NYT Editorial: The Failed Attorney General

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/opinion/11sun1.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The Failed Attorney General


Published: March 11, 2007

During 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.

more...

[MasonJar]

1. WoW! The NYT does not mince any words in this editorial. It also

[seafan]

2. Finally, the harsh spotlight is on AG Gonzales.

More from the New York Times today, March 11, 2007:

.....

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.

So glad to see the attention focused on Gonzales at long last. He should be removed from power very quickly.


And according to John Dean from December 15, 2006,

....Lowering the aim of an impeachment effort to focus on those who have aided and abetted, or directly engaged in, the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, would have all the positives, and none of the negatives, of going after Bush and Cheney. It would not be an effort to overturn the 2004 election, but rather to rid the government of those who have participated, along with Bush and Cheney, in abuses and misuses of power; indeed, many among them have actually encouraged Bush and Cheney to undertake the offensive activities.

Many of these men (and a few women) are young enough that it is very likely that they will return to other posts in future Republican Administrations, and based on their experience in the Bush/Cheney Administration, they can be expected to make the offensive conduct of this presidency the baseline for the next president they serve. Impeachment, however, would prevent that from happening.

It will be recalled that Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." (Emphasis added.) After any civil officer has been impeached, under the rules of the Senate, it requires only a simple majority vote to add the disqualification from holding future office.

In addition, it is likely that the impeachment process of any official in a position below that of the president or vice president, would be treated the same as the impeachment of federal judges. The work is done in both the House and Senate by special subcommittees, so it does not consume the attention of the full bodies until the final votes.

[paranoid floyd]

5. Excellent Dean post

This is very important. Bush and Cheney are guilty to be sure. But even like a lot of Freepers say, they're not running for office again. They've done their damage and as much as it is painfully criminal, they can't do much more harm, or maybe even be touched. It's the younger, possibly more deadly strain of vermin that are waiting in the wings for their next chance. This is the filth that needs to be exterminated.

Remember, Rumsfeld and Cheney learned "on the job" and came back with a vengeance. Where did they learn their tricks? In this case, cutting off the already diseased head might not stop this. We have to go after the offspring of this monster. They're the ones to watch. They must be neutered now, before they come back with their vengeance.


Sorry if this is a little dramatic, but these are dark times.

[Leo 9]

10. Agreed! We don't need these criminals rising from the dead ...

...to serve in any other administrations.

[marmar]

3. I hope the Dems really go after Gonzo....

He's been flying under the radar and he's the enabler. And like the rest of them, he has no regard for the Constitution. K&R.

[Loge23]

4. If it quacks like a duck...

Isn't it high time for Americans to recognize who the real enemy is to "the American way of life"?
Who is really destroying our freedom and liberties?
Who has no regard for the Constitution?
Who has no regard for the rule of law?

Is it a band of foreign terrorists or is it within our own country?

[Canuckistanian]

6. J. Edgar Hoover would be envious

Today's FBI has VASTLY more power to WHATEVER they want in order to pursue a government investigation.

And when you have government that is corrupt, with no safeguards in place, then no one is safe.

[The Wizard]

7. Contrary to the Administration's propaganda,

mendacity, compromised ethics, and prevarication are not qualifications to be Attorney General. On top of that is the fact that Gonzo is a crappy lawyer. He nothing more than John Mitchell with a nice tan and more hair. He needs to confined with the Toss Salad Man and held without charges. Habeas Corpus anyone.

[whistle]

8. Not so much failed as corrupt and evil, I think the term fascist fits

[minnesota_liberal]

9. Not just Failed but Criminal

Just like Dubyah, Gonzo has acted as though he's above the law. I hope someday he's convicted of violating it.

[SusanaMontana41]

11. Bingo!

n/t