View Full Version : Shock! Horror! FBI abuses Patriot Act
Banquo's Ghost
03-10-2007, 17:08
How could they? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/national_security_letters;_ylt=A0WTUe.Un_FFy2sBOAms0NUE) I mean, the government promised that the stripping of personal liberties would only affect muslim terrorists.
Unlike the supine British sheep, I fully expect to see the Cruise Missile Divisions of the People's Militia taking to the streets any moment. I have switched off the rugger and expect 24 hours news to be broadcasting the uprising any moment now.
:wink:
Gonzales, Mueller admit FBI broke law
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer Sat Mar 10, 7:54 AM ET
WASHINGTON - The nation's top two law enforcement officials acknowledged Friday the FBI broke the law to secretly pry out personal information about Americans. They apologized and vowed to prevent further illegal intrusions.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left open the possibility of pursuing criminal charges against FBI agents or lawyers who improperly used the USA Patriot Act in pursuit of suspected terrorists and spies.
The FBI's transgressions were spelled out in a damning 126-page audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. He found that agents sometimes demanded personal data on people without official authorization, and in other cases improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances.
The audit also concluded that the FBI for three years underreported to Congress how often it used national security letters to ask businesses to turn over customer data. The letters are administrative subpoenas that do not require a judge's approval.
"People have to believe in what we say," Gonzales said. "And so I think this was very upsetting to me. And it's frustrating."
"We have some work to do to reassure members of Congress and the American people that we are serious about being responsible in the exercise of these authorities," he said.
Under the Patriot Act, the national security letters give the FBI authority to demand that telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses produce personal records about their customers or subscribers. About three-fourths of the letters issued between 2003 and 2005 involved counterterror cases, with the rest for espionage investigations, the audit reported.
Shoddy record-keeping and human error were to blame for the bulk of the problems, said Justice auditors, who were careful to note they found no indication of criminal misconduct.
Still, "we believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities," the audit concluded.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said many of the problems were being fixed, including by building a better internal data collection system and training employees on the limits of their authority. The FBI has also scrapped the use of "exigent letters," which were used to gather information without the signed permission of an authorized official.
"But the question should and must be asked: How could this happen? Who is accountable?" Mueller said. "And the answer to that is, I am to be held accountable."
Mueller said he had not been asked to resign, nor had he discussed doing so with other officials. He said employees would probably face disciplinary actions, not criminal charges, following an internal investigation of how the violations occurred.
The audit incensed lawmakers in Congress already seething over the recent dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys. Democrats who lead House and Senate judiciary and intelligence oversight panels promised hearings on the findings. Several lawmakers — Republicans and Democrats alike — raised the possibility of scaling back the FBI's authority.
"It's up to Congress to end these abuses as soon as possible," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The Patriot Act was never intended to allow the Bush administration to violate fundamental constitutional rights."
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the audit shows "a major failure by Justice to uphold the law."
"If the Justice Department is going to enforce the law, it must follow it as well," said Hoekstra, of Michigan.
The American Civil Liberties Union said the audit proves Congress must amend the Patriot Act to require judicial approval anytime the FBI wants access to sensitive personal information.
"The attorney general and the FBI are part of the problem, and they cannot be trusted to be part of the solution," said ACLU's executive director, Anthony D. Romero.
Both Gonzales and Mueller called the national security letters vital tools in pursuing terrorists and spies in the United States. "They are the bread and butter of our investigations," Mueller said.
Gonzales asked the inspector general to issue a follow-up audit in July on whether the FBI had followed recommendations to fix the problems.
Fine's annual review is required by Congress, over the objections of the Bush administration. It concluded that the number of national security letters requested by the FBI skyrocketed in the years after the Patriot Act became law. Each letter issued may contain several requests.
In 2000, for example, the FBI issued an estimated 8,500 requests. That number peaked in 2004 with 56,000. Overall, the FBI reported issuing 143,074 requests in national security letters between 2003 and 2005.
But that did not include an additional 8,850 requests that were never recorded in the FBI's database, the audit found. A sample review of 77 case files at four FBI field offices showed that agents had underreported the number of national security letter requests by about 22 percent.
Additionally, the audit found, the FBI identified 26 possible violations in its use of the letters, including failing to get proper authorization, making improper requests under the law and unauthorized collection of telephone or Internet e-mail records.
