Is Homeland Security Dept. Appointee Chertoff a Defender of Freedom? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 01-13-2005, 04:23 AM

Does an appointment of "Judge" Chertoff by Bush as head of Homeland Security signal a hardening of the "Security at any Price" doctrine that I
believe the Bushco is pushing for, or am I over reacting?

I yearn for an executive branch that prioritizes the protection of "the least of
us", using the bill of rights to enforce the doctrine that any authority not
specifically granted in the constitution, to the government, is understood to
belong to the people. The government does not "give us our rights", we cede
some our freedom and autonomy to the government for the benefit of the
"common good". In principle, in similar fashion to the taxes we pay on our
wealth, giving up part of it to the government to finance it's operations, we
pay a "rights" tax for the same purpose. I want a President and executive
branch department chiefs who recognize that the people possess inalienable
rights of life and liberty. Bush and his appointees seem un-American, to me!

Quote:

<a href="http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/Bush-Tactics-Of-Hitler19sep02.htm">(Germany's) Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin told a small group of labor union members on Wednesday that Bush was going after Iraq to divert attention from domestic problems. (AP Sept 19, 2002)</a>

Quote:

<a href="http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=27007">http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=27007</a> Cabinet Nominee Wrote Blueprint for Sep 12 Crackdown
William Fisher

NEW YORK, Jan 12 (IPS) - Like Pres. George W. Bush's nominee for attorney-general, his choice for homeland security tsar is likely to face stiff opposition from some Democratic senators and human rights advocates because of what they say were abuses of civil liberties during his service in the Justice Department.

Michael Chertoff was assistant attorney-general in charge of the Justice Department's criminal division from 2001 to 2003, when Pres. Bush nominated him to be a federal judge.

”Mike has shown a deep commitment to the cause of justice and an unwavering determination to protect the American people,” Bush said in his announcement Tuesday. ”Mike has also been a key leader in the war on terror.”

But with his nomination only days old, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a leading human rights advocacy group, says it is ”troubled that his public record suggests he sees the Bill of Rights as an obstacle to national security, rather than a guidebook for how to do security properly.”

Gregory T. Nojeim, the ACLU's chief legislative counsel, called Chertoff ”a vocal champion of the Bush administration's pervasive belief that the executive branch (of government) should be free of many of the checks and balances that keep it from abusing its immense power over our lives and liberty.”

He hoped the senators would question him ”aggressively to ensure his fitness for the position, and the strength of his dedication to the Bill of Rights.”

The controversy surrounding Judge Chertoff stems largely from his role in developing and supervising policies by the Justice Department (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the months immediately following the attacks of Sep.11, 2001.

It was during this period that the DOJ and FBI rounded up over 1,000 immigrants and visitors to the U.S., mostly Arabs and other Muslims, and South Asians.

Chertoff told the Senate Judiciary Committee in Nov. 2003 that ”the detentions, the targeted interviews, and the other aggressive investigative techniques we are currently employing are all legal under the (U.S.) Constitution and applicable federal law.”

”Nobody is being held incommunicado; nobody is being denied the right to an attorney; nobody is being denied due process,” he said. ”Every detention is fully consistent with established constitutional and statutory authority. Every person detained has been charged with a violation of either immigration law or criminal law, or is being lawfully detained on a material witness warrant.”

But some of Judge Chertoff's post-Sep. 11 policies have been repudiated by others in the government, principally in two highly critical reports by the DOJ's inspector general, released in June and Dec. 2003.

The inspector general found that Chertoff used rarely enforced and minor immigration violations to hold non-citizens shortly after Sep. 11 for as long as possible, without bail or access to a lawyer.

The ACLU determined that none of these non-citizens were found to have any connection to the Sep. 11 attacks.

The report also said that the government process for clearing immigrants of any connection to the terrorist attacks was understaffed and not given ”sufficient priority” -- clearance took an average of 80 days and in some instances took more than 200 days. It criticised the ”indiscriminate and haphazard manner” in which immigrants ”who had no connection to terrorism” were labeled as possible suspects.

The DOJ has never refuted the charge that ”in the strategy sessions at the Justice Department, Chertoff agreed that detainees should be held for long periods of questioning”.

