Gonzales: The Sequel
The Democrats and their allies in the media have been beating up on Alberto Gonzales for a long time. Their assault continued today, as Judge Michael Mukasey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The real target of the attack, of course, isn't Gonzales, it's President Bush. Here is how the Washington Post led its story:
Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey pledged today to adhere to the law and protect the civil liberties of Americans if he is confirmed as the head of the Justice Department, subtly signaling a fresh start after the tumultuous tenure of Alberto R. Gonzales.
That's subtle, all right: until now, the Bush administration hasn't "adhered to the law" or "protected the civil liberties of Americans." Actually, though, the administration's terror-related policies have generally fared very well in court. Bad as the Post's lead is, it isn't as laughable as this Associated Press account, which is headlined: "Mukasey Would End White House Meddling." How's that for objective news judgment? The AP begins:
Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey told senators Wednesday he will reject White House political meddling and overstepping its authority in terrorism cases if approved to run the Justice Department. He said he would resign if his legal or ethical doubts about administration policy are ignored.Mukasey's plans for the scandal-scarred Justice Department starkly contrast with how it operated under the man who would be his immediate predecessor—former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
So the AP tells its readers, as a matter of fact, that the Bush administration until now has been "meddling" and "overstepping its authority" in terrorism cases. That's an interesting theory, but dealing with terrorism cases is a core responsibility of the executive branch and hardly constitutes "meddling." Moreover, the courts have upheld the Bush administration's positions on terrorism cases far more often than they have disagreed with them. The AP continues:
Likewise, on politics, Mukasey said he would discourage his prosecutors from bringing charges against political candidates shortly before elections and would not let party loyalty be a consideration for people applying for Justice Department jobs."That's the standard I'm going to make very clear, very precise, and I'm going to enforce," Mukasey said.
It was a far cry from the policies Gonzales allowed before he resigned in September after months of criticism and questions about his honesty.
But wait! When did the Justice Department under Gonzales "bring charges against political candidates shortly before elections?" I'm not aware of a single instance of such charges, although there certainly have been instances where they would have been warranted. So how does this represent a "far cry" from previous Justice Department policies?
The AP had to acknowledge that not quite everything went the Democrats' way today:
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., hammered Mukasey for writing a 2004 speech that derided criticism of the USA Patriot Act as "recreational hysteria." He also described as "somewhat troubling" Mukasey's reluctance to say whether he thinks the administration's terrorism surveillance program crossed the legal boundaries of a 1978 law setting limits on government spying in the United States.
Mukasey begged off on the latter point since he didn't know the details of the international terrorist surveillance program. That program, as I've argued a number of times, is almost certainly legal. The only judge that has held otherwise, a patently prejudiced liberal who was carefully selected by the plaintiffs and wrote a terrible opinion, was reversed. So why would Mukasey's agnosticism on the program's legality be "troubling"?
News coverage on legal issues relating to the war on terror has been appallingly bad--the clearest example of journalistic malpractice I can think of. The current stories are consistent with that sad history.
To comment on this post, go here.
