I've been trying to get a handle around this issue of the firing of 8 federal prosecutors, and I think I've finally read enough to start having opinions about it. There's an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal comparing the time when Clinton fired all 93 federal prosecutors in 1993, including one that was about to file charges against the Clintons.
The difference is quite substantial, although somewhat buried. In 2006, an amendment was passed to the renewal of the PATRIOT Act that allowed the Attorney General to indefinitely appoint "interim" prosecutors to vacant positions, thus bypassing the mandatory Senate confirmation that normally happens. So when Gonzales, under direction from the White House, fired these 8 federal prosecutors, their positions were filled by prosecutors who don't have to be approved by the Senate.
The argument made by President Bush was that this law is required so that we can prosecute the war on terror, and a vacancy in a federal prosecutor position (delayed by a confirmation hearing) could hinder our ability to prosecute the war on terror. What happened was far from this, but rather what seems to be a political sacking of prosecutors, and the appointing of favorable prosecutors without any oversight. This is the exact reason why the Senate confirmation is required in the first place.
While I understand that parts of our government must shift and change to meet the rising challenges of the War on Terror, I refuse to allow that fact to be used as a blanket to cover politically charged manouvering. I think Attorney General Gonzales should resign, and this ammendment in the PATRIOT Act should be appealed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I understand your thought process, but I'm going to disagree with the idea that Gonzalez needs to resign. The prosecutor is a political appointee, who serves at the pleasure of the president (as does Gonzales). You really can't politicize the office, or the process. The president, through the attorney general, has every right, for whatever reason, to sack a prosecutor. It is entirely within his job description. Congress has no business whining and pouting about "politicizing" the prosecutor's office.
Now, the Patriot Act provision is an entirely separate issue, from my perspective. You are right, there should be oversight to the appointees. This part of the law may have to be changed, if it is, in fact, unconstitutional. Since they are interim appointments, there is eventually a vehicle for oversight. How long can they serve? I see this as a valuable provision, especially when there is such a lack of cooperation between powers. With Congress huffing and puffing, do you think any appointees would get a fair, quick hearing, or even a hearing at all, right now? A la Bolton and the UN. But that is really beside the point.
The point is, the two incidents are separate. And, perfectly legal and legitimate until laws are challenged or changed. How can you demand a resignation from someone who has simply acted within the authority given him by the president, the congress, and the constitution? I think you are stepping across that fine line that separates the powers; in this case taking the power away from the executive (by insisting that Gonzales resign, you are punishing the President for using his legitimate power) and giving it to the congress (by disallowing an interim appointee, the congress can hold too much power over the office).
I understand with that distinction, but my call for Gonzales to resign comes from the fact that he should have stood up more against the executive branch against what can be viewed as sidestepping Senate oversight. Yes, they serve at the pleasure of the president, and he has every right to fire anyone that he wants. But the Judicial Branch needs to defend its autonomy, and he should have been more concerned than he appeared to be about how this was an abuse of the law and not benificial to this country in the long run.
Unless it wasn't an abuse of the law. You make some key assumptions that I don't think we know yet. I prefer to take the explanation given at face value until I learn otherwise.
I still don't understand how, in your opinion, congress has lost oversight. The appointments are interim.
I'm going to jump in but I think a huge componant of this argument is that the P.A. provision is there for use in situations of national security relating to terrorism, and it is hard to argue that these prosecutors were put in under that section for that reason.
To answer your question dad-- "Because of the changes in PL 109-177, the March 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot Act, they are appointed until the end of the President's term, instead of for only 120 days."
That's two years, in this case...which is an awfully long time to go without some Congressional oversight.
also--matt--I forgot to tell you that Iglesia was also Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men--he was the gitmo guy! crazy.
yeah...what she said.
:-P
Post a Comment