New Nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security

**Airbornelawyer** · 01-11-2005, 09:57

President Nominates Michael Chertoff as Secretary of Homeland Security

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050111-2.html

**Bill Harsey** · 01-11-2005, 10:10

Airborne Lawyer, Do you see any problems with confirmation?

**Roguish Lawyer** · 01-11-2005, 10:46

Schumer said positive things about the nomination, so that is a good sign. Not that he and others can't change their minds, of course.

**Airbornelawyer** · 01-11-2005, 11:10

He breezed through his nomination hearings for Assistant Attorney General in May 2001. Only one Senator voted against him: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her animus is as much personal as political, based on his role in the Whitewater investigation.

By the time the President nominated him to sit on the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on March 5, 2003, the Democrats were playing judiciary politics. He didn't get a hearing until May 7, 2003, as the Democrats, especially Ted Kennedy, tried in vain to dig up dirt (same old issues: racial profiling; being insufficiently nice to terrorist suspects; the whole Patriot Act game). They failed to tar him, and he was confirmed 13-0 on May 22, 2003 (six senators voted "present").

The full Senate voted on June 9, 2003, confirming Chertoff by a vote of 88 to 1. The one vote against? Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Eleven senators did not vote. For some, it might have been politics (Edwards and Kerry, for example), but for most it was likely because they weren't in town or didn't bother to vote. Ted Kennedy, by the way, was one of the "yea" votes, so whatever concerns he might have had were addressed.

Looking forward, though, I don't know what lessons may be drawn. The Democrats are looking for a way to tarnish the Administration so as to weaken any claim to a mandate after the November elections. They've been slinging mud pretty much constantly - notably at Rumsfeld and Al Gonzales - but haven't had much success (Kerik's withdrawal was as much a surprise to Democrats as Republicans).

**Airbornelawyer** · 01-11-2005, 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

Schumer said positive things about the nomination, so that is a good sign. Not that he and others can't change their minds, of course.

Schumer also voted for him in 2003. Not that he can't change his mind.

Chertoff raised HRC's hackles because of his Whitewater role, but he clerked for Justice Brennan. He is not easily portrayed as a foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing troglodyte.

NousDefionsDoc · 01-11-2005, 11:32

I don't like it. A judge? No way. He's going to be all concerned about civil rights and procedure and what not.

Plus he can't shave for his appointment annopuncement? He's either unprofessional or a hippy. We're right back to this "Terrorism as a legal issue" thing. I think the leadership is starting to relax on the homefront again. Wait until after the elections in Iraq and watch them. If it goes relatively without incident - they will put their heads down on their collective desks and take a nap.

They are screwing this DHS thing up big time. First they nominate Kerik without doing their homework and now a judge. Of course the whole DHS was unnecessary and white paint over a red wall in the first place as far as I'm concerned.

**Roguish Lawyer** · 01-11-2005, 12:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

I don't like it. A judge? No way.

Remind me, what line of work was Bill Donovan in?

**Airbornelawyer** · 01-11-2005, 12:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

I don't like it. A judge? No way. He's going to be all concerned about civil rights and procedure and what not.

Plus he can't shave for his appointment annopuncement? He's either unprofessional or a hippy. We're right back to this "Terrorism as a legal issue" thing. I think the leadership is starting to relax on the homefront again. Wait until after the elections in Iraq and watch them. If it goes relatively without incident - they will put their heads down on their collective desks and take a nap.

They are screwing this DHS thing up big time. First they nominate Kerik without doing their homework and now a judge. Of course the whole DHS was unnecessary and white paint over a red wall in the first place as far as I'm concerned.

He's only been a judge for a year and a half. Most of his experience is as a criminal prosecutor. He was an AUSA from 1983 to 1987, a 1st AUSA from 1987 to 1990 and a US Attorney from 1990 to 1994. He was then a Whitewater special counsel (1994-96). From 2001 to 2003, he was Assistant Attorney General and head of the Criminal Division.

Regarding "We're right back to this 'Terrorism as a legal issue' thing.": how is this affected by this nomination? DHS is one component of the antiterrorism and counterterrorism strategy of the US, and it appears that law enforcement is its primary role in that straegy. Intelligence and warfighting are the resposibilities of other agencies and the DOD. The agencies DHS controls are primarily law enforcement ones, including Transportation and Security Administration, Customs and Border Protection, Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Coast Guard and the Secret Service. Kerik, of course, also had a law enforcement background. Tom Ridge is a politician - his experience was 6 terms in Congress and two terms as Governor of Pennsylvania.

Someone does agree that judges aren't the right ones to be deciding policy in the War on Terror: "While courts set forth constitutional ground rules, however, we judges cannot and should not be expected to construct a new legal architecture for the war on terror. This involves weighty policy, and that is the domain of Congress and the executive branch." That was Judge Chertoff in The Wall Street Journal last summer.

BTW, the "he's either unprofessional or a hippy" seems like an unusual remark from a Special Forces soldier. He is an experienced, hard-nosed prosecutor - a QP in his field - and his beard hardly strikes me as "unprofessional" or hippy-esque.

NousDefionsDoc · 01-11-2005, 12:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

Remind me, what line of work was Bill Donovan in?

Well, when this guy gets the MOH, then we'll compare. Are you sharp-shootin' me counselor? Did you not see I now have XP?

NousDefionsDoc · 01-11-2005, 12:28

!. That is not a beard and he is not in Afghanistan. He will be expected to lead and give orders to FBI, SS, etc. agents - ever see how they look? There is a reason Dick Marcinko was not the commander of the Old Guard (besides the fact he was Navy). Those very same agents that implement the strategy you speak of.

2. He may have only been a judge a short while, but I will bet he spent most of his life preparing for it - so he has been thinking like a judge for a while. Do you think he would have given the same opinion you cite with another 3 years on the bench?

3. If Whitewater is any indication of his abilities or his hard-nose, Usama has about as much to worry about as Shrillary. How many people went to jail in that deal?

If he's so great, how come he wasn't choice #1?

**Roguish Lawyer** · 01-11-2005, 12:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

his beard hardly strikes me as "unprofessional" or hippy-esque.

Yeah, for a lawyer, that is a bad-ass beard and haircut. LOL

**Roguish Lawyer** · 01-11-2005, 12:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Did you not see I now have XP?

LOL -- I do not like XP. Maybe that's because I don't understand it, though.

Who would you appoint were you the President, NDD?

NousDefionsDoc · 01-11-2005, 12:59

To be honest, I don't really know. He would probably be an unknown, a Cinderella story, came out of no where...LOL

Since I haven't lived up there for some time, I don't know a lot of the players. And I don't have the resources the WH does.

I like the way LTC (R) Bill Cowan talks. This judge may end up being all right..Cofer Black, but he's probably worn out. Maybe Danny Coulson - but I really don't like the FBI. Notice how they are focusing on NY? Wonder why that is?

It's a big country with a lot of people that don't live in NY.

Part of the problem is the whole system. The primary concern is "Can we get him confirmed?" instead of "Who's the best guy for the job?"

The whores in DC still have no problem playing politics with the lives of the citizens.

**Roguish Lawyer** · 01-11-2005, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Part of the problem is the whole system. The primary concern is "Can we get him confirmed?" instead of "Who's the best guy for the job?"

The whores in DC still have no problem playing politics with the lives of the citizens.

Agreed. Of course, this results from the fact that people disagree about who is best for the job. Your primary concern is stopping terrorists, but many in the Congressional minority are more afraid of LEOs.

CPTAUSRET · 01-11-2005, 13:17

WAD!!!