"Murray Waas has a fascinating article in the National Review [linked below] describing a secret order by Alberto Gonzales that delegated unprecedented control over the hiring and firing of senior Justice Department officials--including those who oversee the DOJ criminal division--to Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling. This order bypassed the traditional authority given to the deputy attorney general, the associate attorney general, and other senior Justice Department officials to control their own staffs and placed this important authority in the hands of two inexperienced and highly partisan individuals who, by all accounts, worked very closely with the White House. It is truly alarming the lengths to which this White House has gone to politicize our criminal justice system. I wonder how long it will take to undo the institutional damage wrought by this administration. "
AL said it better than I could, but holy cow! Monica Goodling in charge of our justice department? If you read the NJ story, you will see that the original draft of this actually had these two clowns (Regent University, indeed!) completely in charge of hiring and firing--without even the AG's approval. Though this hardly seems necessary given how complicit Gonzales is in whatever the White House wants done or who they want fired, they had to amend the secret (is this the most secret administration in history?) order to make sure it was constitutional. Like they care about that.
NATIONAL JOURNAL: Secret Order By Gonzales Delegated Extraordinary Powers To Aides (04/30/07): "'It would be an act of insanity and, frankly, implausible that the attorney general would grant authority to Kyle [Sampson] and Monica Goodling to make these decisions,' the official said, 'But it would be frightening if they were serving as proxies for the White House. You do not want to allow for the possible politicization of your Criminal Division like that.'"
12 comments:
Surprisingly enough, I belong to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). This is a relatively small group that mostly does education, research, and litigation. I just received an e-mail from them in regards to Gonzo. It warns of a bill introduced by Frank Lautenberg at the request of the Justice Department. Called the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007, this legislation would give the Attorney General discretionary authority to deny the purchase of a firearm or the issuance of a firearm license or permit because of some vague suspicion that an American citizen may be up to no good.
The founder of SAF said, "When did we decide as a nation that it is a good idea to give a cabinet member the power to deny someone's constitutional right simply on suspicion, without a trial or anything approaching due process?"
He then goes to call for Gonzo's resignation. I should note that SAF has never supported the current AG and has been highly critical of him in the past.
This just ads to the list of Gonzo's many accomplishments.
Honestly, I would be far more impressed with that if I was convinced at all that organizations like this held BUSH to any kind of accountability. Like I have noted, he suspended habeas corpus and the right said what? He tortured people, then said he had the right to torture people and the right said what again? And let's not forget the attempt to incarcerate American citizens as "enemy combatants" and a deafening silence from the right.
At this point, and I am perhaps churlish tonight, saying you are "tough on Gonzales" is low hanging fruit. How about the guy who not only hired Gonzo, but fucking promoted him after writing the torture memo and now still keeps him in office.
The SAF is a single issue group. I suppose they also haven't done enough to fight breast cancer.
Who is the right? If you want, I can provide other examples of the right opposing the policies you mention.
Steve, your point is well taken, though habeas is much closer to the concerns of the SAF than breast cancer. Unless it is ok to incarcerate individuals as long as you don't touch their guns...
I was feeling annoyed last night, so I was probably overly shrill. I concede that. But my broader point still stands. I understand there were conservatives who couldn't stand and didn't respect Rumsfeld, and conservatives who distrusted Gonzales. But those same conservatives (or the ones I knew) kept rewarding the guy who hired both of them.
As for who is the right, I am sure there are people who did oppose them. But there is a long track record of pretty amazing silence on this issue. Discomfort, perhaps, but a willingness to keep Bush in power. I find that frustrating.
No, it is not ok to incarcerate people without due process or take their guns. My point was that the SAF is a single issue group and they have limited resources, so they focus on their namesake. The ACLU does some good work, but they certainly don't cover all civil liberties. It doesn't mean they are bad or hypocrites.
If you are interested in a popular conservative blog that is consistently critical, check out: The Volokh Conspiracy which was founded by Law Prof. Eugene Volokh and has a variety of conservative posters.
Yeah, I used to read Volokh pretty regularly. I am not sure that my broader point before is any less relevant. Of course, now that Bush is at 30% in a failed war, many people are willing to criticize the president. (I know that Volokh was critical even when he was at 70%).
I think you are probably correct. With a two-party system, many often vote without enthusiasm. I know this is no excuse, but it can be hard to switch parties, when they support policies you do not like.
Do you support 100% of Democrats 100% of the time? As much as I like some Democrats, there are plenty that I feel do not speak for me.
I have never considered myself a party line voter, and, until the last election, never selected that option on our ballot. But that is predicated on the assumption that both sides are reasonable. I think, in the recent past, that was true. I can see myself having a conversation with Alan Simpson, or some of the other moderate Republicans because I believe we could find some common ground.
While the Democratic party might be problematic in so many ways, the Republican party of the last 10+ years has been ridiculous. Anti-science, anti-government, and then endorsing, reelecting and enabling the horrible policies of George Bush.
So, in other words, while I completely see the problems with the Democrats, the Republican party has a lot, and I mean a lot of explaining to do. Once you have tolerated and rewarded torture, and the undermining of our very constitution, what legitimacy do you have as a party?
Very little, which is how I feel about both parties, depending on the specific issue. I am not suggesting they are equally bad, I am just saying it is hard for me to get enthusiastic about either major party, which I why I have a hard time understanding the kool-aid drinkers that I hear from day to day.
I will continue to vote based on who is running, regardless of their party affiliation.
And in normal cases, I think that is the best and prudent thing to do. I don't think that was the case in 2006, and we have seen the actual proof that elections matter and the parties are not equal (at least right now). We would not even have a conversation about Iraq had the Dems not taken the House and Senate, nor would we have any investigations into either Gonzales, or the lack of oversight in Iraq. I think had the Repubs retained power, we might well be looking at war in Iran.
But when it came down to it, I could not vote for a Republican who I knew (because they have all caved) would continue to cave on torture and constitutional violations.
In my opinion, in the last two elections, voting for the "best person" was simply not a luxury the country could afford, and the last two years have proven that.
In theory, voting for the best individual is a sound strategy, but party discipline has me quite wary of those with whom that individual might choose to associate themselves.
That is my point as well, ubub. I am sure there are good people in the Republican caucus, but they have allowed unspeakable things to occur under their watch under the guise of "party discipline." That discipline only goes so far in my book, when moral people who know better go along with torture.
And don't even get me started on people like Hagel and Specter. They raised a stink, but in every case, voted along with the President.
Given those choices, I will stick with the Pelosi's and the Reid's and the Kennedy's. And along the way, I will cheer the Feingold's and the Leahy's.
Post a Comment