Gonzales justified in firings, Bush says
President upset by how they were done

NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE and ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON – President Bush said yesterday that he had confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, but that he was “frankly not happy about” the way Gonzales had handled the dismissal of federal prosecutors, a move that has spawned a congressional investigation into whether the White House allowed politics to interfere with law enforcement.

As Gonzales defended himself in a round of television interviews, Bush, speaking to reporters in Mexico on the last day of his trip to Latin America, offered his first explanation of his own role, saying that although he had relayed complaints to Gonzales about federal prosecutors, “I never brought up a specific case nor gave him specific instructions.”

But the president's statement did little to tamp down speculation that Gonzales would be forced to resign. Nor did it settle the growing furor on Capitol Hill, where a Republican senator became the first in his party to call for Gonzales to step down, and the new White House counsel, Fred Fielding, met with lawmakers to negotiate the possible testimony of top administration officials including Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser.

Bush defended the removals as “customary practice” and said they were appropriate, adding: “I've heard those allegations about political decision making. It's just not true.”

But the president said he was troubled by the lack of “straightforward communication” to Congress about the dismissals, and said he expressed his dissatisfaction to Gonzales in a telephone call yesterday morning. “What was mishandled was the explanation of the cases to Congress,” he said.

Bush's critique, at a morning news conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, underscored the tenuous nature of Gonzales' hold on his job. A Republican close to the White House said Fielding had been given the task of determining whether Gonzales could remain.

In the afternoon, Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., who tangled with Gonzales over the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act last year, became the first lawmaker of his party to call for the attorney general to step down.

“The president needs a strong, reliable, assertive attorney general who will be effective in dealing with Congress on domestic security, immigration issues and the war on terrorism,” Sununu said in a telephone interview.

“Unfortunately, Alberto Gonzales over the last 18 months has lost the confidence of the Congress and the American people, and he's not in a position to serve the president effectively,” he said.

Other Republicans, though not quite as pointedly, also expressed severe doubts about Gonzales, particularly in light of the attorney general's news conference the day before, where he apologized by saying “mistakes were made.” At a private meeting of Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, no one spoke up in support of Gonzales, according to a person who was there.


Advertisement
“The U.S. attorney general is probably facing the deepest crisis of his particular tenure,” Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who has been critical of the dismissal of a prosecutor in his state, said in an interview. “We will find out how he handles this over the next few weeks, whether he is the kind of leader that deserves to stay in office.”

Questions about the dismissals have been swirling around the administration since January, but reached a fever pitch this week when the White House, trying to get out in front of the Democrats' investigations, acknowledged that Bush had relayed complaints to Gonzales and released e-mail messages showing correspondence between White House officials and the Justice Department over a list of which prosecutors would lose their jobs.

Democrats are now demanding additional documents, as well as testimony under oath from three top current and former White House officials: Rove; Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel; and William Kelley, the deputy counsel. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he would subpoena them if they refused to appear.

U.S. attorneys are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president – a point Bush took pains to note at his news conference yesterday, when he said, “Past administrations have removed U.S. attorneys; they're right to do so.”

But the recent dismissals involving eight prosecutors, including Carol Lam of San Diego, is unusual. In the past, incoming administrations have sought to replace U.S. attorneys after taking over from the other party, as President Clinton did when he won the White House after 12 years of Republican control. But neither the Clinton nor the Reagan administrations sought the removal of U.S. attorneys in their second terms.

Democrats, as well as some Republicans, including Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, say they want to know whether the dismissals were motivated by a desire to squelch corruption investigations involving Republicans.

Specter has expressed particular concern about the dismissal of Lam, who prosecuted Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Rancho Santa Fe, the former congressman now serving an eight-year, four-month sentence in a corruption case.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said yesterday that she believes Lam's ouster was connected to the Cunningham prosecution.

“In my heart of hearts, I do, no matter what they say,” said Feinstein, D-Calif., a member of the Judiciary Committee.

“The fact is there are additional investigations that have come from that. The fact is that the day before she left office she filed two additional indictments,” Feinstein said, referring to charges Lam filed last month against ex-CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and Brent Wilkes, a Poway defense contractor tied to Cunningham.

“Now they weren't members of Congress,” Feinstein added. “But whether this has had a chilling effect over that investigation, I don't know. But I'm concerned about it.”

---

me@rescam.org

ID card on ice after critical report

By Cath Hart

March 16, 2007
Article from: The Australian

* Introduction of Access Card legislation delayed
* Senate fears card could be "de facto national ID"
* Government plans to pass card laws this year

THE Howard Government has been forced to delay the introduction of laws for its new Access Card after caving in to the demands of an all-party Senate committee.

Human Services Minister Chris Ellison, who planned to introduce legislation for the card to the Senate next Thursday, agreed last night to put the plan on hold.

The decision followed the release of a report by the Senate's finance and public administration committee in which Government senators joined the Opposition to call for a delay and reconsideration of the proposals.

They were particularly worried about a proposal that the card include a biometric photograph, warning it would increase the likelihood of it becoming a "de facto national ID card".

Although the move heads off a split within Coalition ranks, it is likely to derail the swift implementation of the card, which was designed to provide access to government services.

Senator Ellison said the Government still hoped to pass the legislation this year, although it was unclear what impact the delay would have on the rollout of the Access Card, which was slated to come into operation in April next year.

The Government had hoped that the card, which includes a microchip with detailed personal information, would be issued to more than 16.7 million people by 2010 as part of a move to simplify service delivery while cracking down on identity fraud.

The recommendations of the bipartisan committee come after three Coalition MPs panned the card. They included Bronwyn Bishop, who raised the spectre of Nazism to say it could be used to identify certain groups.

Labor and community groups last night seized on the report, saying it reflected flaws in the plan and disunity in the Government.

Adopting the committee's main recommendation will mean the Government combines the first tranche of legislation – which was to be introduced to the Senate next week – to establish the framework for the Access Card, with the second tranche, which covers privacy and security safeguards.

"Important measures that need to be taken into account including protections, appeals and review mechanisms are to be considered in a second tranche of legislation," the report said.

"The committee has concluded that it is not possible to assess the proposed Access Card system in the absence of these safeguards and other measures."

