Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft Resigns

andyring writes "In a move that will undoubtedly make many /. readers jump for joy (although perhaps not myself), Attorney General John Ashcroft announced he will resign, according to multiple news sources. While many here dislike him, others have more favorable opinions of him. He became the point man on the USA Patriot Act, which typically ignites harsh opinions on both sides of the aisle." Reader cnsc1rtr , referring to the AP's version of the story, writes "He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated, 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'"

13 of 1,275 comments (clear)

  1. Mission Accomplished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    > 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

    At what cost?

  2. We're saved! by mcmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

    So they figured out how anthrax from US Army labs was mailed to various members of congress and media outlets, and captured those responsible?

    Oh...they haven't done that, eh?

    Well, at least gays can't marry.

  3. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by John+Seminal · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You know, when you look back Ashcroft wasn't so bad. He turned the FBI around and changed its mission radically.

    Yeah, he did change the FBI. They no longer need search warrents, and they have no respect of our civil liberties. If you ask me, he damaged the USA. We were a more free people before he came to power. And don't forget, Ashcroft was the guy who lost his senate seat because the people of his state elected a dead guy rather than have 6 more years of him.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  4. Re:Today Ashcroft...Tomorrow Justice Ashcroft by Dante333 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your thinking short term. Now that he isn't a AG, he can be a SCJ.

  5. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Umm, shouldn't a Supreme Court justice actually have spent some time being a judge? Seems unlikely you'd be able to ram a prosecutor through...Asscroft has no qualifications for the job other than being a religious right wackjob.

  6. Re:Today Ashcroft by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to be mean.... On one hand I want Bush to leave.

    On the other hand, I want to see Bush-voters who cheered "4 more years" to suffer financial & economical devastation. Nothing against you, but if you wanted a president who has more involvement in Iraq than your own country, you mind as well turn in your U.S. citizenship. Before you mod me down to -100, I am just fighting for the U.S middle class.

  7. Re:SAFE! by Auckerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

    This is and example of one thing the Bush administration understands, how to kill discussions. The trick is to say something so outlandish and WRONG that everyone who pays attention will know as wrong and the discussion dies there, while at the the same time, the less observant get the desired impression. The fun part is, if you have a valid argument that is even remotely related (rational or emotional level) against the individual, a lot of people will dismiss you without hearing you thinking 1. you are on the same level as them (that's just how politicians are) or 2. you're a conspiracy nut. (he's just reading too much into this political nonsense).

    Really impressive use of the media if you ask me. If you say enough factually wrong soundbites, people will dismis you AND the people who are after you. Those who don't dismis you will think you are amazing.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
  8. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reno let the rabid dogs have a special prosecutor, who spent seventy millions bucks to mount an impeachment fishing expedition. What else would you want?? JEEZ.

    And it all came up empty.

    Now Aschroft? Snatched defeat from the claws of victory, and completely let Microsoft walk after it was convicted, fried, toasted by the Reno Justice Department. Dragged his heels on the Enron investigation -- helped Bush run interference as the billions were stolen. Slow-walked the Valerie Plame treason investigation past the election. Didn't investigate massive election interference in both 2000 and now 2004. Let the Pubs walk on using Homeland Security apparatus to interfere in the Texas redistricting. Won't instruct Bush to comply with the Supreme Court's stunning orders to let the concentration camp prisoners have access to a fair trial - they are ignoring the law of the land and performing show trials. He rammed the Patriot act into law, effectively repealing at least three ammendments in the Bill of Rights.

    And the FBI was gutted by Freeh, the Clinton appointee who turned for the impeachment elves and committed 50 full time agents to investigating Clinton's sex lives while Al Queda was moving into position. Freeh "reformed" the FBI by eliminating an entire middle level of analysts, and "streamlining" the flow of information from below into the executive offices - ie, him. The warning from field agents were ignored because experienced analysts no longer existed to read the damned reports.

    The FBI was "changed around" by Freeh. I doubt much that Ashcroft did didley to restore the analysts back to duty. Waht Bush/Ashcroft are doing, really, is to make every information asset we have responsible to and report to the executive, ie Bush. Not only do we not have the middle level of analysts back, we instead have a pack of political true-believers distilling info for the President's consumption. It's a wreck.

    His resignation was rumored for over a year. no surprise. However, his replacement will be much worse.

  9. Re:Today Ashcroft by deanj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So says a fellow using the words "Go back to jesusland, redneck", showing exactly how seriously his opinion should be weighed.

  10. Re:SAFE! by The_Rook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    not to be a killjoy, but has it occurred to anyone that ashcroft is resigning as attorney general so as to prepare himself for a nomination to the supreme court?

    --
    when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
  11. Stalking horse by daveo0331 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's unlikely that Ashcroft would make it onto the Supreme Court, but Bush might use him as a stalking horse. Nominate him, watch the country go crazy, watch the Democrats use up all their time and political capital fighting off Ashcroft... then when everyone is worn out from blocking the Ashcroft nomination, Bush appoints a relative unknown who turns out to be as bad or worse.

    The Democrats need to watch out for this, and keep up the resistance against anyone on the right wing that Bush tries to put on the Court. We still have 45 seats in the Senate, that's enough for a filibuster. The ability to filibuster is there for a reason -- to stop a President and 51 Senators (or in this case 55) from the same party from putting an extremist on the Supreme Court. The Democrats need to make sure Bush comes up with nominees that are at lease somewhat moderate.

    --
    Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
  12. Re:your own link disagrees with you by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And literally "liberal" means "1. not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry; 2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded".

    Now try to imagine the type of person that reads that definition and says "nope, that's not me at all", or even worse, thinks that word should be used as an insult. And you get an inkling of what's wrong with America.

  13. On the contrary... by Onan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The compartmentalization of agencies was most certainly not for no good reason. It was to make law enforcement less effective, which was a good and important goal of our governmental design.

    The thing that Mr. Ashcroft and the rest of the executive branch have forgotten is that we need to be at least as suspicious and limiting of our government as of the people from whom our government is supposedly protecting us. Instead, the executive branch has taken the absurd view that their enemies are "Evil", and thus that their own actions are--definitionally--Good.

    This is a dangerous premise. History has taught us that governments very reliably stray from Good. Every single act undertaken by a government must be carefully evaluated with questions like, "Does this make us the bad guys? Is this worse than what we're trying to solve?" And even after such questions have been asked, we need to still assume that they've been answered incorrectly, and place harsh limitations on the fundamental things a government can do.

    This is the origin of bans on interdepartmental cooperation, statutes of limitation, limitations on search and siezure, the specificity of of search warrants, and so on. After all, if your government were always the good guys, you wouldn't need any such protections, right?