Even if some got a hearing, the inspector general said, ”the hearings could not only be done in secret, but also could be delayed, and that even after the hearings were held and they were ordered deported (usually for only minor immigration violations), there was nothing in the law that said they absolutely had to be deported immediately. They could be held still longer.”

According to Steven Brill's authoritative book, ”After: How America Confronted the September 12 Era”, Chertoff knew that prisoners ”were entitled to call a lawyer from jail, but the lists the INS provided of available lawyers invariably had phone numbers that were not in service.”

The INS was the Immigration and Naturalisation Service, now part of the Department of Homeland Security.

”Immigrants weren't the enemy,” Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director, said at the time of the report. ”But the war on terror quickly became a war on immigrants. The Inspector General's findings confirm our long-held view that civil liberties and the rights of immigrants were trampled in the aftermath of 9/11.”

Chertoff was also an architect of the USA Patriot Act, which has come under increasing fire from conservatives and progressives alike since its passage in 2001.

He was instrumental in revising the internal ”Attorney General Guidelines” to allow the FBI to infiltrate religious and political gatherings with undercover agents, and he was apparently the catalyst behind the Bureau of Prisons rule change permitting agents to eavesdrop on previously confidential attorney-client conversations in federal prisons. He also directed the initial ”voluntary” dragnet interviews of thousands of Arabs and other Muslims.

During Chertoff's confirmation hearings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (one level directly below the Supreme Court), the Alliance for Justice, a Washington-based legal watchdog group, gave him a generally favourable rating, but reported: ”His current role in the War Against Terrorism raise(s) questions about his partisanship and his belief in the civil liberties of all people.”

No date has yet been set for Chertoff's confirmation hearing to replace Tom Ridge as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security</a>
Cabinet Nominee Wrote Blueprint for Sep 12 Crackdown
William Fisher

NEW YORK, Jan 12 (IPS) - Like Pres. George W. Bush's nominee for attorney-general, his choice for homeland security tsar is likely to face stiff opposition from some Democratic senators and human rights advocates because of what they say were abuses of civil liberties during his service in the Justice Department.

Michael Chertoff was assistant attorney-general in charge of the Justice Department's criminal division from 2001 to 2003, when Pres. Bush nominated him to be a federal judge.

”Mike has shown a deep commitment to the cause of justice and an unwavering determination to protect the American people,” Bush said in his announcement Tuesday. ”Mike has also been a key leader in the war on terror.”

But with his nomination only days old, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a leading human rights advocacy group, says it is ”troubled that his public record suggests he sees the Bill of Rights as an obstacle to national security, rather than a guidebook for how to do security properly.”

Gregory T. Nojeim, the ACLU's chief legislative counsel, called Chertoff ”a vocal champion of the Bush administration's pervasive belief that the executive branch (of government) should be free of many of the checks and balances that keep it from abusing its immense power over our lives and liberty.”

He hoped the senators would question him ”aggressively to ensure his fitness for the position, and the strength of his dedication to the Bill of Rights.”

The controversy surrounding Judge Chertoff stems largely from his role in developing and supervising policies by the Justice Department (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the months immediately following the attacks of Sep.11, 2001.

It was during this period that the DOJ and FBI rounded up over 1,000 immigrants and visitors to the U.S., mostly Arabs and other Muslims, and South Asians.

Chertoff told the Senate Judiciary Committee in Nov. 2003 that ”the detentions, the targeted interviews, and the other aggressive investigative techniques we are currently employing are all legal under the (U.S.) Constitution and applicable federal law.”

”Nobody is being held incommunicado; nobody is being denied the right to an attorney; nobody is being denied due process,” he said. ”Every detention is fully consistent with established constitutional and statutory authority. Every person detained has been charged with a violation of either immigration law or criminal law, or is being lawfully detained on a material witness warrant.”

But some of Judge Chertoff's post-Sep. 11 policies have been repudiated by others in the government, principally in two highly critical reports by the DOJ's inspector general, released in June and Dec. 2003.

The inspector general found that Chertoff used rarely enforced and minor immigration violations to hold non-citizens shortly after Sep. 11 for as long as possible, without bail or access to a lawyer.

The ACLU determined that none of these non-citizens were found to have any connection to the Sep. 11 attacks.