The committee, which is chaired by Liberal senator Brett Mason, criticised haste in the preparation of the bill and said it had led to irregular and inappropriate actions, including the public release of government information without authorisation from the committee.

The committee announced on February 8 that it would investigate the scope and purpose of the card, the information to be contained on the card's chip and offences prohibiting people from requiring an Access Card for identification in its inquiry.

A discussion paper on the registration process prepared by Allan Fels's Consumer and Privacy Taskforce, which was due for release in late January, has been delayed and is now likely to be released in coming weeks.

Despite uncertainty about the new timeline, Senator Ellison said the Government remained "committed to having the legislation passed this year".

The scheme has been criticised previously for potentially leading to privacy breaches or identity fraud.

Labor, which has vowed to scrap the current version of the Access Card scheme, said yesterday that the report was a further embarrassment to the Government.

"Seldom do Coalition senators make recommendations that are critical of a Government program, let alone multiple critical recommendations... but the Access Card is so bad they have swallowed their fears and spoken out," Opposition human services spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek said.

---

Join Calm Chaos

The purse isn't Congress' only weapon

By Walter Dellinger and Christopher Schroeder

March 15, 2007

The debate that Congress needs to have about the Iraq war is being hijacked by sound-bite arguments. Defenders of President Bush concede that Congress has “the power of the purse” and insist it could use it to completely “cut off the funds to the troops.” But that, most of them say, is the only power Congress has to change the course of the war. They then insinuate that exercising this power would be an unspeakable act of disloyalty to our soldiers, leaving them without supplies, ammunition or pay. Congress is thus placed in a box: It has a single awesome power that it would never employ.

There are at least three errors in this line of argument. First, Congress is hardly limited to this seemingly magical power of the purse. It has several sources of constitutional authority over the use of military force, including the express right “to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.”

When Congress decides, for example, to limit warrantless surveillance of telecommunications, it does not need to say: “No funds appropriated under this act may be used for a search unless a warrant has been obtained.” It may instead simply require the executive branch to obtain a warrant.

True, restrictions on spending are often attractive to Congress, because they can be attached to essential spending bills that a president may not be willing to veto. But when the debate gets turned to the spending power, it has been soured by the second false claim: that using the power of the purse would somehow leave the troops high and dry in Iraq.

Suppose Congress did decide that military forces financed by future defense appropriations acts would, after a certain date, have to be deployed elsewhere than Iraq. Such a requirement would not cut a single penny of support for the troops in Iraq before the redeployment date, or for those same troops redeployed outside Iraq after that date.

How could that possibly be seen as “cutting off” support for our fighting men and women? Only if a president chose to violate both the congressional provision that the troops were to be redeployed and the laws providing for the pay, benefits and support of those in the military. Why would a president do something so perverse? George W. Bush wouldn't. Thus this claim – that he would be forced to defy the law by sending “unfunded” troops into combat – is simply a false threat intended to curtail meaningful debate.

The third incorrect precept in the Iraq debate is the notion that while Congress could bring our troops home via its spending power, it lacks the ability to limit the size of the deployment: It is all or nothing.

Proponents of this argument ignore long-standing executive branch legal opinions as well as Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress' authority to set limits on the president's military power, as in 1799 when it accepted Congress' power to authorize the seizure of ships going to, but not coming from, French ports.

More important, the legal advisers of presidents have themselves repeatedly recognized this congressional power. When former Chief Justice William Rehnquist was President Richard Nixon's chief legal adviser in 1970, he flatly rejected the all-or-nothing claim. It is “both utterly illogical and unsupported by precedent,” he wrote, to think that Congress “may not delegate a lesser amount of authority to conduct military operations.”

Rehnquist cited numerous historical examples including a 1940 law prohibiting the deployment of drafted soldiers outside the Western Hemisphere. More recently, under President Clinton, we in the Office of Legal Counsel repeatedly recognized the authority of Congress to limit the scope, nature and duration of military engagements.

The all-or-nothing argument defies not only precedent but common sense. Consider this scenario: Congress authorizes the president to send 20,000 American troops to a strife-torn country as part of a coalition to defend refugee camps from ethnic cleansing; however, once our forces are engaged, the president unilaterally decides to vastly increase our involvement by sending 350,000 combat troops to fight for one side in a religious civil war in that country, leaving the refugees undefended.

Surely no one really thinks that in such a situation Congress would be faced with this stark choice: Withdraw entirely from a country, or do nothing about the unlimited expansion by presidential fiat. Whatever limits there are on congressional power to determine particular tactical questions, decisions about the scope and goals of military action are easily within its authority.

One final debate-stifling claim deserves mention: the argument that even to debate our troops' mission in Iraq somehow undercuts and endangers them. Surely this has it backward. Four years have passed since the Iraq war resolution was passed, in very different circumstances for purposes no longer relevant. We certainly owe those who put their lives on the line every day a renewed determination of whether their continued sacrifice is necessary for the national interest.

Dellinger is a lawyer. Schroeder is a professor at Duke University Law School. Each served as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the Clinton administration.

---

me@rescam.org

Memo to Gonzales

By Eugene Robinson
Washington Post, Friday, March 16, 2007; Page A21

Was it arrogance or ignorance that led the Bush administration to think it could pull off what looks, walks and quacks like a transparently political decision to fire those eight U.S. attorneys? A good deal of both, I'm guessing.

Actually, I take that back. No guesswork is needed.

Arrogance has been the most consistent hallmark of George W. Bush's presidency. His administration's simple philosophy of government has been consistent: We can do any damn thing we want.

We can invade Iraq. We can blow off the Geneva Conventions. We can listen to your private phone calls, Mr. and Ms. America, and we can read your private e-mails, too. We can arrest anybody we want and hold them as long as we want, and we don't even have to tell them why, much less file formal charges or hold a trial. We can even defy the laws of science -- or at least ignore the ones that annoy us, such as that whole "greenhouse effect" thing. We can use the troops for photo ops when they come back from war grievously wounded and then basically forget about them.

