MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: White House Purges Courts Of Independent Prosecutors

« Prominent Republicans Warner and Boehner Take Action Against the Surge | Blog Index | CEOs Scold Bush on Global Warming »

White House Purges Courts Of Independent Prosecutors

In his January 19 New York Times column (here, if you have access), Paul Krugman does a good job of crystalizing the recent goings-on at the White House in its purge of independent prosecutors. One by one, federal prosecutors are being relieved of their jobs in what Attorney General Alberto Gonzales describes as "a personnel matter." More like a personal matter: The kinds of prosecutors that are being heaved out (like San Diego's Carol Lam, who successfuly prosecuted Duke Cunningham) are the kind of attorneys who seek to bring justice for the people, and that appears to be making the Bush administration very uncomfortable.

According to Krugman, the White House has gotten rid of as few as four and as many as seven prosecutors (Gonzales is having trouble with the math) since the middle of December. As a rule, once a federal prosecutor is appointed, she serves for the remainder of the president's term. Now that Democrats are in control in Congress, one might feel relief that none of Bush's new appointees will be confirmed. Enter Sen. Arlen Specter.

When Specter was still chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he slipped a little gift for Bush into the revised Patriot Act bills--a proviso that eliminates the requirement that federal judicial appointees have only 120 days to be confirmed, and then replacements are named by federal district courts. One need only remember the chilling scene of Michael Moore's driving an ice cream truck around the Capitol grounds and reading the Patriot Act through a loudspeaker to understand how easy it is to slip just about anything into a lengthy bill.

So now it does not matter whether the Senate confirms Bush's new nominations--we are all stuck with them. I'm sure that Tom Maciulis and his media colleages do not care, but I do. If there is no one left to prosecute the corrupt and treasonous people at the top of our government, they have an absolute license to do whatever they wish.

Comments

What about the Oliveria Martinez case--"I'm dying! ... What are you doing..."
"If you are going to die, tell me what happened," pressed Sgt. Ben Chavez (Oxnard, CA).
After a complaint that marijuana was being sold in an empty field, two officers were on stake-out when Martinez rode his bike down an adjoining alley...
Now, my point here, of course, is that if the cops should ever violate your rights, well, don't stick to your guns... (even if you did work hard all day in the cabbage field), or they're gonna shoot you five times and blind and paralyze you just like they did to Martinez... (he was unarmed and no charges were ever filed against him).
The lower courts actually agreed that Martinez's confession was coerced--Chavez should have known that questioning a man who had been shot five times, was crying out for treatment and had been given no Miranda warnings was a violation of constitutional rights...
"This is a case to be concerned about," said Charles Weisselberg, a Berkeley law professor." To see the solicitor general arguing that there's no right to be free from coercive interrogation is pretty aggressive."
And what about that case in San Jose, CA, where the cop was chasing a guy, and the cop said that his gun got caught on his shirt and that's how he ended up shooting the guy in the back of the head..."
You know what I mean--just go ahead and totally forget about how, "If there is no one left to prosecute the corrupt and treasonous people at the top of our governemnt, they have an absolute license to do whatever they wish," because, hey, that's already the way it is... But it isn't confined to the boys at the top--all government actors and the like can do just whatever in hell they like, and no US prosecutor is gonna bother with them; like, hey, there's not enough money..., to throw away on this sort of thing...

Posted by: Michael L. Wagner on 01/22/07 at 6:14 PM

The question of have many prosecutors have been "dismissed" seems like an easy enough query; how many US prosecutors have resigned lately anyway?
Those "missing" prosecutors must have all been a bunch of real "pantywaists"--to resign simply because the big, bad wolf (Gonzales) asked them to!
Or I'll huff and puff... Yeah, Right!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous on 01/22/07 at 7:30 PM

When you are told that you have been replaced, that's not exactly a resignation.

Posted by: Diane on 01/22/07 at 7:37 PM

"How many US Attorneys have been asked to resign in the past year?" Feinstein asked Gonzales.

The label still stands--if it was anyone else that was "forced out" of his or her job without good cause--why you'd better believe a lawsuit would follow... (especially a lawyer!!!).

Posted by: Anonymous on 01/22/07 at 8:11 PM

Alberto Gonzales may have already violated the 4th amendment in order to violate the 1st amendment.

Free Speech Beneath US Homeland Security

http://wwwfreespeechbushs.blogspot.com
http://wwwfreespeechbeneathushs.blogspot.com/
2006_10_01_wwwfreespeechbeneathushs_archive.html

Posted by: Douglas Willinger on 01/23/07 at 8:09 AM

Well this is all rather moot since we live under a Fascist/Nazi Oligarchy! They are just circling the wagons to insure that we can't upset their plans.

Posted by: Ranselar VanDerpoel on 01/23/07 at 8:24 AM