The report also said that the government process for clearing immigrants of any connection to the terrorist attacks was understaffed and not given ”sufficient priority” -- clearance took an average of 80 days and in some instances took more than 200 days. It criticised the ”indiscriminate and haphazard manner” in which immigrants ”who had no connection to terrorism” were labeled as possible suspects.

The DOJ has never refuted the charge that ”in the strategy sessions at the Justice Department, Chertoff agreed that detainees should be held for long periods of questioning”.

Even if some got a hearing, the inspector general said, ”the hearings could not only be done in secret, but also could be delayed, and that even after the hearings were held and they were ordered deported (usually for only minor immigration violations), there was nothing in the law that said they absolutely had to be deported immediately. They could be held still longer.”

According to Steven Brill's authoritative book, ”After: How America Confronted the September 12 Era”, Chertoff knew that prisoners ”were entitled to call a lawyer from jail, but the lists the INS provided of available lawyers invariably had phone numbers that were not in service.”

The INS was the Immigration and Naturalisation Service, now part of the Department of Homeland Security.

”Immigrants weren't the enemy,” Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director, said at the time of the report. ”But the war on terror quickly became a war on immigrants. The Inspector General's findings confirm our long-held view that civil liberties and the rights of immigrants were trampled in the aftermath of 9/11.”

Chertoff was also an architect of the USA Patriot Act, which has come under increasing fire from conservatives and progressives alike since its passage in 2001.

He was instrumental in revising the internal ”Attorney General Guidelines” to allow the FBI to infiltrate religious and political gatherings with undercover agents, and he was apparently the catalyst behind the Bureau of Prisons rule change permitting agents to eavesdrop on previously confidential attorney-client conversations in federal prisons. He also directed the initial ”voluntary” dragnet interviews of thousands of Arabs and other Muslims.

During Chertoff's confirmation hearings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (one level directly below the Supreme Court), the Alliance for Justice, a Washington-based legal watchdog group, gave him a generally favourable rating, but reported: ”His current role in the War Against Terrorism raise(s) questions about his partisanship and his belief in the civil liberties of all people.”

No date has yet been set for Chertoff's confirmation hearing to replace Tom Ridge as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

Mephisto2 · 01-13-2005, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The government does not "give us our rights", we cede
some our freedom and autonomy to the government for the benefit of the
"common good".

I can't really comment too much on the appointment of Judge Chertoff, as I'm not familiar with all the facts, but I do disagree with the statement above.

I don't believe people "cede" anything to the government. I believe the individual owes the State certain obligations. Perhaps that's the difference between me and many (most?) Americans today.

Whatever happened to the concept pronounced by JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

Why do so many Americans believe that they, individually, have some higher value or rights than the State. The State, as it exists within Western democracies, is more than an organ of tax collection, social welfare, organized military power and foreign policy, but is a construct to protect all its members; whether rich or poor, whether Christian or not, whether gay or straight, whether Democratic or Republican, whether a member of the Board of Halliburton or a factory worker for General Motors.

It pains me to hear so many intelligent people think that their individual rights, their selfish urges, are more important that the "good" of society, the rights of those who need protection, the promotion of a free and equitable society. Corny as it may sound, let me quote a line from Star Trek. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Or if that doesn't float your boat, how about Louis Blanc (famous French socialist)? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

Why this obsession that you are more important than we?

Mr Mephisto

martinguerre · 01-13-2005, 09:16 AM

i was suprised to see the negative comments...Eric Muller of isthatlegal.com had worked for Chertoff before and seemed to endorse the nomination. Eric not usually known as roll over for the Neo-Con type...

that said, reading the ACLU commentary, i'd sure like to know more about his stance on the independence of the Executive branch.

host · 01-13-2005, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I can't really comment too much on the appointment of Judge Chertoff, as I'm not familiar with all the facts, but I do disagree with the statement above.

I don't believe people "cede" anything to the government. I believe the individual owes the State certain obligations. Perhaps that's the difference between me and many (most?) Americans today.

Whatever happened to the concept pronounced by JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

Why do so many Americans believe that they, individually, have some higher value or rights than the State. The State, as it exists within Western democracies, is more than an organ of tax collection, social welfare, organized military power and foreign policy, but is a construct to protect all its members; whether rich or poor, whether Christian or not, whether gay or straight, whether Democratic or Republican, whether a member of the Board of Halliburton or a factory worker for General Motors.