And we don't have to explain ourselves, either. The nerve of anyone to even ask us. Don't you people understand that asking impertinent questions of the White House is exactly what Osama bin Laden wants you to do?

Okay, but even given this kind of world-class arrogance, it's still pretty amazing that barely a month after the nation took a two-by-four to the administration's head in November's midterm election -- delivering a not-so-gentle reminder that the president works for us, not vice versa -- the White House still plowed ahead with a long-brewing plot to fire a few designated federal prosecutors who couldn't seem to get with the "any damn thing we want" program.

Just to be clear, this kind of selective dismissal of a group of U.S. attorneys is highly unusual. It's bad enough that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales misled Congress about the firings; the specific truths his falsehoods obscured -- that the White House was involved in the firings and that partisan political motivations may have been involved -- are much worse.

We know from e-mail messages -- why do people put this stuff in e-mail, which has the half-life of nuclear waste? -- that political "loyalty" to the White House was a factor in deciding which prosecutors to fire. We also know that the White House passed along to the Justice Department the complaints of Republicans in Congress and other party pooh-bahs that allegations of voter fraud against Democrats were not being pursued aggressively enough.

All that adds up to arrogance. Here's where the ignorance comes in: Gonzales accepts "responsibility" without accepting the blame that comes with it, since he could hardly be expected to know what was going on in the whole vast Justice Department.

I've got to admit, I felt a twinge of sympathy for Gonzales when, bravely and cluelessly, he faced the television cameras Tuesday and vowed to find out why he had given Congress categorical assurances that were not remotely true. He bears the burden of being the first Latino attorney general -- the first member of the nation's largest minority to hold such a senior position in the U.S. government. I have a sense of what that must mean to him, a sense of why he is so determined not to resign, why he made a point of declaring that he didn't get where he is by giving up.

But it was just a twinge. Then I remembered that Gonzales was the author of the notorious "torture memo" that greenlighted interrogation techniques for war-on-terrorism detainees that are designed to induce excruciating physical and psychological pain. Gonzales wrote of a "new paradigm" in which there is no conflict between American values and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners.

Determined to keep his job, Gonzales said he will leave no stone unturned in discovering why he said what he said to Congress about the U.S. attorney firings. I've got an idea: He can order the FBI to issue a " national security letter" and then rummage through his private communications on an unlawful fishing expedition, as has apparently happened to many thousands of Americans -- on Gonzales's watch.

If that fails, Gonzales can declare himself an enemy combatant, have himself whisked away in the dead of night to some secret prison and allow himself to be "waterboarded" until he finally sputters out the truth.

If the man is willing to practice what he preaches, he can stay. Otherwise, he's got to go.

Mr. Robinson seems to have lost control of his senses...

Arrogance has been the most consistent hallmark of George W. Bush's presidency.

That's one way of looking at it. More properly, the most consistent hallmark of Dubya's presidency is that he doesn't focus-group everything. He does what he thinks is best, and couldn't care less what his detractors think.

Which, of course, is exactly what his detractors do. They want what they think is best, and they don't care what Dubya thinks. Seems they're both on the same sheet of paper there.

His administration's simple philosophy of government has been consistent: We can do any damn thing we want.

We can invade Iraq. We can blow off the Geneva Conventions. We can listen to your private phone calls, Mr. and Ms. America, and we can read your private e-mails, too. We can arrest anybody we want and hold them as long as we want, and we don't even have to tell them why, much less file formal charges or hold a trial. We can even defy the laws of science -- or at least ignore the ones that annoy us, such as that whole "greenhouse effect" thing. We can use the troops for photo ops when they come back from war grievously wounded and then basically forget about them.

Yeah. Duh. Mr. Robinson, this is the very nature of gov't. It does whatever the hell it wants. All of the stuff above is what Clinton did, and what Bush41 did, and what Reagan did, and on and on and on. You see, gov't doesn't change much based on the ideology of the figurehead that sits in the White House. They all do it.

And they do it because people like you BEGGED them to.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

State pushes up presidential primary

By James P. Sweeney
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

March 16, 2007

SACRAMENTO – California has moved its presidential primary from June to Feb. 5, but whether the state gains the national clout it seeks is anything but certain.

“We may end up having an enormous impact on who the next president is going to be. Or, like in the past, it could be just one big dud,” said Allan Hoffenblum, publisher of the California Target Book, which analyzes state political campaigns.

As anticipated for months, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation yesterday that positions California as perhaps the biggest prize in what is shaping up as a mega-primary day that could determine the 2008 presidential nominations.

California has joined several states that have moved their nominating contests to Feb. 5. More than a dozen other states may follow suit, including Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Texas.

Only Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina will hold earlier contests.

“Moving our presidential primary . . . means that California will have the influence it deserves when it comes to choosing America's next presidential candidates,” Schwarzenegger said as he signed the measure.

California's political leaders have complained for years that the state and its 16 million voters – roughly 10 percent of the national electorate – have been taken for granted and relegated to a supporting role in the nominating process. For too long, they say, candidates have dropped in briefly to raise millions of dollars that they then spend on smaller, less diverse states.

No one can be sure how California's move may play on a national stage, especially a crowded one. But there's plenty of speculation.

Many political insiders think a de facto national primary Feb. 5 will benefit the biggest names with the most money, those who have the resources to campaign in person or with paid TV advertising in the most states.

“This is a big bunch of delegates. It's going to be hard to ignore by any serious candidate,” said Gary Jacobson, a political science professor at the University of California San Diego. “But they're going to be spread pretty thin.”

Others say Big Tuesday may merely affirm front-runners who emerge from the early contests. This theory holds that because people voting Feb. 5 will have little time to assess the candidates, the early momentum will be more important than ever.

“We're really in uncharted territory,” Hoffenblum said.

The push to move up the presidential primary was conceived as part of a larger political play that includes separate bids to change legislative term limits and overhaul the way political districts are drawn every decade to reflect population shifts.

Schwarzenegger wants new lines drawn by an independent commission rather than self-interested legislators.

