An issue of "competence"

From the S.F. Chronicle:

In a speech to the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, Gonzales said federal judges are not "equipped to make decisions about" actions the president takes in the name of preserving national security.

"A judge will never be in the position to know what is in the national security interest of the country," Gonzales said.

Gonzales says that we can't trust the judiciary to "know what is in the ... interest of the country". But on the evidence, what's the choice? Trust the Dubya maladministration to know what's in the interest of the country? Those colossal f***ups? Those responsible for the "catastrophic success" in Iraq? The ones responsible for invading Iraq in the first place?

That's not to mention that it's simply untrue that the only consideration that ought be taken into account here is the "national security interest". Rather, the interest in civil liberties and in the rule of law should also be balanced against any "national security interest", and -- to be blunt about it --I'd say that judges seem on first blush to be far more capable of making rational (and lawful) decisions on such matters than the maladministration.....