From The New York Times:
To the editor:
Re “The Failed Attorney General” (editorial, March 11)
Thank you for yet another superb editorial about the Bush imperial presidency. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is worthy of your criticism. Though I heartily applaud your recent series of editorials along those lines, they somehow remind me of artillery fire that has not yet found its proper target.
Explosions all around, but none hit the target.
The target is the USA PATRIOT Act and its cousin, the Military Commissions Act. They are the foundations and hallmark of this imperial presidency. He repeal mechanism serves an important purpose in our system of government, and both these laws should be repealed forthwith.
Richard Sinnott
I, for one, have great misgivings about the answer, and personally doubt that it will be addressed soon.
If the president does nothing about this crisis, Congress must. We cannot afford any more erosion of our civil liberties or the Constitution.
Schumer’s call echoes a New York Times editorial this morning. The Times examined Gonzales’ record beyond the U.S. Attorney purge and the FBI’s Patriot Act violations:
– Gonzales “repeatedly defended Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize warrantless eavesdropping on Americans’ international calls and e-mail.”
– Gonzalez “was an eager public champion of the absurd notion that as commander in chief during a time of war, Mr. Bush can ignore laws that he thinks get in his way.”
– Gonzales “was disdainful of any attempt by Congress to examine the spying program, let alone control it.”
– Gonzales “helped formulate and later defended the policies that repudiated the Geneva Conventions in the war against terror, and that sanctioned the use of kidnapping, secret detentions, abuse and torture.”
– Gonzales “has been central to the administration’s assault on the courts, which he recently said had no right to judge national security policies, and on the constitutional separation of powers.”
– Under Gonzales, the Justice Department “has abandoned its duties as guardian of election integrity and voting rights. It approved a Georgia photo-ID law that a federal judge later likened to a poll tax, a case in which Mr. Gonzales’s political team overrode the objections of the department’s professional staff.”
– Under Gonzales, the Justice Department “has been shamefully indifferent to complaints of voter suppression aimed at minority voters. But it has managed to find the time to sue a group of black political leaders in Mississippi for discriminating against white voters.”
Transcript:
SCHIEFFER: Senator Schumer, what do you think ought to be done about this situation?
SCHUMER: Well, Bob, you know, the Justice Department is different than any other department. In every other department, the chief cabinet officer is supposed to follow the president’s orders, request, without exception.
But the Justice Department has a higher responsibility: rule of law and the Constitution. And Attorney General Gonzales in his department has been even more political than his predecessor, Attorney General Ashcroft.
Attorney General Gonzales is a nice man. But he either doesn’t accept or doesn’t understand that he is no longer just the president’s lawyer, but has a higher obligation to the rule of law and the Constitution, even when the president should not want it to be so. And so this department has been so political that I think for the sake of the nation, Attorney General Gonzales should step down.
http://www.newscloud.com/read/81270
From:The New York Times, EditorialDuring the hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said he understood the difference between the job he held — President Bush’s in-house lawyer — and the job he wanted, which was to represent all Americans as their chief law enforcement officer and a key defender of the Constitution. Two years later, it is obvious Mr. Gonzales does not have a clue about the difference.
He has never stopped being consigliere to Mr. Bush’s imperial presidency. If anyone, outside Mr. Bush’s rapidly shrinking circle of enablers, still had doubts about that, the events of last week should have erased them.
First, there was Mr. Gonzales’s lame op-ed article in USA Today trying to defend the obviously politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys, which he dismissed as an “overblown personnel matter.” Then his inspector general exposed the way the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been abusing yet another unnecessary new power that Mr. Gonzales helped wring out of the Republican-dominated Congress in the name of fighting terrorism.
The F.B.I. has been using powers it obtained under the Patriot Act to get financial, business and telephone records of Americans by issuing tens of thousands of “national security letters,” a euphemism for warrants that are issued without any judicial review or avenue of appeal. The administration said that, as with many powers it has arrogated since the 9/11 attacks, this radical change was essential to fast and nimble antiterrorism efforts, and it promised to police the use of the letters carefully.
But like so many of the administration’s promises, this one evaporated before the ink on those letters could dry. The F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, admitted Friday that his agency had used the new powers improperly.
Mr. Gonzales does not directly run the F.B.I., but it is part of his department and has clearly gotten the message that promises (and civil rights) are meant to be broken.