The governor also recently added campaign finance reform to the mix. Yesterday, he proposed a ban on fundraising at times when special interests are seeking the most influence: during the last few weeks of the legislative session when the fate of hundreds of bills is determined, in the post-session period when governors sign and veto bills and in the final stages of budget negotiations.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, has led the drive to loosen term limits that now restrict legislators to 14 years – six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate. Núñez proposes limiting lawmakers to 12 years, all of which could be served in either house.

A pending initiative that reflects Núñez's plan is targeted for the Feb. 5 ballot. If it passes, the measure would allow Núñez and Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata, D-Oakland, to remain in their leadership positions beyond next year, when both would be termed out.

“The prime motivation . . . was to come up with a special election so they could put term limits before voters,” Hoffenblum said. “That was the whole reason for February.”

Schwarzenegger and Núñez disagree, saying the state has much to gain by demanding a more prominent role in the presidential election.

“It gives issues like climate change and health care, coastal protection and immigration, these issues that disproportionately impact California, much more prominence with the contenders on the national political scale,” Núñez said.

California has moved up its primary three times before, to different dates in March 1996, 2000 and 2004, only to have other states move to even earlier elections. Each time, California moved the combined primary including races for legislative and congressional districts.

Next year, for the first time since 1940, the presidential primary will be held separately, with legislative and congressional primaries to follow in June.

With the November general election, California will hold three statewide elections in a single year, something it has done only six times in its history, according to a spokeswoman for Secretary of State's Office.

The extra election will cost up to $90 million, according to some estimates. Schwarzenegger said the state will cover the counties' costs of holding the election.

Until this year, California had at least one statewide election every year since 2002. The state was already dealing with voter fatigue that has depressed turnout, some elections officials believe. While voters get a respite this year, they will face three statewide elections in 2008.

“It's great to have the state have an early voice,” said Secretary of State Debra Bowen, the state's chief elections officer. “I'm very concerned about what our turnout is going to look like in June. I'm not just concerned, I'm extraordinarily concerned.”

Bowen said big counties, like Los Angeles and San Diego, receive tens of thousands of new voter registrations a day as they approach the close of registration for presidential elections. Many states don't receive that many new registrations in a month, she said.

With a Feb. 5 election, there also may be some overlapping deadlines. State and local election workers may still be counting and certifying February results when they have to start setting up for June, Bowen said.

“I think we will be like many county elections offices; we'll be trying to survive,” she predicted.

Walter Ekard, San Diego County's chief administrative officer, sounded a similar warning in a letter to Sen. Ron Calderon, a Montebello Democrat who carried the early primary bill. Ekard urged the state not to separate the presidential primary from those for legislative and congressional seats.

With new voting systems, more sophisticated security systems and the constant challenge of recruiting poll workers, “conducting elections has become an increasingly complex undertaking,” Ekard said.

“Conducting three major elections in the space of nine months will increase the risk that unforeseen problems will occur,” he warned.

But Schwarzenegger and Calderon said an energized presidential primary in February should produce a turnout bounce that carries through the rest of the year.

“We're going to have an unprecedented amount of voter registration activity, of . . . get-out-the-vote activity, with these candidates when they come to California,” Calderon predicted.

Promoting government transparency

By Terry Francke

March 16, 2007

Sunshine Week is the new annual celebration of an insight only gradually recognized but now pretty universally acknowledged: For a self-governing people, transparent government is every bit as vital as freedom of speech and press.

Examples of the transparency principle applied to U.S. domestic politics for the last third of a century or so are the campaign contribution and lobbyist disclosure laws such as California's Political Reform Act. But transparency, now enshrined in the California Constitution as a fundamental civic right to open government, has also become crucial to fulfillment of the First Amendment itself.

A tyranny can and does govern by fear, warning its subjects: Do as we say, or we will take your livelihood, your property, your freedom or even your life. But a democracy governs by the consent of those governed. It can and does rely on coercive laws – tax laws, criminal laws, health, safety, land use and business regulations of all kinds – but only if it can persuade its citizens that those laws are necessary.

Persuasion is thus key. A democracy can persuade its people's consent with the truth – simply pointing to the indisputable facts and the need for action (or inaction) they imply. Or it can persuade the people to consent with something less than the truth – half-truths and distorted, manipulated facts, or downright lies.

But dishonest persuasion counts on one further safeguard to cover its tracks: secrecy. Winston Churchill said, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” As a corollary, governmental lies – whether necessary to national defense or merely convenient to a political agenda or career – can be guarded only by denying access to the facts, and not just with a “no comment” but with laws barring access to the government's own records.

Speech and press are “free” only to the extent they are free to be informed as well as to communicate. For the first half of our Constitution's history, the First Amendment was in place but simply ignored. The notion of real liberty to speak and report was not a legally enforceable right until the courts began overruling censorship in the 1920s. Since then pre-emptive government gags have all but disappeared, especially in the realm of politics and public affairs.

To get the equivalent of censorship in that realm, the government cannot step between a speaker, publisher or broadcaster and the public at large. Instead, it must cut off these forces of comment and reporting from the information it controls. Modern censorship works not by way of the gag but by way of secrecy.

Most secrecy laws have plausible rationales; for example, protecting the privacy of sensitive disclosures people have made to the government, or of facts about them dredged up in the course of investigating someone else. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have led to other concerns for national and homeland security, prompting further secrecy. The California Public Records Act has a long list of specific exceptions to the general rule that government documents should normally be open to public exception.

But because secretive government can not only protect legitimate public and private interests but also provide cover for political deception and manipulation, secrecy laws and policies need to be controlled by certain principles. A secrecy law should be well defined as to the types of information it does and does not cover.

Its justification should be clearly spelled out in the legislative process, with readily understandable examples of what harms it is intended to avoid, and why other protections or measures are insufficient to the task. The law should cover no more information nor keep it secret for any longer a duration than necessary, and should allow for periodic sunsets or systematic reviews to determine if that point has passed with respect to particular information.

Perhaps above all, any secrecy that is simply left up to the discretion of a particular officer or agency should not be permitted to extend beyond the incumbency of that official or beyond a relatively brief span of years, whichever comes sooner. A withholding of governmental information that need not be defended may not always be a cover for lies and unaccountable abuse, but if they exist, unregulated secrecy may be all that is needed for their success.