It pains me to hear so many intelligent people think that their individual rights, their selfish urges, are more important that the "good" of society, the rights of those who need protection, the promotion of a free and equitable society. Corny as it may sound, let me quote a line from Star Trek. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Or if that doesn't float your boat, how about Louis Blanc (famous French socialist)? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

Why this obsession that you are more important than we?

Mr Mephisto

Mr Mephisto, in a more perfect world, I would argue forcefully for what you
are saying, especially the "corny" examples near the end of your post.
Unfortunately, Bush & Co. , by their actions and agenda, reinforce dramatically the arguments contained in the following essay. It still amazes
me that hypocrites like Bush, the man who told the American public when
Enron blew up, that he barely knew it's chairman Ken Lay, and later that he
never intimated that Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S. or that
he was a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks, but still believes that we will
cede our bill of rights over to him, because he has integrity and he will protect us. Bush calls for less intrusive covernment, but only when it means
less taxes and oversight for his wealthy sponsors and the corporations that
they control. Our founding fathers distrusted any government for good reason.

Bush's legacy will result in weakening our federal government for
many years into the future, when we are finally rid of his deceit and the
criminality of his ministry.

Quote:

God, Man, and Government
by Steve Bonta

The Founders recognized that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and that "Governments are instituted" to secure those rights.

What is the proper amount of government? Not, as some might suppose, the complete elimination of government, for anarchy has inevitably proven fertile ground for despots. Nor, on the other hand, should governments be given unlimited authority to meddle in human affairs, for this inevitably leads to totalitarian abuses. Recognizing the need for government of some kind, human freedom is best protected by crafting a government somewhere between the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy, strong enough to protect rights and freedoms but not strong enough to violate them.

Source of Rights

The Framers of the Constitution had a clear vision of what the powers and limitations of proper government should be, based on their understanding of where government derived its legitimacy in the first place. States the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the Governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to Institute new Government....

Jefferson and the rest of the Founders believed in the reality of natural law, the doctrine that the laws of nature and of human conduct were established by God. These are "the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God" mentioned in the opening paragraph of Jefferson’s timeless Declaration.

But if God is the Author of laws, He is also the source of all human rights derived from those laws, including, but not restricted to, the divine endowments of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Rights therefore cannot be conferred by a monarch, a government, the will of the majority, or any legal document, including a constitutional amendment; man-made institutions may only curtail or protect rights that God has already given to men. This notion, that the rights upon which freedom is predicated come ultimately from a higher authority than any that men may devise, is the true starting point of the philosophy of liberty, as Moses Mather, a prominent Connecticut preacher, explained in a 1775 sermon:

Free agency, or a rational existence, with its powers and faculties, and freedom of enjoying and exercising them, is the gift of God to man. The right of the donor, and the authenticity of the donation, are both incontestable; hence man hath an absolute property in, and right of dominion over himself, his powers and faculties; with self-love to stimulate, and reason to guide him, in the free use and exercise of them, independent of, and uncontrolable [sic] by any but him, who created and gave them. And whatever is acquired by the use, and application of a man’s faculties, is equally the property of that man, as the faculties by which the acquisitions are made; and that which is absolutely the property of a man, he cannot be divested of, but by his own voluntary act, or consent....

The legitimate powers of the state originate with these pre-existent, God-given rights and powers inherent in individuals, as the Declaration, referring to the "just powers" of government" derived from "the Consent of the Governed," reminds us. Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist, No. 22, added: "The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority." Moreover, since government is brought into being by the consent of the individuals in its constituency, it follows that individuals may only cede to government a portion of those rights and powers that they justly possess, and may exercise individually, in the first place.

Another good essay in the same publication:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/05-05-2003/vo19no09_trading.htm">Trading Freedom for Security</a>

01-13-2005, 09:16 AM	#3 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	i was suprised to see the negative comments...Eric Muller of isthatlegal.com had worked for Chertoff before and seemed to endorse the nomination. Eric not usually known as roll over for the Neo-Con type... that said, reading the ACLU commentary, i'd sure like to know more about his stance on the independence of the Executive branch. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16