It was Mr. Gonzales, after all, who repeatedly defended Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize warrantless eavesdropping on Americans’ international calls and e-mail. He was an eager public champion of the absurd notion that as commander in chief during a time of war, Mr. Bush can ignore laws that he thinks get in his way. Mr. Gonzales was disdainful of any attempt by Congress to examine the spying program, let alone control it.
The attorney general helped formulate and later defended the policies that repudiated the Geneva Conventions in the war against terror, and that sanctioned the use of kidnapping, secret detentions, abuse and torture. He has been central to the administration’s assault on the courts, which he recently said had no right to judge national security policies, and on the constitutional separation of powers.
His Justice Department has abandoned its duties as guardian of election integrity and voting rights. It approved a Georgia photo-ID law that a federal judge later likened to a poll tax, a case in which Mr. Gonzales’s political team overrode the objections of the department’s professional staff.
The Justice Department has been shamefully indifferent to complaints of voter suppression aimed at minority voters. But it has managed to find the time to sue a group of black political leaders in Mississippi for discriminating against white voters.
We opposed Mr. Gonzales’s nomination as attorney general. His résumé was weak, centered around producing legal briefs for Mr. Bush that assured him that the law said what he wanted it to say. More than anyone in the administration, except perhaps Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Gonzales symbolizes Mr. Bush’s disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law.
On Thursday, Senator Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, hinted very obliquely that perhaps Mr. Gonzales’s time was up. We’re not going to be oblique. Mr. Bush should dismiss Mr. Gonzales and finally appoint an attorney general who will use the job to enforce the law and defend the Constitution.
The Right Way to Manage U.S. Attorneys
Saturday, March 10, 2007; Page A19
The recent firings of eight U.S. attorneys and the revelations that politics may have played a role in the dismissals have focused a spotlight on this important and often ignored federal office. On all levels of government, prosecutors wield enormous power. Indeed, more than 60 years ago, Attorney General Robert Jackson, who went on to become a Supreme Court justice, noted that a U.S. attorney "has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America."
The dismissals appear to have been politically motivated and carried out heavy-handedly; initially, doublespeak was used to explain what was done and why. The irony is that a president and his or her attorney general should seek a centrally coordinated and cohesive federal prosecution force. Without some attempt to organize the 93 federal judicial districts, each of which has its own U.S. attorney, inefficiency can be common across offices. Prosecutors might lack consistent priorities and vary on treatment of similar cases. With so much potential criminal conduct and too few resources in the form of investigators and prosecutors, an administration's law enforcement efforts can be diluted if goals are not coordinated.
The problem in recent years has been not that Washington is too involved in supervising these offices and their personnel but that it has done too little. Some U.S. attorneys will decide, say, to pursue drug and immigration cases while others pursue business or consumer fraud and still others seek public corruption cases (and the accompanying headlines). Some might adopt one set of policies for plea agreements and what sentences to seek for those cooperating with law enforcement, while others have different rules and practices. Practicing lawyers acknowledge that even though there is only one set of federal criminal statutes, one set of federal rules of criminal procedure and one set of sentencing guidelines, procedures often seem to vary depending on which U.S. attorney's office is involved.
The Bush administration's folly is not that it attempted to choose, supervise and coordinate outstanding attorneys who would adhere to the same priorities and practices but that near the end of its tenure it tried to regulate specific offices in specific investigations. There can be no disagreement about this: Once a U.S. attorney has been appointed, that person's particular investigations and cases must be totally off-limits to questions from the White House or anyone in Congress. There is simply too much room for any such inquiry to be (or to be perceived as) a request that a case be brought, or not brought, to allow any exceptions.
History is replete with "innocent" inquiries from members of Congress to the Justice Department that have sparked controversy and criticism, such as Rep. Joshua Eilberg's inquiry about a Philadelphia corruption case in 1978 and House Speaker Jim Wright's inquiries about Texas savings and loan cases in 1988. There have been too many incidents for that lesson not to have been learned.
Another irony is that U.S. attorneys are usually appointed on the recommendation of the senator or senators from the president's party as one of a new administration's key political plums. So from the outset, politics plays a role in who becomes a U.S. attorney. But preelection political interference, such as that by Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, both New Mexico Republicans, who called their U.S. attorney in October about a public corruption case on which they hoped to see action, has caused some of the recent fury.
