The NY Times has a 7 page article (on-line at least) that is devoted to damning Ashcroft.
The thing that I am puzzled about, is not their criticisms of the loss of civil liberties due to his policies, but the ommission of his threat to the Second Amendment as well as to the First, Fourth, Fifth, etc...
In one breath they claim he's in the NRA's pocket but the next they mention that gun crime prosecution is up 30 some odd percent under his charge.
Don't get me wrong: I don't fall into the Bush/Cheney?Ashcroft Triumvirate theory of world domination, but i do see a lot of the anti-terrorism measures as being dangerous to our Rights, just as I don't believe Ashcroft is as pro-gun as most believe. he gives good lip service, but I don't buy that he respects our Right to Arms as individuals when he clings onto the "subject to reasonable restrictions" qualifier.
So if the NY Times really wanted to roast Ashcroft, then they shoudl mention all the Rights he could be threatening, not just the ones they approve of.