Finally, let's acknowledge for Sunshine Week that governmental transparency not only supports effective speech and press but also, as a companion value to personal privacy, provides one touchstone of our wider liberties. As one of CalAware's attitude buttons says, “Want to be free again? Know more about the Powers That Be than they know about you.”

Francke is general counsel for Californians Aware.

---

me@rescam.org

More investigating, less legislating

DAVID S. BRODER
THE WASHINGTON POST

March 18, 2007

Ten weeks into the new Congress, it is clear that revelation, not legislation, is going to be its real product.

While President Bush threatens to use his veto pen to stop some bills and Senate Republicans block other measures from even reaching his desk, no force in Washington can halt the Democrats' investigative juggernaut from uncovering the secrets inside this administration.

The Justice Department, the Department of Veterans Affairs and parts of the Pentagon already have undergone investigations by House and Senate committees. Similar excursions are almost certainly in store for the Labor Department, the Health and Human Services Department and the Department of Homeland Security – indeed, any part of the federal establishment that affects people's lives and touches on vital interests.

And in every case, inquiring minds will look for links to the White House and its burgeoning bureaucracy of young Republican activists, some of whom have ridden herd on the agencies and departments with breathtaking arrogance.

The previously anonymous aides in the White House counsel's office and the political affairs section headed by Karl Rove, whose names appear in the e-mails that led to the now-controversial U.S. attorneys' firings, are hardly the only self-important White House employees to order Cabinet officers around.

For the first six years of the Bush administration, these aides were allowed free rein to carry out whatever policy or political assignment they wished – or supposed that the president wanted done. A Congress under firm Republican control was somnolent when it came to oversight of the executive branch. No Republican committee chairman wanted to turn over rocks in a Republican administration.

You have to feel a twinge of sympathy now for the Bush appointees who suddenly find unsympathetic Democratic chairmen such as Henry Waxman, John Conyers, Patrick Leahy and Carl Levin investigating their cases. Even if those appointees are scrupulously careful about their actions now, who knows what subpoenas for the memos and e-mails in their files will reveal about the past?

They will pay the price for the temporary breakdown in the system of checks and balances that occurred between 2001 and this year – when the Republican Congress forgot its responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable.

It was a fundamental dereliction of duty by Congress, and it probably did more to encourage bad decisions and harmful actions by executive branch political appointees than the much-touted lobbying influence. In reality, many Republican members of Congress did not mind what was happening because they were able to get favors done in that permissive climate. Now, the Democratic investigators will publicize instances of influence by members of Congress and the political fallout will not stop with New Mexico's Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson.

Democrats find it easier to investigate than to legislate. With their major initiatives, from a minimum wage boost to a shutdown of the Iraq war, stymied by Republican opposition, the Democrats are understandably making “accountability” their new goal – meaning more and more investigations.

Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer held a news conference to celebrate the fact that the House already had conducted more than 100 oversight hearings on executive agencies.

And, they promised, that was just the beginning. As Hoyer put it, “Today is a new day in Congress. The days of see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil are over. . . . The United States Congress will no longer be a potted plant or signer of blank checks.”

Fulfilling that promise, later in the week the House passed a series of bills that stripped away some of the secrecy from executive branch documents and decisions.

The most important measure strengthened the Freedom of Information Act, reasserting the principle that the public should have access to official documents, provided national security is protected. Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft, had issued a ruling that allowed agencies and departments to sequester information unless they were compelled to make it public – placing the burden on the inquirer, not the bureaucracy.

Other bills passed by the House last week expand access to papers in presidential libraries and provide additional protection for “whistle-blowers,” including government scientists and contractors who report improper activities.

The Democratic sponsors said this accountability offensive is exactly what people voted for last November, meeting what Waxman termed “the public's call for fundamental reform.”

Accountability is certainly important, but Democrats must know that people were really voting for action on Iraq, health care, immigration, energy and a few other problems. Investigations are useful, but only legislation on big issues changes lives.

---

me@rescam.org

Siding with the Second Amendment

GEORGE F. WILL
THE WASHINGTON POST

March 18, 2007

By striking down the District of Columbia's extraordinarily strict gun-control law, which essentially bans guns, a federal appeals court may have revived gun control as a political issue. It has been mostly dormant since autumn 2000, when Al Gore decided he was less interested in it than in carrying states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania: “Gore Tables Gun Issue As He Courts Midwest” (The New York Times, Sept. 20, 2000). The appeals court ruling appalls advocates of gun-control laws, and should alarm the Democratic Party.

The court ruled 2-1 that D.C.'s law, which allows only current and retired police officers to have handguns in their homes, violates the Constitution's Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

This ruling probably will be reviewed by the Supreme Court, which 68 years ago seemed to hold that the amendment's first 13 words circumscribe the force of the rest. That is, there is a constitutionally protected right to “keep and bear” guns only insofar as the keeping and bearing are pertinent to service in state-run militias.

In 2000, advocates of stringent gun control thought they had won their argument with historical evidence when an Emory University historian, Michael Bellesiles, published “Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.” This book, which was awarded the Bancroft Prize, the most coveted honor for American history scholarship, argued that when the Second Amendment was written, guns were not widely owned or reliable enough to be important. Therefore the amendment was written to protect only the rights of states, not of individuals.

Before long, however, other scholars argued that much of Bellesiles' “research” consisted of meretricious uses of, fabrication of, or disregard of, evidence, and the Bancroft Prize was rescinded. And in 1989, Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas Law School had written in a Yale Law Journal article, “The Embarrassing Second Amendment,” that the amendment's language, properly read, is an embarrassment to those who favor whittling away the amendment's protection of the individuals' right to own guns.

He noted that if James Madison, the foremost shaper of the Constitution, and his colleagues in the First Congress intended the Second Amendment to protect only the states' rights to maintain militias, the amendment could have simply said: “Congress shall have no power to prohibit state militias.” Or as Virginia's George Mason, who opposed ratification of the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said, “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”

When Madison and others fashioned the Bill of Rights, they did not merely constitutionalize – make fundamental – the right to bear arms. They made the Second Amendment second only to the First, which protects the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and worship. They did that because individual dignity and self-respect, which are essential to self-government, are related to a readiness for self-defense – the public's involvement in public safety. Indeed, 150 years ago this month, in the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney said one proof that blacks could not be citizens was the fact that the Founders did not envision them having the same rights that whites have, including the right to “keep and carry arms.”