The recent blunders hold lessons for future administrations. First, the provision slipped into the extension of the USA Patriot Act last year, giving the president more authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without Senate approval, has to be revoked. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales just announced that he will support this. Confirmation hearings are one of the few ways in which this position is reviewed.
Second, the next president and attorney general should make an immediate priority of finding and selecting the best lawyer for each U.S. attorney position, even if it means seeking bipartisan, merit-based recommendations, as President Jimmy Carter and Attorney General Griffin B. Bell did, and forgoing political patronage for the favorite of a particular senator. In this, it is not only appropriate but essential that the president and attorney general find individuals who agree with the new administration's priorities, concepts of procedure (e.g., sentencing guidelines) and use of resources, as well as individuals who agree that the Justice Department has a vital role in supervising the 93 U.S. attorneys once they are confirmed.
Finally, once an attorney is chosen on the merits, screened at confirmation hearings and supervised on general priorities and principles, that U.S. attorney and the specific cases he or she works on must be immune to interference or the perception of interference by anyone in the White House or Congress. Any such inquiry, intentional or not, will always raise the specter of politics and favoritism -- two of the death knells to an independent judiciary.
The writer, a criminal and civil litigator in Washington, served as special assistant to the attorney general in the Carter administration.
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/03/ny-times-calls-for-alberto-gonzales.html
The F.B.I. has been using powers it obtained under the Patriot Act to get financial, business and telephone records of Americans by issuing tens of thousands of “national security letters,” a euphemism for warrants that are issued without any judicial review or avenue of appeal. The administration said that, as with many powers it has arrogated since the 9/11 attacks, this radical change was essential to fast and nimble antiterrorism efforts, and it promised to police the use of the letters carefully.
From http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/March 1, 2007
One of the most "important tenets" of a U.S. attorney's office is to never "mix politics with prosecutions." But it appears that the Justice Department has done just that, recently firing eight well-respected U.S. attorneys and replacing them with partisan Bush administration loyalists. Many of these ousted prosecutors were working on high-profile corruption cases and received high marks on their job evaluations by the Justice Department. All appear to be "victim[s] of strong-arm political pressure from Washington," pushed out to make room for political cronies. At each turn, Justice Department officials have made up different excuses for the firings, from insisting that the prosecutors stepped down on their own to claiming that they were fired for "performance-related" reasons. None of these charges have stood up. A little-noticed provision in the Patriot Act allows these "interim" Bush appointees to serve indefinitely, without Senate approval. Conservative senators are now blocking a repeal of this measure. "I think Americans need to have full confidence that their federal prosecutors are above politics," said one of the ousted prosecutors, David Iglesias, highlighting why it is necessary for all of these Bush appointees to be held up to public scrutiny.
CLAIM #1 -- THEY WERE BAD AT THEIR JOBS: On Feb. 6, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that six U.S. attorneys were fired in Dec. 2006 for "performance-related" reasons. But in reality, these prosecutors were highly respected in their fields and received praise in job evaluations from the Justice Department shortly before they were told to resign. Similarly, at least four of the fired prosecutors said that Michael Battle, head of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, never cited performance issues -- or gave any reason at all -- as the reason for their forced resignations. John McKay, the former U.S. attorney in Washington, recounted his conversation with Battle: "When I was composed enough to ask him why [I was being fired], he told me he couldn't answer any of my questions. ... He said nothing about performance issues or management or anything else." In fact, five of these prosecutors had positive job reviews. Just months before firing him, Battle sent McKay a "congratulatory letter for the laudatory report issued by the Justice Department audit team." Daniel Bogden, the former U.S. attorney in Nevada, "was described in his last job performance evaluation in 2003 as being a 'capable' leader who was highly regarded by the federal judiciary and investigators." Former U.S. attorney in California Carol Lam was "'well respected' by law enforcement officials, judges and her staff" in her 2005 evaluation. Paul Charlton, former U.S. attorney in Arizona, was "described as being respected by his staff, federal investigators, judges and Native American leaders for 'his integrity, professionalism and competence.'" A Justice Department official also confirmed that Iglesias "received a positive evaluation last year."
