NYT: Gonzales Offers Concession on Prosecutors

[DeepModem Mom]

Gonzales Offers Concession on Prosecutors
By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON
Published: March 9, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 8 — Buffeted by criticism over the ousters of eight United States attorneys, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told senators on Thursday that the Justice Department would not oppose a change in the one-year-old rule for replacing federal prosecutors, senators said.

Mr. Gonzales offered his concession at a private meeting on Capitol Hill with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also agreed to let the panel question officials involved in the removals, Congressional aides said.

Mr. Gonzales’s willingness to give in to Senate demands appeared to underscore how the Justice Department had been put on the defensive by the uproar over the ousters....

***

Criticism on the removals grew more personal on Thursday as Republican senators complained about Mr. Gonzales, some because of a letter in USA Today in which he said he had lost confidence in the ousted prosecutors and regarded the question an “overblown personnel matter.”

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, senior Republican on the judiciary panel, said in a telephone interview that those comments were “extraordinarily insensitive” and that the prosecutors were “professionals who are going to have a cloud over them which could last a lifetime.”...

***

Other Republican senators expressed strong criticism of the removals and handling by Mr. Gonzales’s aides. Senator John Ensign of Nevada was quoted by The Las Vegas Review-Journal as saying the prosecutors’ removals had “been completely mishandled.”...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09attorneys.html?hp

[Hokie]

1. Impeach the bastard Gonzalez

This would send a message that you cannot overtly politicize the judicial process.

[Vidar]

9. Abolutely.

[youngdem]

12. On what charges?

His actions are unfortunately wholly legal per the Patriot Act renewal that contained the language allowing firings of US Attys.

He is a criminal for many reasons, but nothing I have seen in this matter is anything but typically unethical. Thank the Repuke majority and the compliant Dems who voted for the Patriot Act renewal. There are hundreds of little wonderful gifts sprinkled throughout that legislative atrocity.

[Javaman]

16. For being a partisan sycophant. ;) nt

[Tippy]

19. According to my Congressman Gonzales can't be Impeached

But he can be fired.....do you think if we appeal to Bush he might fire him? Far chance....

[Miss Chybil]

2. Sounds like Gonzales is getting a little too full of himself.

It's that old "pride goeth before the fall" thing. It will get you everytime.

[rodeodance]

22. he does not do anything without a nod from Cheney. This is all part of

his plan to take power for the Executive office!

[Tatiana]

3. Not good enough.

Gonzales should be out of a job. And the prosecutors who were removed should be rehired (if they want their jobs back).

[Judi Lynn]

6. Considering the way they were fired was clearly dishonest, they should be reinstated. n/t

[Missy Vixen]

4. He's scared

It's now become abundantly clear to Mr. Gonzales that his comments of yesterday, besides being ill-advised and extremely inappropriate, may now have gotten him in deep you-know-what with eight of the sharpest prosecutors in the United States.

I'm just sayin'.
Julie

[Contrite]

5. What's the big deal?

He was only stacking the courts.:shrug:

[Kahuna]

10. Yeah.. It's just so WRONG to politicize a politial battle..

:sarcasm:

[Judi Lynn]

7. Gonzales Yields On Hiring Interim U.S. Attorneys

Gonzales Yields On Hiring Interim U.S. Attorneys

By Paul Kane and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 9, 2007; Page A01

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales agreed yesterday to change the way U.S. attorneys can be replaced, a reversal in administration policy that came after he was browbeaten by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee still angry over the controversial firings of eight federal prosecutors.

Gonzales told Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and other senior members of the committee that the administration will no longer oppose legislation limiting the attorney general's power to appoint interim prosecutors. Gonzales also agreed to allow the committee to interview five top-level Justice Department officials as part of an ongoing Democratic-led probe into the firings, senators said after a tense, hour-long meeting in Leahy's office suite.

The concessions represent a turnaround by the White House and the Justice Department, which have argued for three months that Gonzales must have unfettered power to appoint interim federal prosecutors and have resisted disclosing details about the firings.

