http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6812230/

okay here we go, start ripping on Bush and the new pick. Since he does everything else wrong...

Bush may not do everything wrong, but this post sure does.

Why don't you start by telling us your thoughts on the nominee?

I'm just curious to hear responses to the new pick.

Here is the entire article:

Bush nominates judge to head homeland security
Chertoff a surprise choice after Kerik withdrew nomination last month
By NBC's Pete Williams and wire reports
Updated: 2:03 p.m. ET Jan. 11, 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday nominated federal appeals court judge Michael Chertoff, a former assistant attorney general in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks, to be the new secretary of Homeland Security.

advertisement
"I'm confident he'll be a strong and effective leader," the president said of Chertoff, whose previous experience makes him very familiar with the levers and pulleys of power and how to move them.

The choice of Chertoff, 51, came as a surprise as his name was not on any lists that have surfaced since Bernard Kerik, the former New York police chief, withdrew his nomination.

Several other people had been interviewed since Kerik withdrew last month, but Chertoff was not reported among them.

Chertoff is currently a judge with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was nominated to the seat in March 2003 by the president.

A Harvard law graduate, Chertoff previously headed the Justice Department’s criminal division, where he played a central role in the nation’s legal response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Before that he was in private practice and in 1994-96 served as the Senate Republicans’ chief counsel for the Clinton-era Whitewater investigation.

Chertoff, who still needs to be confirmed by the Senate, was actually the president’s second pick for the job.

Kerik withdrew citing immigration problems with a family housekeeper. After failing to disclose the nanny problem during an initial screening, Kerik acknowledged it during a subsequent vetting phase as he filled out a clearance form.

Bush said that Chertoff has “been confirmed by the Senate three times,” signaling that he should have no problem surmounting the advise and consent process.

Chertoff, whose appeal court nomination sailed through Congress, won immediate support on Capitol Hill, where even Democrats applauded the choice.

“Judge Mike Chertoff has the resume to be an excellent Homeland Security Secretary, given his law enforcement background and understanding of New York’s and America’s neglected homeland security needs,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Moussaoui connection
Chertoff was one of the administration’s key figures in the war on terror.

He took the lead in 2003 in successfully arguing the government’s case in a potentially precedent-setting appeal involving terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui, the lone man charged as a conspirator in the Sept. 11 attacks. He also played a significant role in development of the U.S. Patriot Act to combat terrorist attacks, legislation criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union among others.

As a federal prosecutor in New Jersey from 1990 to 1994, Chertoff oversaw high-profile prosecutions of Jersey City Mayor Gerald McCann, New York chief judge Sol Wachtler and the kidnappers and killers of Exxon executive Sidney Reso.

He entered private practice in 1994 but stayed in the public spotlight.

As chief Republican counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee during the administration of President Bill Clinton, Chertoff played a major role in the investigation of the Clintons’ Arkansas business dealings; the suicide of Vincent Foster, a Clinton aide and former law partner of Hillary Clinton; and other allegations against the Clintons.

In 2000, he worked in Trenton, N.J., as special counsel to the state Senate Judiciary Committee that investigated racial profiling in New Jersey.

Cabinet changes
The choice of a new homeland security chief completes a substantial makeover of the Bush team as the president awaits his swearing-in Jan. 20 for a new term.

Donald Rumsfeld, John Snow and Norman Mineta have remained as secretaries of defense, treasury and transportation, but Bush has changed most other key agency positions.

He turned to close associates Margaret Spellings and Alberto Gonzales for the positions of secretary of education and attorney general and chose his first-term national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to be secretary of state.

Congress has started the process of confirmation hearings, and Gonzales appeared last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Democrats quizzed him aggressively about his role in the writing of an administrations policy paper interpreting what kinds of interrogations of enemy combatants could be permitted under a 1994 law banning torture.

Rice has her initial confirmation hearing on Jan. 18, two days before Bush’s inauguration.

Homeland's history
Ridge leaves behind a department that is still in transition. Culled from 22 often-disparate federal agencies, the 180,000-employee organization still faces criticism over aspects of its massive government merger, including matters from the coordination of finances to computer systems.

In October 2001, Ridge became the nation’s first White House homeland security adviser, leading a massive undertaking to rethink all aspects of security within the U.S. borders in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Congress later passed legislation establishing the Homeland Security Department, with Ridge taking over as the first secretary in January 2003.

Well the man has an excellent backround in law enforcement. I would still take Benard Kerik if he would come back, but I feel safe with any guy who has a good record in law enforcement basically.

As far as he goes? Well, like anything else in this new department, we will have to wait and see.

Is he qualified? He has a varied background and experience in law and law enforcement, which does not hurt. He also is experienced with the workings of governement and bureaucracy and such, which also will help.

If the administration believes he is qualified, we will have to go with it because it is not up to us anyway.

I'll reserve judgement until after he begins work, but at this point, there is no reason to believe that he will not make a decent secretary.

Here's his resume...

