It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ashcroft Condemns Judges Who Question Bush

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 05:06 PM
By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer

In his first remarks since his resignation was announced Tuesday, Ashcroft forcefully denounced what he called "a profoundly disturbing trend" among some judges to interfere in the president's constitutional authority to make decisions during war.

What a Jacka$$. It's like he's saying "How dare they question his decisions in a time of war." Guess what, John. It's called checks and balances for a reason.

I'm so tired of watching a country progress towards the inevitable collapse. Maybe I'm just having a bad day....

Rest of article here

posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 08:53 PM
So the President shouldn't be questioned or held accountable?
I see a disturbing trend. We saw it earlier with anyone disagreeing with Bush labeled "un/anti-American" or a "terrorist".
It looks like Bush wants unchecked power. I guess he wasn't joking when he said dictatorships are bad, unless he's the dictator.

posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 08:59 PM
We the people personally over-ride the authority that was ever vested in the buffoon Ashcroft, and call out the lack of integrity of any Judge who does NOT specifically and microscopically address and question "wartime" decisions and directions of George W Bush the criminal.

*edit. Let's put the "i" back into criminal, shall we Dubya?*

[edit on 14-11-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 09:46 PM
This is the heart of the article:

[Judge] Robertson halted Hamdan's trial by military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, rejecting the Bush administration's position that the Geneva Conventions governing prisoners of war do not apply to al-Qaida members because they are not soldiers of a true state and do not fight by international norms.

Without mentioning that case specifically, Ashcroft criticized rulings he said found "expansive private rights in treaties where they never existed" that run counter to the broad discretionary powers given the president by the Constitution.

"Courts are not equipped to execute the law. They are not accountable to the people," Ashcroft said.

Ashcroft is right. The Judiciary has been commandeered by ideologues who abuse their power and circumvent the powers of the Legislative and Excecutive Branches. The problem lies in the fact that such judges corrupt the checks and balances by using case law to overide Legislation and Executive Orders.

John Ashcroft is correct in his assessment, but then, he's the one with the law degree, thirty years of experience and is the chief law enforcement officer in the land.

[edit on 04/11/14 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 10:23 PM
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism."
-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Davis, Ex Parte Milligan (1866)

I think enough of our rights have been taken away. Unfortuneately more of them will be. And I see no way out. Seems Justice Davis was a fortune teller as well as a Judge.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by Polar Bear]

posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 11:18 PM

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The problem lies in the fact that such judges corrupt the checks and balances by using case law to overide Legislation and Executive Orders.

You seem to be confusing yourself there Grady. Our government is set-up to check and balance the various branches of government. We have law that is ultimately set by case law and we have policies that are set by executive and legislative branches. I'd rather be governed by law than commercial policies. But then again, I'm American and not a United States citizen.

new topics

top topics

log in