CLAIM #2 -- THEY WEREN'T TEAM PLAYERS: After media reports began revealing that the U.S. attorneys were all given positive job evaluations, the Justice Department changed its excuse for the forced resignations, claiming that the attorneys were rogue prosecutors. "The reviews don't take into account whether the U.S. attorneys carried out departmental priorities," said one official. But as the New York Times noted, "each case report included a statement that each of the ousted prosecutors had established strategic goals set by the Justice Department in high priority areas like counterterrorism, narcotics and gun violence." Bogden said that his office had "done more gun cases, drug cases, gang cases, child exploitation cases, identity theft cases than any office has done in any five year period of time." A Justice Department review of Iglesias's job performance, dated Nov. 2005, concluded that he had a strategic plan that "complied with the department's priorities."
CLAIM #3 -- THERE'S NO COVER-UP: What the ousted prosecutors all have in common -- in addition to strong job evaluations -- is that they were "overseeing significant public-corruption investigations at the time they were asked to leave. Four of the probes target Republican politicians or their supporters." In the case that has received the most attention, Lam oversaw the public corruption case of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, which resulted in his guilty plea and the indictments of a defense contractor and a former CIA official. With Lam's departure, it is unclear whether her successor will continue to pursue the corruption investigation. Similarly, Charlton's office was "investigating charges involving land deals and influence peddling against Republican Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ)," Bogden was "looking into campaign law violations by at least one member of the state's Congressional delegation," and Cummins was investigating Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt (R). Kevin Ryan, the former U.S. attorney in California, wasn't pursuing public corruption, but as Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Scott Lilly notes, he likely "stepped on the toes of a number of their [the Bush administration's] most generous contributors with his high profile investigations of back-dated stock options given to numerous executives in major corporations." Iglesias, who was pursuing a federal probe of a kickback scheme, believes he was fired because he "refused to speed up an indictment of local Democrats a month before November's congressional elections." Iglesias "said that two members of Congress called separately in mid-October" and "appeared eager...for an indictment to be issued before the elections in order to benefit the Republicans." "I believe that because I didn't play ball, so to speak, I was asked to resign," Iglesias noted.
CLAIM #4 -- IT'S NOT POLITICAL: The Justice Department continues to insist that the firings weren't political. "I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons," said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. "When I hear you talk about the politicizing of the Department of Justice, it's like a knife in my heart," said McNulty. But the Justice Department itself has admitted that at least one of the U.S. attorneys -- H.E. "Bud" Cummings in Arkansas -- was pushed out to make way for Bush loyalist Timothy Griffin, the former research director at the Republican National Committee and a "37-year-old protege" of Karl Rove. According to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AK), the Justice Department originally tried to claim that Cummins resigned on his own, which McNulty later admitted was untrue. Salon notes, "Some former Justice Department officials say they believe the administration's moves are a politically driven power grab -- aimed not only at a tighter grip on policy from Washington, but also at creating openings with which to reward their friends and build up a bench of conservative loyalists positioned to serve in powerful posts in future administrations." Similarly, Sen. John Ensign (R-AZ) was reportedly "told that the decision to remove U.S. attorneys, primarily in the West, was part of a plan to 'give somebody else that experience' to build up the back bench of Republicans by giving them high-profile jobs." Since last March, the administration has named nine U.S. attorneys -- including Griffin -- with Bush administration ties. These appointees include a former counselor to Gonzales and a protege of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
CLAIM #5 -- IT WASN'T DONE TO AVOID CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT: In 2005, a member of Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) staff slipped into the Patriot Act a little-noticed provision that allows the attorney general to appoint replacement U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period of time. Earlier this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a measure "that would take away the executive branch's unchecked power on U.S. attorney appointments" and restore the system to the pre-2005 rules. It would allow the attorney general "to appoint a replacement for 120 days, with the district court then stepping in and appointing a new interim U.S. attorney if the Senate has not approved a permanent one." Conservatives are now blocking the full Senate bill, sponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Mark Pryor (D-AR). Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Linda Sanchez (D-CA) requested an analysis from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) into whether previous administrations have also fired prosecutors without justification, but the Justice Department has refused to cooperate with the investigation, according to the CRS analyst. Today, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on issuing subpoenas to four of the eight dismissed prosecutors and the Senate Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, "will send letters to those fired before voting next week on compelling their testimony." "In order to get the full picture of why these U.S. attorneys were fired, we need to hear from the Justice Department and the U.S. attorneys themselves," said Conyers.