Increasingly, however, some constitutional scholars and judicial rulings argue that several restraints the Bill of Rights puts on government can be disregarded if the worthiness – as academics or judges assess that – of government's purposes justifies ignoring those restraints. Erwin Chemerinsky, professor of law and political science at Duke University, argued in The Washington Post last week that even if the Second Amendment is correctly construed as creating an individual right to gun ownership, the D.C. law should still be constitutional because the city had a defensible intent (reducing violence) when it annihilated that right.

Sound familiar? Defenders of the McCain-Feingold law, which restricts the amount, timing and content of political campaign speech, say: Yes, yes, the First Amendment says there shall be “no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” But that proscription can be disregarded because the legislators' (professed) intent – to prevent the “appearance” of corruption and to elevate political discourse – is admirable.

If the Supreme Court reverses the appellate court's ruling and upholds the D.C. gun law, states and localities will be empowered to treat the Second Amendment as the D.C. law does – as a nullity. This will bring the gun-control issue – and millions of gun owners – back to a roiling boil. That is not in the interest of the Democratic Party, which is supported by most ardent supporters of gun control.

---

me@rescam.org

Council bans all public smoking
By Jim Dickins
Article from: The Sunday Telegraph

* First smoke-free municipality in Australia
* Beaches, parks, playgrounds, public events included
* Residents asked to dob in illegal smokers

SYDNEY suburb Mosman is set to become the first officially smoke-free municipality in Australia - if not the world - after banning smoking in every council-controlled public space.

The blanket prohibition, passed unanimously by council last week, cements Mosman's reputation as Australia's most zealous anti-smoking neighbourhood, taking its war on cigarettes even further than advocated by the NSW Cancer Council.

Residents themselves will help enforce it, according to councillor Andrew Brown, who said Mosmanites had taken on a vigilante-style role in the campaign against nicotine.

"Members of the public will approach people who they see smoking on the beach or in parks and tell them it is not allowed and they risk a fine of $110," Mr Brown said.

As well as beaches, outdoor dining areas, children's playgrounds, public events, playing fields and the grounds of council-managed buildings - already covered by existing restrictions - smoking will now be banned from all parks, public squares, bus shelters and council car parks.

The only public outdoor place smokers may light up will be some footpaths and roads, but they must check they are more than 10m away from any council-managed building or children's playground.

The council only stopped short of a total ban in public due to the practical impossibility of installing enough signs, legally required in order to make smoking an offence.

Mosman caused a sensation three years ago when it became the first local government to ban smoking in outdoor dining areas, following a previous ban on beaches.

NSW Cancer Council tobacco control manager Wendy Oakes said there was mounting evidence such restrictions reduced actual smoking rates, as well as the dangers of passive smoking.

Mr Brown said smokers also left litter and the latest move took Mosman Council's battle with the butts as far as it was possible to go.

Mosman restaurant worker Christian McGrath, 23, said smokers in the area felt like second-class citizens. "Now, all of a sudden, they're making us out to be bad people," he said.

Mr McGrath said he was always careful to avoid smoking near others, especially children and pregnant women.

"I think if you're in an open space and you're not sitting next to someone and not breathing on them, you should be able to smoke," he said.

---

Join Calm Chaos

Pedophiles to wear monitors upon release
By Kevin Meade
Article from: The Australian

SEX offenders released into the community by courts despite attempts by the Queensland Government to keep them in jail will have to wear electronic monitoring devices.

Premier Peter Beattie said yesterday the Government would request that the devices - plastic bracelets to be worn on the wrist or ankle - be ordered as a condition for the release of all prisoners declared dangerous sex offenders.

The devices are already used in Victoria and Western Australia. Four years ago the Beattie Government introduced the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders Act) Act 2003, under which the Attorney-General can apply to have prisoners due for release jailed indefinitely.

"I don't think it's any secret that my Government has taken a very hard line in relation to dangerous sex offenders behind bars," Mr Beattie said.

"We've done that because we believe that many of the pedophiles are simply incurable."

---

Join Calm Chaos

Hicks lawyer may call PM as witness

By Nick Butterly, Max Blenkin and Steve Larkin

Article from: AAP

THE Australian lawyer for Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks says Prime Minister John Howard could be called as a witness in a Federal Court case against the Government.

The legal action, which is due to begin in May, argues that the Federal Government breached its duty of care to Hicks by not demanding the US Government release him from Guantanamo Bay as other countries had done with their citizens.

Hicks' lawyer, David McLeod, told the ABC that federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer could also be called to the witness box.

He said that most of the evidence for the case would be agreed to before the trial went ahead.

"If it can't be agreed, then there will be a request for certain witnesses and it may well include Mr Downer and Mr Ruddock and indeed Mr Howard as potential witnesses," Mr McLeod was reported as saying.

Mr McLeod hopes the date for the Federal Court hearing would be early enough to bring Hicks home before he faces a full trial before a US military commission in Guantanamo Bay.

If his case is successful, the Australian Government might be forced to take steps to seek Hicks' release back to Australia.

Meanwhile, Australian consular officials are investigating claims Hicks was unknowingly sedated with a mystery drug just before being told of formal charges against him by US soldiers.

Hicks' US military lawyer Major Michael Mori said the incident occurred last month on the day Hicks was to be told that a charge had been sworn against him of providing material support for terrorism.

That was the day after his legal team left following their latest visit to Guantanamo Bay.

Major Mori said a member of the US medical corps approached Hicks and said he had a new medicine for Hicks' stomach problem and that he should try it.

"David took it and it, then it started to, basically, start to sedate him. The next thing he knew he was being taken out of his cell and somebody was talking to him about charges," he said.

"He really couldn't comprehend what was going on. It lasted for almost 24 hours."

Major Mori could not understand why his client was sedated as he had been regarded as a compliant inmate.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said if Hicks was sedated, it was not necessarily a sinister move.

