CHERTOFF:
After the dismal failure of Bernard Kerik--President Bush's first choice for Tom Ridge's successor as head of Homeland Security--to survive media examination of his past, it might have been expected that the President would be more cautious next time. And so it would appear that he has, with the surprise selection of Circuit Court Justice Michael Chertoff. After all, Chertoff's appointment to the bench was approved by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee two years ago (with the Democrats abstaining). No difficulties with confirmation for his new job are anticipated.
Perhaps the scrutiny should be a little tougher, and less partisan, this time around. To begin with, there is the question of Executive accountability. Simply put, does the Executive branch of government have a responsibility to respond to Congressional requests for documents and other information? For Chertoff, the answer is easy: Nope. Conservative columnist Robert Novak listened to Chertoff argue this point of view--which Novak called "a maximalist position for executive power"--in 2001, when Chertoff was in charge of the Justice Department's Criminal Division.
According to Novak, Chertoff walked the walk on this one when "Rep. Dan Burton, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, sought documents exposing the FBI's shocking misuse of mob information in Boston." To Burton's amazement, the Justice Department refused. Although it was John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales who told the Committee that the President was invoking executive privilege in the matter, "congressional staffers told me Chertoff was calling the shots," Novak says.
"In Chertoff's remaining year at the Justice Department," Novak continues, "he frequently was the man who said no--rejecting requests for documents." And he identifies Chertoff as the key figure in the Department's refusal to investigate the Clinton administration's use of Internal Revenue Service scrutiny on critics of Bill Clinton, despite a mass of evidence that it happened.
Given Chertoff's clearly articulated Executive branch bias, the American people would be well-served if the Senate asked him how (or if) he plans to cooperate with Congress in matters involving homeland security.
Beyond matters of philosophy, however, there are even more disturbing questions about Judge Chertoff that have been brought to light by the conservative gadfly group Judicial Watch and gone almost totally unreported by the mainstream media.
Judicial Watch's concerns surfaced during the Senate confirmation hearings for Chertoff's nomination to the Circuit Court. Meeting with Judiciary Committee investigators for two hours in May of 2003, Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman and President Tom Fitton presented a detailed chronology of alleged Justice Department misuse of organized crime operatives by the FBI and other U.S. government agencies in the District of New Jersey while Mr. Chertoff served as the U.S. Attorney there. It was a scenario eerily reminiscent of the Boston FBI scandal that Justice later tried to stonewall.
Fitton and Klayman provided tapes of telephone conversations, transcripts, video and public documents as evidence, along with a recommended witness list of persons with first-hand knowledge of the alleged crimes. As a result, Senators Leahy and Hatch announced a "joint investigation into the matter" three days later. Some investigation. As Bob Novak put it, "The inquiry consisted of asking Chertoff about the charges, and he said they were not true." End of story.
On Feb. 1 of this year, Judicial Watch raised the same questions once again, this time in a letter to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, in which they voiced "several concerns which bear on the fitness of Judge Chertoff for this important position of public trust." As before, Judicial Watch stopped well short of actually accusing Chertoff of direct involvement in any improprieties. However, they maintained, the Committee has a solemn obligation to investigate some very specific and serious allegations before it confirms the Secretary.
Considering the amount of power it is being given and the very real potential for abuse of that power, in the new Department of Homeland Security the need for someone of impeccable character to oversee it seems little enough to ask.
[For further information on this story, visit Judicial Watch's website: www.judicialwatch.org] |
