The New DOI: "Injustice"

Brief post only. I've been short on ZZ's for a spell and see an opportunity to do a little makeup tonight.

But I must briefly draw your attention to this first most-public statement by a fired republican US Prosecuting Attorney:

With this week’s release of more than 3,000 Justice Department e-mail messages about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters.

Of course, as one of the eight, I’ve felt this way for some time. But now that the record is out there in black and white for the rest of the country to see, the argument that we were fired for “performance related” reasons (in the words of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) is starting to look more than a little wobbly.

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

-clip-

Good has already come from this scandal. Yesterday, the Senate voted to overturn a 2006 provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint indefinite interim United States attorneys. The attorney general’s chief of staff has resigned and been replaced by a respected career federal prosecutor, Chuck Rosenberg. The president and attorney general have admitted that “mistakes were made,” and Mr. Domenici and Ms. Wilson have publicly acknowledged calling me.

President Bush addressed this scandal yesterday. I appreciate his gratitude for my service — this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me.

No disrespect, Mr. former Prosecuting Attorney, but while I would like to have the issue settled for you also, for the American people, whose patriotism and love of democracy have been slurred and libeled constantly by the cabal that it appears led to your unemployment, that is far from enough. These are criminal actions by our own government, Mr. Iglesias. Please do not settle for the admittedly unprecedented and improbable "retraction" you ask for. You should know full well that your duty to the Constitution, the established practice of law, and the American People demand a lawsuit for wrongful termination. We the American People deserve no less. Who did you serve? Some courage, please!

It's the Lack of Integrity, Stupid!

Rightly and appropriately, the apparent almost-entirely partisan firing of Federal District Attorneys is drawing a rash of attention. I'd put hard money on Gonzales going down soon - he seemingly has only one supporter at this point, and that person is a notorious flake, liar, and ne'er-do-well, with a reputation for blind loyalty and no ability to get any job done properly.

While this would be a richly-deserved reward for one of the more sycophantic, anti-patriotic, unAmerican and anti-democratic folks to hold this high office in years, it would be absurd to let him gather the badness to his chest and absolve others.

Rove as just one example should be already indicted and under oath, for multiple felonious offenses, several publically admitted already as I recall. Cheney - naked with a hungry Komodo Dragon would be a reasonable proposition. Screw the Other Priorities.

Proper justice for the smirking dim son requires some further creative pondering. It would be fun to have it involve some complexity and perhaps several levels of nuance and subtletly before he confronts his demon - e.g. an unmedicated Laura, finally recalling her librarian vows and sensing what her vacuity has caused the country to lose.

This story, as with so many about the Bush unministration, is all about Integrity. They didn't have it when they were illegally gifted the office, they ignored the concept in most if not all appointments, and they have never had any respect for Integrity as a principle in their operations or their lives. I believe true patriotic Americans and others throughout the world devoted to human rights, instinctively know that lack of integrity spells failure. That is what is out there for all to see painted in the color of blood in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a result of the widening ripples, a person appropriately and actively pursuing news (vs. couch-potato-ing and/or dallying with their WSJ, Fox, Limbaugh, and Washington Times) can find any manner of material on the subject. Having processed thousands of words on the topic in the last few days I was disinclined to post again on the subject until I ran into this at Anonymous Liberal, under the admirable title "Unparalleled Hubris":

-clip-

We may never know for certain whether Carol Lam was fired because she chose to prosecute Duke Cunningham, Dusty Foggo, and other high-ranking Republicans (though that's certainly a reasonable inference at this point). No matter what the real reason was, however, we can be absolutely certain that her firing was an act of unparalleled hubris on the part of the Bush administration. As Josh Marshall put it last week:

What people tend to overlook is that for most White Houses, a US attorney involved in such a politically charged and ground-breaking corruption probe would have been untouchable, even if she'd run her office like a madhouse and was offering free twinkies to every illegal who made it across the border.

The fact that the Bush administration thought it could fire Carol Lam without suffering any significant political blowback is just astounding, and it's a testament to how anemic Congressional and media oversight has been over the last six years. Again, regardless of the real reasons for Lam's dismissal, the White House and Attorney General's office clearly thought that they could replace a prosecutor who had initiated a number of high-profile investigations into Republican politicians without drawing any real scrutiny from the media or Congress.

It's as if they had grown so accustomed to the low-gravity environment of Republican congressional control that their political instincts had atrophied and left them unable to function in a universe where Congress and the media actually do what they are supposed to do: ask questions when things don't smell right.

Even more troubling, though, is the very real possibility that the Bush administration intended this firing to look exactly how it looked, at least to a certain audience. While the administration may have expected that Congress and the media would ignore the story, those responsible for the firings may well have hoped that the other U.S. Attorneys around the country--who all knew who Carol Lam was and what cases she was pursuing--would draw the obvious inference.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that this was a poorly-disguised act of political retribution. I don't think that's right. I don't think it was meant to be disguised. I think the Bush administration was trying to send a message here and they just didn't think anyone but the intended recipients--the remaining U.S. Attorneys--would be paying any attention.

Bong Hits 4 Jesus??

Just when I thought I had a clue.

I couldn't help but be fascinated when I first read about the SCOTUS case apparently coming around on the turntable tomorrow. That case involves a Juneau, Alaska HS student perhaps a little naively bannering subject text across the street from his school on the occasion of the Olympic Torch passing by and hence high publicity. Given that he was already at odds with what sounds like a classically paranoical half-witted principal, it might not have been his best choice - what about a block away?

Anyway, our species being what it is, often indistinguishable from bullrushes, meerkats, and momeraths, he was suspended for ten days or so and pressed a lawsuit as a result. I can't wholly blame him. But since then things have changed, as Mr. Zimmerman memorably sang for the WonderBoys soundtrack. But I would not have predicted this potentially entertaining outcome:

A free speech case has divided President Bush from key supporters of his base, as many religious rights groups have joined the ACLU and others in defending the rights of high school students, an article in Sunday's New York Times reports.

The case which will be argued in front of the Supreme Court on Monday "has opened an unexpected fissure between the Bush administration and its usual allies among conservative Christian supporters," Linda Greenhouse reports for the Times.

"On the surface, Joseph Frederick's dispute with his principal, Deborah Morse, at the Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska five years ago appeared to have little if anything to do with religion," Greenhouse writes. "As the Olympic torch was carried through the streets of Juneau on its way to the 2002 winter games in Salt Lake City and as television cameras focused on the scene, Frederick and some friends unfurled a 14-foot-long banner with the inscription: 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus.'"

The principal tore down the sign, after Frederick initially refused her demand to remove the banner, and suspended him for ten days.

"The Bush administration entered the case on the side of the principal and the Juneau School Board," Greenhouse notes.

But, Greenhouse continues, "While it is hardly surprising to find the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Coalition Against Censorship on Frederick's side, it is the array of briefs from organizations that litigate and speak on behalf of generally conservative Christian groups that has lifted Morse v. Frederick out of the realm of the ordinary."

-clip-

The groups include the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson, the Christian Legal Society, the Alliance Defense Fund, the Rutherford Institute, which has participated in many religion cases before the court, and Liberty Legal Institute, a nonprofit law firm "dedicated to the preservation of First Amendment rights and religious freedom." The institute, based in Plano, Texas, told the justices in its brief that it was "gravely concerned that the religious freedom of students in public schools will be damaged" if the court rules for the school board.

-clip-