"I understand our consular officials had heard several days ago that this claim might be pursued and have been checking with American officials about it," he said to ABC radio today.

"But the idea that you immediately come to a conclusion this was some sinister effort is not necessarily a safe assumption to draw."

Hicks, a 31-year-old Muslim convert from Adelaide, was captured by the US in Afghanistan in December 2001 serving with Taliban forces. He has been held at the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Cuba since January 2002.

He is facing a hearing of a charge of providing material support for terrorism, to be held in Guantanamo Bay next Monday.

A Pentagon spokesman told the ABC Hicks' sedation claims were being investigated.

But the spokesman noted that a number of past allegations surrounding Hicks' treatment were "unsubstantiated".

Labor leader Kevin Rudd said the drugging claim was yet another reason why Hicks should be brought before court on Australian soil.

Mr Rudd said he was no defender of what Hicks is alleged to have done, but he was nevertheless an Australian citizen and deserved a free and open trial.

"When it comes to a US military commission, under no circumstances would any person before that commission receive what would be regarded as a fair trial," Mr Rudd said in Adelaide.

---

Join Calm Chaos

Rest assured, our system is working

JIM HOAGLAND
THE WASHINGTON POST

March 19, 2007

American justice is becoming an oxymoron to a substantial number of U.S. friends abroad. Few of them will delve deeply enough into Gonzalesgate or the perjury conviction of “Scooter” Libby or “renditions” by the CIA to see any silver linings in the leaden clouds now smothering the Bush administration.

Beneath the clouds of scandal, however, the U.S. legal system and its civil libertarians are alive, well, and functioning in a robust – at times even excessive – fashion. Think of it, as Alexis de Tocqueville did, as the healthy “clamor” that defines and preserves American democracy.

The outcry over Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' ham-handed sacking of eight U.S. attorneys last year provides the latest evidence that far-left or libertarian hyperbole about the rise of “fascism” in an American “police state” is wildly off the mark. So does the conviction by 11 standard-issue citizens of Libby, the most powerful staffer for the most powerful vice president in history. Some police state.

Fortunes and reputations are made in show business solely by ridiculing, denigrating and belittling President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their acolytes. Real dissent today consists of swimming against this tide of invective by defending Bush and Cheney – should they unexpectedly do something that merits defense, and assuming that they could adequately explain it to a disillusioned and skeptical American public.

The hapless Gonzales has a Himalayan-sized mountain to climb in hoping to convince Republican and Democratic senators that he did not deceive them as he forced open U.S. attorney posts to reward, above all, a protege of Karl Rove, the political mastermind whose involvement in policy matters has helped shred the reputations of Bush, Cheney and the administration at large. Rove seems not to be affected, since he never had much of a reputation to lose.

This political failure at the center of an overly centralized White House and Cabinet – did they miss W.B. Yeats' memo warning that things fall apart when the center does not hold? – distracts attention from the vigorous pushing back by American courts, civil liberties organizations and, yes, the media against unreasonable and at times illegal restrictions on personal liberties that the Bush White House has tried on in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, era.

Many of the measures the administration has put into place can be defended as needed and appropriate in fighting the nebulous war against terror networks and states committed to destroying America. But the administration's insistence that it must and will decide on those measures alone – without adequate consultation with Congress or consideration of international law – has lost hearts and minds of allies abroad.

The muscular, decisive approach may have served Rove's political aims in 2002 and 2004. But the loss in confidence abroad is so serious that a former KGB colonel who is systematically stamping out democratic institutions in Russia can lecture the United States for showing “greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law” – and be taken seriously by some West Europeans who heard Vladimir Putin say these words in Munich last month.

Putin protests too much, of course. Careful examination – admittedly an endangered species in this 24/7 electronic and Internet era – of the linings of these clouds suggests that Americans and most American officials remain committed to the rule of law. What Americans are missing is greater cooperation between, and clearer guidance from, the executive and legislative branches of government in reconciling civil liberties and counterterrorism needs.

Thus that job now falls to the judiciary. So I recently asked the best mind on the Supreme Court how civil liberties were doing in politically polarized (perpetually paranoid?) America.

Justice Stephen Breyer understandably steered away from a direct answer when I put the question to him after a talk at the French-American Foundation this month. Instead, he pointed me toward Tocqueville's 19th century masterpiece, “Democracy in America,” and its emphasis on “clamor,” on “people arguing about politics” as a civic virtue.

However unusual it makes him, Breyer added, when he hears “these huge arguments about the Patriot Act, I cheer. . . . We have a process, and it's called that clamor.” Issues bubble up, “people shout – I would rather they were polite, but . . . shouting is better than nothing.”

I concur. Tear yourself away from the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore and HBO's Bill Maher and spend an evening with Chapter 14 of “Democracy in America.” I'm not sure what the French aristocrat would make of this, but any of us can pull it out of the ether at http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch14.htm. Maybe it will make you feel like shouting.

---

me@rescam.org

Rest assured, our system is working

JIM HOAGLAND
THE WASHINGTON POST

March 19, 2007

Funny that he doesn't mention the protege of Senator Chuck Schumer in the DC US Attorney's office. Also, it's interesting to note that nowhere in the article does he note that the US Attorney's are political appointees, employees of the Executive Branch and, as such, work for & at the behest of the President and his designated representatives. Nowhere in the article does he mention that the history of the position of US Attorney is replete with such hirings and firings. Nowhere does he note which several of the US Attorney's actually in question terminated at their own behest. Funny thing about that.

I would just like to extend CONGRATULATIONS to George W. Bush on his
Five Year Anniversary in Iraq. WAYTAGO DUBYA!!! Also, The War Against
Terrorism (T.W.A.T) is coming up on Seven years with no end in sight!!

I'm sure Mothers and Fathers eveywhere around the globe thank you from
the bottom of their children's graves.

---

DONATE TO SETI

Local imams urged to fight fires

By Richard Kerbaj
Article from: The Australian
* Influential Muslim pushes for integration
* 95-point plan delivered to landmark meeting
* Includes monitoring any preaching of hate

MUSLIM clerics will be encouraged to become surf lifesavers and volunteer firefighters as part of a push by one of the nation's most influential Islamic leaders for greater integration of his community into the mainstream.

