ASHCROFT UNPLUGGED:

Ashcroft Decries Court Rulings: 'Second-Guessing' Bush on Security Raises Risk, He Says (Dan Eggen, November 13, 2004, Washington Post)

In his first public remarks since he announced Tuesday that he would resign, Ashcroft told a meeting of conservative lawyers here that court decisions limiting President Bush's powers are part of "a profoundly disturbing trend" in which the judicial branch is injecting itself into matters that should be up to the executive branch.

"The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war," Ashcroft said in a speech at the Federalist Society's national convention. He added later: "Our nation and our liberty will be all the more in jeopardy as the tendency for judicial encroachment and ideological micromanagement are applied to the sensitive domain of national defense."

Ashcroft did not identify specific cases, but his remarks appeared to be aimed at recent decisions rejecting arguments that the president should not be subject to significant judicial review in matters related to national security or interpretations of the Geneva Conventions.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge James Robertson ruled that the trials established to determine the guilt or innocence of military prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are unlawful and that the detainees may qualify as prisoners of war under the Geneva accords. The Justice Department is appealing the decision, which halted the first scheduled "military commission" for a Guantanamo Bay captive.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision rejecting the Justice Department's position that Bush may indefinitely hold and interrogate alleged al Qaeda and Taliban members captured on the battlefield without filing charges or providing them lawyers. The court ruled that the detainees were entitled to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

The Constitution of We the People obviously confers no rights on non-citizen enemies taken on foreign battlefields, nor affords the judiciary any say in the matter, Imagine, for a moment, FDR's reaction if the Court had tried to establish rules for how he should have dealt with German, Italian, French and Japanese prisoners, like telling him they each got access to the courts.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 13, 2004 10:04 AM