/11) to happen.
Assuming, of course, that nothing more meets the eye on that little bit of history either - I still have my doubts on the why's, how's, etc of that day - questions that have yet to be fully answered in my opinion - things don't add up.
But maybe, just maybe, if we close our eyes, plug our ears, and scream "nyha, nyha, nyha!!!" - it will all go away - ya think?
At least, it seems that is how the rest of America is...
Re:SAFE! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:SAFE! (Score:3, Interesting)
The same thing every politician means when he or she says that: private enterprise. As members of Congress keep grousing about every time they (unconstitutionally, IMO) pass yet another "cost of living" adjustment to their own paychecks, the private sector pays better.
Re:your own link disagrees with you (Score:3, Interesting)
Presto! Here you go with a three-dimensional ternary problem:
http://preditor.is-a-geek.net/viewsite.php?spage=
(deliberately not linked since that site is slow as hell and uses dynamic content. Remove spaces inserted by Slashcode). I was unfortunately unable to find the diagram on the original website, NationStates [nationstates.net], the website that came up with the scheme.
The quick summary for the lazy is pasted from the NationStates FAQ:
NationStates has three main scales: personal, economic, and political. In each case, you can be authoritarian (moral, or restrictive) or libertarian (liberal, or laissez-faire). For example, someone with left-wing politics might want high levels of personal freedom (e.g. no drug laws, gay rights), low levels of economic freedom (e.g. taxes, welfare), and average levels of political freedom (e.g. compulsory voting at elections). A libertarian might prefer high levels of freedom on all scales. An authoritarian might want the opposite.
Whether this constitutes a good model of political thought or not...you decide for yourself.
Re:Yes, completely out of context! (Score:3, Interesting)
For a graphologist, the spacing on the page reflects the writer's attitude toward their own world and relationship to things in his or her own space. If the inputted data was correct John has left lots of white space on the left side of the paper. John fills up the rest of the page in a normal fashion. If this is true, then John has a healthy relationship to the past and is ready to move on. The right side of the page represents the future and John is ready and willing to get started living now and planning for the future. John would like to leave the past behind and move on.
John is selective when picking friends. He does not trust everyone. He has a select group of people that are truly close to him, usually two or three. He is careful when choosing his inner circle of friends.
John has difficulty trusting anyone. In fact, he trusts no one completely. This is a result of his trust being betrayed in the past. He has closed up, thus ceasing to allow close friendships. John truly wants close friends and desires physical relationships, but he fears he will get hurt, again. He is lonely, yet has a crying need for close friends. This trait can cause much unhappiness. However, it can be changed.
John is capable of seeing far into the future. He plans two, three, even ten years in advance. John has high goals and can literally see them being reached. He is very self-confident and has a high self-esteem. John will reach whatever level of success he desires. John has the self-concept that is possessed by less than two percent of the population. That two percent contains the most successful people in the world. When a person has a high self-esteem, he frees himself to achieve an unlimited world of success. John has achieved this frame of mind. Congratulations. He has the self-confidence to take great risk, thus reaping the rewards. If he does fail, it doesn't break his confidence. He knows he can do it! In retrospect of our research, this trait is one of the most desirable to possess, because it releases the writer to achieve his full potential. We recommend everyone raise their self-esteem to this level.
In reference to John's mental abilities, he has a very investigating and creating mind. He investigates projects rapidly because he is curious about many things. He gets involved in many projects that seem good at the beginning, but he soon must slow down and look at all the angles. He probably gets too many things going at once. When John slows down, then he becomes more creative than before. Since it takes time to be creative, he must slow down to do it. He then decides what projects he has time to finish. Thus he finishes at a slower pace than when he started the project. He has the best of two kinds of minds. One is the quick investigating mind. The other is the creative mind. His mind thinks quick and rapidly in the investigative mode. He can learn quicker, investigate more, and think faster. John can then switch into his low gear. When he is in the slower mode, he can be creative, remember longer and stack facts in a logical manner. He is more logical this way and can climb mental mountains with a much better grip.
Diplomacy is one of John's best attributes. He has the ability to say what others want to hear. He can have tact with others. He has the ability to state things in such a way as to not offend someone else. John can disagree without being disagreeable.
John is secretive. He has secrets which he does not wish to share with others. He intentionally conceals things about himself. He has a private side that he intends to keep that way, especially concerning certain events in his past.
John is moderately outgoing. His emotions are stirred by sympathy and heart rendering stories. In fact, he can be kind, friendly, affectionate and considerate of others. He has the ability to put himself into the other person's shoes. John wi
Compare to this (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a bbc documentary series that questions the Bush administration spin.
Ashcroft an Opus Dei cultist (Score:2, Interesting)
John Ashcroft is a member of Opus Dei, an ultra medieval Catholic cult approved by the Vatican. The Pope is a member and approves this organization which has only recently opened a major new address in New York, a new building near the UN.
Opus Dei, from what I've learned about them from Gore Vidals writing, is a sick cult of neofascist ultra fundementalists who have gone back into the Dark Ages as inspiration for a secret religious ideology where members are expected to reject modern science, feminism, and humanity as anti-god. Like thier medieval inspirations, members subject themselves to blood rites.
Ashcroft himslef is said to wear a spiked brace that cuts into his skin as a symbol of his original sin and Christs suffering on the cross.
That's kind of silly rubbish that runs the highest offices of law in the USA.
The USA is insane. Run.
Re:Today Ashcroft (Score:2, Interesting)
Hand written vs. typed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee (Score:3, Interesting)
You are probably thinking of Earl Warren [wikipedia.org]. He was appointed as Chief Justice after being the Governor of California. Because of his influence in getting the Californian delegation of the Republican National Convention to nominate Eisenhower, President elect Eisenhower promised Warren that he would be appointed to the Supreme Court with the first vacancy in the Court [michaelariens.com].
When Chief Justice Fred Vinson died, Warren expected Eisenhower to be true to his pledge. There was considerable out-cry about this because the nation was at the cusp of the Civil Rights movement and Warren was seen as too liberal by many at the time. They brought forward the argument that Warren had never been a judge in his life and that to make him the Chief Justice was clearly political graft. In the end Warren was a recess appointment and later confirmed.
Earl Warren is best remembered for his hard work to make sure Brown v. Board of Education was a unanimous decision and a(n in)famous quote attributed to Eisenhower about Warren is, "The biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made."
Re:What a day! (Score:4, Interesting)
He certainly doesn't sound any better than Ashcroft.