But the administration has been battered by mounting allegations that several of the fired prosecutors -- six of whom testified before Congress on Tuesday -- had been the subject of intimidation, including improper telephone calls from GOP lawmakers or their aides, and alleged threats of retaliation by Justice Department officials. One prosecutor told lawmakers this week that he felt "leaned on" by a senior Republican senator, and Senate Democrats have readied subpoenas for five key members of Gonzales' inner circle of advisers.
(snip/...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030801087.html?nav=rss_email/components

[Tatiana]

24. Good use of subpoena power.

Of course, who prosecutes the Attorney General of the United States, if he/she is guilty of wrongdoing?

Does the House need to submit articles of impeachment against Gonzales?

[truthisfreedom]

8. Heyyy... what's a little violation of separation of powers between

ex-friends, huh?

[xchrom]

11. is that so as to deflect what he has coming to him?

:eyes:

[UpInArms]

13. how quaint!

The Roots of Torture

May 24 - It's not easy to get a member of Congress to stop talking. Much less a room full of them. But as a small group of legislators watched the images flash by in a small, darkened hearing room in the Rayburn Building last week, a sickened silence descended. There were 1,800 slides and several videos, and the show went on for three hours. The nightmarish images showed American soldiers at Abu Ghraib Prison forcing Iraqis to masturbate. American soldiers sexually assaulting Iraqis with chemical light sticks. American soldiers laughing over dead Iraqis whose bodies had been abused and mutilated. There was simply nothing to say. "It was a very subdued walk back to the House floor," said Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "People were ashen."

<snip>

The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war—designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals—evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war. Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break prisoners' resistance to interrogation.

<snip>

The story begins in the months after September 11, when a small band of conservative lawyers within the Bush administration staked out a forward-leaning legal position. The attacks by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, these lawyers said, had plunged the country into a new kind of war. It was a conflict against a vast, outlaw, international enemy in which the rules of war, international treaties and even the Geneva Conventions did not apply. These positions were laid out in secret legal opinions drafted by lawyers from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and then endorsed by the Department of Defense and ultimately by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, according to copies of the opinions and other internal legal memos obtained by NEWSWEEK.

<snip>

The White House was undeterred. By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by NEWSWEEK, it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. In the memo, which was written to Bush by Gonzales, the White House legal counsel told the president that Powell had "requested that you reconsider that decision." Gonzales then laid out startlingly broad arguments that anticipated any objections to the conduct of U.S. soldiers or CIA interrogators in the future. "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a —high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

Gonzales also argued that dropping Geneva would allow the president to "preserve his flexibility" in the war on terror. His reasoning? That U.S. officials might otherwise be subject to war-crimes prosecutions under the Geneva Conventions. Gonzales said he feared "prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges" based on a 1996 U.S. law that bars "war crimes," which were defined to include "any grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. As to arguments that U.S. soldiers might suffer abuses themselves if Washington did not observe the conventions, Gonzales argued wishfully to Bush that "your policy of providing humane treatment to enemy detainees gives us the credibility to insist on like treatment for our soldiers."

...more...

[w4rma]

14. That's not a rule, its a law. It was snuck into the Patriot Act (which should be fully repealed).nt

[NashVegas]

15. I'm Guessing This Means No Subpoenas?

I hope I'm wrong.

[Beetwasher]

17. Who Wants To Make A Bet W/ Me That They WILL NEVER KEEP THEIR WORD ABOUT THIS DEAL???

I'm willing to bet that they will NOT allow the repeal of the Patriot Act provision about replacing prosecutors. They will not keep their word, they will find some way to scuttle or fight the repeal of the provision and they will also try to find some way to get around allowing officials involved to be questioned. I can practically guarantee they will not fully uphold their end of the deal.

Any takers?

[modrepub]

18. What's important

Keep in mind that all that's come out so far has been that at least one of the fired AQs may have been let go because they didn't pursue an investigation of a democratic candidate. If this is true of some of the other fired ASs then that tells me that there was pressure to start investigations to possibly influence the congressional elections. If this is true then what about the other AGs that followed orders and started investigations??? Didn't the feds start an investigation of NJ's democratic senatorial candidate right before November. (Notice how that dropped off the radar after the election?) Other AGs need to be subpoenaed. This stinks really bad in my opinion.

Does anyone else out there know of any other suspicious investigations before the elections that affected Dems??