Birth: November 28, 1953 Elizabeth, New Jersey

Legal Residence: New Jersey

Education: 1971 - 1975 Harvard University
A.B. degree magna cum laude

1975 - 1978 Harvard Law School
J.D. degree magna cum laude

Bar Admittance: 1980 District of Columbia
1987 New York
1990 New Jersey

Experience: 1978 Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin
Summer Associate

1978 - 1979 Law Clerk to the Hon. Murray Gurfein
United States Court of Appeals
Second Circuit

1979 - 1980 Law Clerk to the Hon. William J. Brennan, Jr.
Supreme Court of the United States

1980 - 1983 Latham & Watkins
Associate

1983 - 1987 United States Attorney’s Office
Southern District of New York
Assistant United States Attorney

1987 - 1994 United States Attorney’s Office
District of New Jersey
First Assistant United States Attorney, 1987-1990
United States Attorney, 1990-1994

1994 - 1996 United States Senate
Special Counsel for Whitewater Committee

1994 - 2001 Latham & Watkins
Partner

2001 - present United States Department of Justice
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division

Oh, and I found this too...

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@cox.net

Except for the fact that he worked so closely with Ashcroft in crafting the DOJ's terrorism policy, which I have some serious issue with, he seems pretty well qualified. If Ashcroft's Patriot Act stuff weren't so utterly abhorent to me, I'd say he's an excellent candidate.

--PunkDavid

The Patriot Act will be amended in time.

You guys realize he was a major player against the Clintons during Whitewater, right?


Here's what Hillary Clinton told Larry King on June 10, 2003, during her book tour:

KING: In the Senate yesterday, Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff came up to be a federal court appeals judge. The vote was 88-1. You were the one.

CLINTON: Right.

KING: Why?

CLINTON: Well during that time when he was on the staff of the committee in the Senate, a number of the young people who worked in the White House were, I thought, very badly treated by the Senate staff investigating Whitewater. And a number of those young people were put under tremendous pressure, legal bills that they had to run up. And I just didn't think it was handled appropriately or professionally.

KING: So you didn't think him worthy of a judgeship then?

CLINTON: Based on my firsthand knowledge of what went on during that period. But, you know, that's over. That vote is gone and part of history.

KING: Could have skipped the vote, couldn't you?

CLINTON: You know, there were several of these young people who asked me to express the only way I could the very difficult feelings that they had in the way that they were treated by that staff.

KING: So you were making a statement?

CLINTON: Yes. I mean, you know, it was a single vote. But it stood for a lot of what I think was wrong during that period.

********************

Aw, just when Bush and Billy were getting so close to being good pals.

If I were a Senator, I wouldn't vote against him regardless of my disagreements with his character and policies, because he appears to be well suited for this particular position.

Unlike Alberto Gonzalez who I felt was an extremely poor choice for his nomination, and I would have voted against him.

As for Hillary Clinton, if she votes against him, I couldn't hold that against her.

--PunkDavid

James, would you have been happier if she didn't vote at all?

Born on the same day as I. Still, I find this department to be a waste of time and money. So, I really don't care who they give the position too, so long as the person didn't partake in deceiving this country into the Iraq War of Choice, let'em give it a shot, and we'll see in a year how well he's doing.

Interesting. This begs the question: what makes a person well-suited for a particular position and what qualifications are necessary? This, of course, relates to how a particular judicial nominee's character and policies seem to provide mandates for some to vote against them. Specifically, if you, at any time, ever hinted that perhaps Roe v. Wade was wrongfully decided, it is enough to disqualify you from a being a federal judge. But does that same ideology portend bad character or policy or a potential failure for the particular position of federal judge?

I don't really have a point. I just picked up on yours and immediately thought how others think that character and policy determine success.

Personally, I think that character and avowed politics are a more important factor in determining whether one should be a federal judge than whether they should be the head of Homeland Security, which is basically just a glorified police officer. For that job, I want to see law enforcement experience, or at least law enforcement policy making experience, whether I agree with the policies or not.

I don't know if you read my post on Alberto Gonzalez, but he is a man with the wrong type of experience to be Attorney General IMO. I think that the Attorney General should have experience either in 1) a district attorney's office, 2) as a judge (Gonzalez has one year on the Texas Supreme Court), 3) in the Department of Justice itself or a similar state justice department, or in the very least 4) in academia with experience in criminal justice. Gonzalez has 25 years of experience as a corporate attorney in private practice. Oh yeah, and he's Mexican and has an inspiring life story.

Oh yeah, he's also fiercely, personally loyal to George W. Bush.

--PunkDavid

No, it's just weird seeing an 88-1 symbollic vote because she has a personal thing against the guy.

You're trying to get me on the whole Kerry not showing up for intel legislation votes, right?

Or not.

*sips coffee in paranoid fashion*

Yeah. I see. I see.

no, but I was a little worried you'd think that. Mostly I was just trying to determine if it would have been more acceptably symbolic to abstain from voting if that's the reason she gave (whereas voting a solid "against" displays more openly any possible personal grudges she may harbor against him).

Y'know, I don't blame the Clintons one bit for taking the whole Whitewater shit PERSONALLY.

It was a politically perfect time to give him the finger. If she had abstained, she would been just another of the twelve Senators who didn't vote.

--PunkDavid

I really see nothing wrong with it. I just find it interesting she's in a position to try and move against this guy again.