<$BlogRSDURL$> abbr, acronym { cursor: help; font-style: normal; font-weight:bold; color: #2a548d; /*border-bottom: 1px solid; */ }

Eminent Domain Stuff

New London Update (2/24/06)
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)

Monday, January 31, 2005


Terror --> Chertoff --> President Bush

Could someone please tell me either what the NYT is getting at with this article or why it was written in the first place? Seriously, I don't get it. The first half of the article repeats, ad nauseum, that Michael Chertoff is 1) President Bush's nominee for the Director of Homeland Security and 2) he advised the CIA on what would legally amount to torture and what would not. Amazingly, they manage to squeeze these two facts to fill around dozen paragraphs...with absolutely no useful information. Their only discernable purpose appears to be to associate President Bush with torture through the intermediary, Michael Chertoff. Then, once again proving that you must read an article all the way to the end, they come out with this:

As head of the criminal division, Mr. Chertoff was known in legal circles as an aggressive prosecutor who advocated the use of the civilian court system to handle many terrorism cases, which put him at odds with those in the administration who advocated a system of military tribunals. He successfully argued that Zacarias Moussaoui, charged as an operative of Al Qaeda, should be tried in a civilian court. That case has been bogged down in court by legal challenges, including objections to the use of classified evidence.

In November 2003, Mr. Chertoff, then a federal judge, delivered a widely noted speech in which he said the policy of open-ended detentions for terror suspects needed to be changed.

"We need to debate a long-term and sustainable architecture for the process of determining when, why and for how long someone may be detained as an enemy combatant, and what judicial review should be available," he said at a judicial conference in Philadelphia.
So, if anything this guy is more on the Clintonian side in terms of wanting to treat Terrorists as criminals rather than as enemies of the country. If that's the case and Bush wants him, fine. The merits of each side can be fairly debated by intelligent and honest people while articles like this one (are) only (intended to) muddy the waters of fair and open discourse.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?