In a report to be considered by imams at a meeting this weekend, Lebanese Muslim Association President Tom Zreika likens the unpopularity of Muslims to attitudes to communists, and urges spiritual leaders to improve the image of Islam in Australia.

Mr Zreika says in the report, commissioned by the powerful LMA, that Australians have "had enough of us".

"It would be great to see a turbaned imam fighting fires alongside other bushfire service volunteers," Mr Zreika says in the submission to the Australian National Imams Council, which will meet for its first official conference in Sydney on Sunday.

"Organisations like the Surf Life Saving Association ... should be joined as a matter of course by the imam and his followers."

Mr Zreika attacks Islamic clerics who oppose the law.

"If an imam finds it impossible to comply with the laws of this country, and justifies its breach, then they should leave Australia altogether, for such ignorance is tarnishing the Prophet's religion and superior morality," he says.

Mr Zreika blames the bad English-language skills of some imams for poor understanding and "bitterness" towards local Muslims.

"We have become the new communism, particularly in the West, and some people in our community are so repulsed by our actions, it is making life unbearable for us and our offspring," he says.

The document, obtained by The Australian and dated November last year to this month, says Islamic spiritual leaders should not "be fooled that this country belongs to Muslims at the exclusion of others".

Cleric Taj Din al-Hilali came under fire in January for attacking the West for being "oppressive" and saying immigrants had more right to live in Australia than the "descendants of convicts".

In the 16-page paper, titled "Australian Imams: The Way Forward", Mr Zreika recommends that imams should not "bring problems experienced overseas to Australia".

One of the report's 95 recommendations says imams should not be linked to any organistions of suspicion. Another says clerics must declare as income all gifts from officiating at weddings and funerals, as well as any other financial gift.

The Sydney-based lawyer accuses some imams of negligence in their incitement of hate against the West.

"The last thing this society wants is angry men and women following radical but charismatic cults, like figures who promote breaches of the law and violence on the preposterous justification that they are simply acting in self-defence in a time of war," he says. "We are not at war, and we need some of our imams to stop being negligent."

Other recommendations call on imams to reaffirm their allegiance to Australia and "do all things necessary to prevent any radicalistion or breeding of fanatical opinions".

The imams board should audit the activities of religious leaders and issue them with accreditation, without which they could not practise, he says.

Mr Zreika recommends the board monitor clerics to ensure they preach the right messages.

"In fulfilling their role of an imam, members of the council must ... screen what they preach to make sure it is not offensive, prejudicial or even illegal."

Mr Zreika was unavailable for comment yesterday.

---

Join Calm Chaos

I would just like to extend CONGRATULATIONS to George W. Bush [snip]

Don't forget to append this standard disclaimer:

Disclaimer: This web page is really intended for humor and information only and does not advocate the support of any candidate for any office and is sure as heck not in anyway connected to any political campaign or party. We believe in our First Amendment right of free speech - so put that in your pipe and smoke it!.

I would hate to see you wind up in room 101 for your thought crimes... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

---

me@rescam.org

U.S. attorneys must have Senate approval

San Diego Union-Tribune editorial

March 20, 2007

As the Bush administration last year contemplated firing a number of U.S. attorneys, including Carol Lam in San Diego, it had inserted into the reauthorized Patriot Act new provisions for filling vacancies among the 93 federal prosecutors around the country. The language making the change was slipped into the legislation without key lawmakers even being made aware of it.

Under the unnoticed change, the White House was given the power to name U.S. attorneys for an open-ended period without seeking confirmation from the Senate, as the Constitution requires. Prior to the change, interim U.S. attorneys were appointed by the senior federal judge for the district. A permanent replacement could not be seated until confirmed by the Senate.

As the administration's plan to force out eight U.S. attorneys advanced in secret late last year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, wrote in a confidential e-mail to the White House that because of the revised law, the Justice Department had more room to maneuver on the firings. With the change, Sampson declared, “we can give far less deference to home-state senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.”

In short, bypassing the Senate would allow the administration to appoint U.S. attorneys who otherwise might not stand up to the scrutiny of the confirmation process, such as White House political adviser Karl Rove's protege. He was made U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., after Gonzales fired his predecessor in order to create a vacancy.

The question yet to be answered is whether the Bush administration sought the change in the Patriot Act in order to facilitate its politically driven purge of Lam and the other federal prosecutors. This is an important issue for examination by the Senate and House judiciary committees as they investigate the firings.

In the meantime, the Senate is set to vote today on an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to restore the appointment process to the way it was before the Patriot Act was surreptitiously amended. Her measure is likely to zoom through the Senate, as it certainly should. It is plainly needed to prevent abuses such as dismissing a raft of respected U.S. attorneys without cause.

Also today, White House Counsel Fred Fielding is to announce whether President Bush will allow Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and other administration officials to testify before the two congressional panels probing the firings. We urge Bush not to invoke executive privilege in a bid to block their testimony but rather to cooperate fully with lawmakers so that all of the facts can be brought to light.

A claim of executive privilege in defiance of congressional subpoenas would almost certainly trigger a constitutional confrontation, the outcome of which would be uncertain. Worse, it would serve only to bottle up the truth about the administration's questionable closed-door dealings.

---

me@rescam.org

Rest assured, our system is working

JIM HOAGLAND
THE WASHINGTON POST

March 19, 2007

Funny that he doesn't mention the protege of Senator Chuck Schumer in the DC US Attorney's office. Also, it's interesting to note that nowhere in the article does he note that the US Attorney's are political appointees, employees of the Executive Branch and, as such, work for & at the behest of the President and his designated representatives. Nowhere in the article does he mention that the history of the position of US Attorney is replete with such hirings and firings. Nowhere does he note which several of the US Attorney's actually in question terminated at their own behest. Funny thing about that.

Nor does he mention how many Bill Clinton fired when he took office! I believe Clinton had all 192 of them up for review! A whole bunch got fired, or left as the case may be. MOST people will quit, given the choice of quitting or being fired! Maybe that says something about those that did get fired in this case?

---