Seemingly acceptable though he may be to Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress, President Bush’s new appointee for the position of Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey, is a strong supporter of the Patriot Act. The International Herald Tribune reported that Mukasey said in a speech in 2004, “That awkward name may very well be the worst thing about the statute.”
More cautiously, The Capitol Times of Madison, WI reports “For instance, in a May 10, 2004, op-ed, which was published as the debate about fixing fundamental flaws in the Patriot Act was heating up, Mukasey defended some of the act’s most extreme excesses and dismissively told critics to avoid what he termed “reflexive” or “recreational” criticisms of it.” The paper calls the candidate “something less than a rule-of-law man when it comes to constitutional matters. As a contributor to the right-wing editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, the retired judge has written several articles that suggest he would have trouble balancing civil liberties and national security concerns.”
The Wall Street Journal, endorses Mukasey thusly “Earth to Washington: You finally have the right man for the right job at the right time. Try not to screw this one up.” New York Times reports on Mukasey’s close connection to Republican Presidential Candidate Rudy Guiliani and others in the New York legal community.
Here’s today’s NY Times editorial on the nominee, which refers to statements Mukasey made in 2004 denouncing the “hysteria” of Patriot Act critics, and lashing out at the American Library Association for trying to protect patrons’ privacy..
Seemingly acceptable though he may be to Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress, President Bush’s new appointee for the position of Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey, is a strong supporter of the Patriot Act. The International Herald Tribune reported that Mukasey said in a speech in 2004, “That awkward name may very well be the worst thing about the statute.”
More cautiously, The Capitol Times of Madison, WI reports “For instance, in a May 10, 2004, op-ed, which was published as the debate about fixing fundamental flaws in the Patriot Act was heating up, Mukasey defended some of the act’s most extreme excesses and dismissively told critics to avoid what he termed “reflexive” or “recreational” criticisms of it.” The paper calls the candidate “something less than a rule-of-law man when it comes to constitutional matters. As a contributor to the right-wing editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, the retired judge has written several articles that suggest he would have trouble balancing civil liberties and national security concerns.”
The Wall Street Journal, endorses Mukasey thusly “Earth to Washington: You finally have the right man for the right job at the right time. Try not to screw this one up.” New York Times reports on Mukasey’s close connection to Republican Presidential Candidate Rudy Guiliani and others in the New York legal community.
Here’s today’s NY Times editorial on the nominee, which refers to statements Mukasey made in 2004 denouncing the “hysteria” of Patriot Act critics, and lashing out at the American Library Association for trying to protect patrons’ privacy..
not the point
I’m afraid the issue isn’t who is the “best” nominee but rather the “best nominee that Bush will pick.”
This is the guy.
Re:not the point
I agree Chuck, the best nominee was threatened even before he was nominated.
However I do find this nominee and I share certain views, we both like the PATRIOT Act and think the ALA is a bunch of chicken little reactionary liberals.
the nerve
I know. Lousy 4th amendment lovers.
The WSJ op-ed
The quotes given in the IHT, Capitol Times and NYT articles actually all refer to the very same op-ed piece: “The Spirit of Liberty” from the Wall Street Journal 10 May 2004 p A16. Two main excerpts which address the ALA and its concerns:
Mukasey then goes on to argue that the Founders intentionally omitted a Bill of Rights from the original Constitution, instead choosing to leave the Bill of Rights to be established later by amendments — and he interprets this sequence of events as a signal that the rights guaranteed by those amendments are secondary to the survival of the government represented by the body of the Constitution itself.
Problem is, of course, that although Mukasey’s op-ed urges us “not to conduct the debate in terms that suggest it gives the government the power to investigate us based on what we read, or that people who work for the government actually have the inclination to do such a thing, not to mention the spare time,” the government and some who work for it have, since the publication of this op-ed, managed to prove that the Patriot Act not only does give them exactly that power, but they do in fact have the inclination and spare time to use it.
Re:The WSJ op-ed
But if you put in in context it makes complete sense, we certainly can’t have that when we are trying to smear someone.
Re:The WSJ op-ed
We are not “trying to smear someone”. “We” are trying to report on news and information on a subject of interest to librarians and library users.
Re:The WSJ op-ed
Did I say you or LISNews were trying to smear anyone? No.
The comment I was responding to listed in the first sentence newspapers that selectively quoted the judge’s writing.
In elementary school the kid who protested his innocence before the teacher even finished asking who put glue in the pencil sharpener was usually the kid who did it.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.