[gratuitous]

20. Thanks again, Sen. Specter

Let's all remember whose staff inserted the "self-writing" legislation that allowed this to happen: Sen. Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania. Even Sen. Specter professed surprise that the AG could do as he pleased to pack the U.S. Attorney slots, and was even more surprised to find out he was the author of the legislation that enabled it. Didn't mean that it was immediately repealed by a voice vote or anything, but everyone expressed an appropriate level of surprise.

And if Gonzales is now taking the tack that "Hey, it's just an overblown personnel matter," then why doesn't he reinstate the fired U.S. Attorneys, and submit his candidates for their replacement and go through the proper channels of advice and consent from the Senate?

Judge them by their actions, not their words. Jesus had it exactly right with his parable of the vineyard owner and his two sons.

[rodeodance]

21. White House bows on attorney reforms (better headline)--and some

other du links on this issue.


???? what the heck is actually going on???????

Fri Mar-09-07 09:11 AM
Original message
White House bows on attorney reforms
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:
Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject White House bows on attorney reforms
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x375934#375934

LINK
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors

Slapped even by GOP allies, the Bush administration is beating an abrupt retreat on eight federal prosecutors it fired and then publicly pilloried.

Just hours after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dismissed the hubbub as an "overblown personnel matter," a Republican senator Thursday mused into a microphone that Gonzales might soon suffer the same fate as the canned U.S. attorneys. "One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later," Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said during a Judiciary Committee meeting.

A short time later, Gonzales and his security detail shuttled to the Capitol for a private meeting on Democratic turf, bearing two offerings: 1. President Bush would not stand in the way of a Democratic-sponsored bill that would cancel the attorney general's power to appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation. Gonzales' Justice Department had previously dismissed the legislation as unreasonable. 2. There would be no need for subpoenas to compel testimony by five of Gonzales' aides involved in the firings, as the Democrats had threatened. Cloistered in the stately hideaway of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt., the attorney general assured those present that he would permit the aides to tell their stories.

The Justice Department is shifting from offense to accommodation.

"In hindsight, we should have provided the U.S. attorneys with specific reasons that led to their dismissal that would have helped to avoid the rampant misinformation and wild speculation that currently exits," Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Friday. "We will continue to work with Congress to reach an accommodation on providing additional information."

It was a striking reversal for an administration noted for standing its ground even in the face of overwhelming opposition. Gone were the department's biting assertions that the prosecutors were a bunch of "disgruntled employees grandstanding before Congress." And the department no longer tried to shrug off the uproar as "an overblown personnel matter," as Gonzales had written in an opinion piece published Thursday in USA Today.

............
Forum Name General Discussion: Politics
Topic subject Senate Republicans Deliver Sharp Criticism of Gonzales
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3152849#3152849
3152849, Senate Republicans Deliver Sharp Criticism of Gonzales
Posted by alyce douglas on Fri Mar-09-07 09:39 AM

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030807S.shtml

and Specter gave this remark, maybe they are edging on something??


"One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later," Specter said at a committee hearing where a new round of subpoenas to the Justice Department was considered.

Forum Name Latest Breaking News
Topic subject AP: White House bows on attorney reforms
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2760894#2760894
2760894, AP: White House bows on attorney reforms
Posted by rodeodance on Fri Mar-09-07 09:43 AM


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors

White House bows on attorney reforms

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 52 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Slapped even by GOP allies, the Bush administration is beating an abrupt retreat on eight federal prosecutors it fired and then publicly pilloried.

Just hours after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dismissed the hubbub as an "overblown personnel matter," a Republican senator Thursday mused into a microphone that Gonzales might soon suffer the same fate as the canned U.S. attorneys.

"One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later," Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said during a Judiciary Committee meeting.

A short time later, Gonzales and his security detail shuttled to the Capitol for a private meeting on Democratic turf, bearing two offerings:

_President Bush would not stand in the way of a Democratic-sponsored bill that would cancel the attorney general's power to appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation. Gonzales' Justice Department had previously dismissed the legislation as unreasonable.........

[rodeodance]

23. Is anyone working of WHO put the provision INTO the Patriot Act????

[rocktivity]

25. Promising not to do it again doesn't reinstate the lawyers, does it?

Let the hearings proceed!

:headbang:
rocknation