Court hears religion case
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — In a closely watched church-state separation case, a Bush administration lawyer urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to shield the president's "faith-based initiative" from court challenges.
U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement said taxpayers who believe the White House is unconstitutionally promoting religion should not be accorded legal standing to sue in court. It would be too "intrusive on the executive branch" to permit lawsuits contesting how the president and his advisers conduct their affairs, he said.
The case involves a Wisconsin group called Freedom From Religion that sued in 2004 to challenge the "faith-based initiative" on First Amendment grounds. The group said the White House officials were using public money to help church-based groups win grants and contracts.
It is the first major religion case to come before the Supreme Court since President Bush's two appointees — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — took their seats.
Overall, the nine justices seemed split during the hourlong argument. If they adopt the administration's view, the ruling could make it harder for critics to sue officials who use public money in ways that support religion. If the justices rule in favor of Freedom From Religion, the group would still have to prove its case in court.
Roberts made clear he thought the group's claims should be thrown out of court. If taxpayers can sue the government whenever an official invokes God or religion, why couldn't anyone "sue our marshal for standing up and saying, 'God save the United States and this honorable court'?" asked Roberts, citing the invocation heard each day when the justices enter the court.
But Justice Stephen Breyer said courts and lawsuits are needed to enforce the separation of church and state. "People become terribly upset when they see some other religion getting the money from the state" to subsidize their faith, he said.
Normally, people must say they have suffered a personal injury of some sort before they can sue in court. For example, taxpayers cannot sue to stop the war in Iraq simply because they disagree with it. But nearly 40 years ago, the court under then-Chief Justice Earl Warren made an exception for challenges to government spending that promotes religion.
A coalition of liberal groups filed a friend-of-the-court brief that urged the court to reject the administration's argument.
"Tax dollars may not be used to subsidize religious activity," said Steven Shapiro, the American Civil Liberties Union's legal director. "Barring taxpayers from enforcing this fundamental principle in court would effectively license the government to violate the Constitution."
The case will be decided in several months.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003594550_scotus01.html
(02-28) 19:08 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with the question of whether taxpayers have the right to challenge the White House's aggressive promotion of federal financial aid for religious charities.
At issue is whether a Wisconsin-based group of atheists and agnostics have legal standing, by virtue of being taxpayers, to bring their complaint in the federal court system.
Taking one extreme, Justice Stephen Breyer asked a lawyer for the White House whether a taxpayer would be able to challenge a law in which Congress sets up a church at Plymouth Rock.
"I would say no," responded Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, but he added that such a church could be challenged in other ways — just not on the basis that a taxpayer has been injured. Clement is representing the Bush administration, which is trying to prevent the taxpayer suit over its aggressive promotion, through the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, of federal financial aid for religious charities.
Taking the opposite extreme, Justice Antonin Scalia asked a lawyer for the Wisconsin group, Andrew Pincus, whether taxpayers would be able to sue over the use of security money for a presidential trip where religion is discussed.
Pincus said that taxpayers would not have standing to do so, arguing that in such a case the money spent would be "incidental," and not central to the issue.
The case may turn on a 1968 Supreme Court decision that created an exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer challenges to the government spending of tax revenue. In an 8-1 decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the court allowed taxpayers to challenge congressional spending for private religious schools.
But the Bush administration says spending for speeches and meetings of executive branch officials does not involve spending federal money outside the government and therefore taxpayers are not entitled to challenge it.
In the current case, the Bush administration organizes conferences where faith-based organizations are allegedly singled out as being particularly worthy of receiving federal money.
The group challenging the Bush administration, called the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., characterizes the White House's initiative as a singling out of faith-based organizations to the exclusion of other organizations.
Last year, a federal appeals court allowed the group to pursue its lawsuit. Instead of going through Congress, President Bush issued executive orders to create the White House office and similar centers in 10 federal agencies during his first term.
One of the goals Bush set for these offices was to help religious and community groups compete for federal funding to fight poverty, substance abuse and other social problems.
The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago sided with the anti-religion group, and the Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court.
The case is Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., 06-157.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/28/national/w165611S77.DTL&type=politics