The FBI also used exigent letters to quickly get information — sometimes in non-emergency situations — without going through proper channels. In at least 700 cases, these letters were sent to three telephone companies to get billing records and subscriber information, the audit found.
___
On the Net:
The report is at: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/FBI/index.htm
Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov
FBI: http://www.fbi.gov
More seriously, is there a mood to do something about the Act? Do US citizens actually trust their government not to keep doing this? Or do most Americans shrug their shoulders at this kind of thing now?
I have switched off the rugger and expect 24 hours news to be broadcasting the uprising any moment now
Why would you turn off a perfectly good game waiting for American's to give a damn. At least Scotland had a chance.
No one really cares. The people who would care guessed a while ago, and the people who don't still don't
rory_20_uk
03-10-2007, 17:26
They're too busy rolling their eyes that our politicians might think of taking children's fingerprints.
All those guns are there for moments like this, when they retake power from the corrupt abusers of power, right? That's the whole point of carrying arms in the unofficial NRA militia.
Oh, wait. They're sorry. Well danger over - American checks and balances work! It was only shoddy record-keeping; those in the FBI wouldn't fake data would they? Nah. :holmes:
~:smoking:
Blodrast
03-10-2007, 18:52
How long till one of our US fellow backroomers says that we shouldn't whine about this and worry about our own countries, 'cause we're not US citizens ? ~;)
Look, the Congress doesn't have time to waste over such trifling matters as the Patriot Act and all these whining terrorists, ok ? There are much more important matters (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3664526) at hand, such as all these friggin' pirates that download copyrighted stuff (I mean, can you believe that ?!) from these liberal hornet-nests known as universities...
Article here.
March 9, 2007
Lawmakers Bash Colleges Over Campus Piracy
By Roy Mark
WASHINGTON – Annoyed at recent reports that online campus piracy rates top 50 percent, lawmakers warned college and university administrators Thursday if they don't do more to curb the theft, Congress would.
Complaining that a number of schools refused cooperate with a General Accountability Office (GAO) survey of campus piracy rates, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) said a number of colleges and universities simply are ignoring the problem.
"Unfortunately, many schools have turned a blind eye to piracy," Berman, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, said at a hearing to call administrators to task. "Current law isn't giving universities enough incentive to comply."
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, added campus piracy is still "rampant and widespread" and "too many schools do little or nothing about it. That's an unacceptable response."
According to the University of Richmond's Intellectual Property Institute, more than half of all college students download music and movies illegally. Another report from the research firm NPD claims college students get more of their music from illegal peer-to-peer (P2P) services than the rest of the population.
The numbers come more than five years after the music industry teamed with academia to launch college education programs to teach students about intellectual property rights. Since then, schools have incorporated copyright theft lessons in orientation sessions, preached the virtues of legal music services and researched technology that sniffs out illegal file swapping on campus networks.
"First, I should note that this is a ubiquitous problem, not one unique to higher education," John Vaughn, the executive vice president of the Association of American Universities, told the House panel. "P2P file sharing is widespread on the commercial networks serving a great many more customers than the roughly 17 million students served by higher education."
Vaughn said schools face a number of challenges in limiting illegal P2P file sharing, including cost, fostering an academic climate of free and open speech and the increasing use of legal P2P services.
"The uses of P2P technologies for legitimate purposes heightens the importance of being able to differentiate legitimate and illegitimate uses for any technologies intended to block…P2P file sharing," he said.
Jim Davis, UCLA's chief technology officer, noted that most of the infringement complaints at the school are directed at student residency halls, where approximately 20 percent of the student population live.
"Far more students live off-campus, making them part of the great majority of students who use commercial Internet service providers…outside of [UCLA's] purview," Davis said.
Davis also questioned legal music services as a panacea for reducing student infringement.
"Our students perceive these legal services to be limited in content, dependent on specific vendors or operating system and/or providing an uneven user experience," he said. "Generally, digital rights management means downloads are often unusable or non-transferable into the vast majority of students' portable players."
Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), dismissed the idea that schools can't control the piracy, claiming administrators are not enforcing the law or their own institutional policies.
"It doesn't have to be like this," he said. "We take this opportunity to once again ask schools to recognize the harm their inaction causes, to acknowledge the solutions that have been presented and to work with us productively to address a problem that affects us all."
In addition to Berman and Conyers, other lawmakers on the subcommittee sided with Sherman. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Tex.) agreed schools weren't doing enough and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) suggested Congress might increase the schools' legal liability for the theft of their students.
Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla.), though, issued the sternest warning: "For those universities that don't want to get serious about it, the hammer is coming," he said.
You know, sadly enough, I don't think anything will come out of this (I'm talking about the FBI thingie). Absolutely nada will happen, and things will go on as before (until they get worse with the next measure for fighting against those oh-so-pesky terrorists).:yes:
Bah, are you guys really surprised here? When power exists it will always be abused, always. You can take that to the bank.
I find the state of my government to be absolutely appauling these days, and no I did not vote for that ape in the Oval Office. Afghanistan was in my view a big mistake. Iraq is a deathtrap and has done nothing but kill countless Americans and Iraqis, all in the name of the US establishing a "powerbase" in the Middle East. Thinking about what the US may do with Iran and N. Korea gives me ulcers, we may very well see (nuclear) WWIII in our lifetimes. The current administration does nothing to help this, in fact they use fearmongering as both propaganda and an excuse to do what they've been doing to both foreign nationals AND our own citizens. The Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay are two of the most disgusting and sickening examples of rights abuse that I can think of, and they're repeatedly thrown in the public's faces and yet they (we) do nothing. As long as we have God, NASCAR, Bud Light, and gay folks can't marry, then we're clearly in the right and should support St. Bush in doing (and should) do whatever he see fit to ensure these godless heathen terrorists can't blow up our tractors! /heavy sarcasm
Now don't get me wrong, I understand and believe that the US has it's own interests to protect and treaties to adhere to, but what's been done lately under this guise is totally unacceptable. The US needs to stop interfereing with other soveriegn nation's affairs (even if we dont' agree with them), stop the blatant and flagrant rights abuse and culling, and start taking care of the bigger problems we have on our own soil.
:bow:
The US is a sick, dying animal. One day we're all going to wake up and find it lying dead in the kitchen.
ShadeHonestus
03-10-2007, 20:55
More seriously, is there a mood to do something about the Act? Do US citizens actually trust their government not to keep doing this? Or do most Americans shrug their shoulders at this kind of thing now?
First of all, I'd be more worried if they failed to find abuses. That would mean the government suddenly became proficient in cover ups.
As for the meat of the matter (sorry vegans) there are deeper issues than just the displeasure by many with the Act itself. There are constitutional issues. Most notably that of judicial review. In fact there are many things that the public has questioned, the courts and congress have had zero jurisdictional oversight, but the president has offered them up for review. Its a catch 22 in those cases as the reasons for a lack of oversight have now been given precedent for future oversight by an administration thats been increasingly swayed by politics and public opinion.
The Patriot Act is now squarely in the battlefield and it needs to be taken either purposely forward or into complete oblivion, we can't afford to live in the gray and subject tactics to politics and the public opinion.
Blodrast
03-10-2007, 23:34
The US is a sick, dying animal. One day we're all going to wake up and find it lying dead in the kitchen.
~:confused: Would you care to elaborate ?
Hosakawa Tito
03-11-2007, 00:39
On a related note. Political purge of judiciary? You be da judge. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0308/p01s01-uspo.html)
If it has web feet and quacks, the word on the street is that it's a duck.
Gregoshi
03-11-2007, 01:06
The US is a sick, dying animal. One day we're all going to wake up and find it lying dead in the kitchen.
A victim of fowl play, no doubt.
Adrian II
03-11-2007, 01:09
A victim of fowl play, no doubt.A feather-light post-mortem.
ShadeHonestus
03-11-2007, 01:42
On a related note. Political purge of judiciary? You be da judge. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0308/p01s01-uspo.html)
If it has web feet and quacks, the word on the street is that it's a duck.
Then its obvious that its a pheasant in expectation from what you wrote.
This has littlle to do with some new idea that the president can purge U.S. Attorneys. It has always been done and they have always served at the pleasure of the president and do not have to be given reason. The only reason this became a headline is because of the battle in Congress right now over federal districts having jurisdiction over a failed senate confirmation.
The line in the patriot act gave the President the power to appoint directly and did not change his ability to fire with no reason at all.
The oddity that they were fired at the same time is poor form, and thats it...
This has littlle to do with some new idea that the president can purge U.S. Attorneys. It has always been done and they have always served at the pleasure of the president and do not have to be given reason. The only reason this became a headline is because of the battle in Congress right now over federal districts having jurisdiction over a failed senate confirmation.
Yes, yes, if it isn't Clinton's fault, then it has always been that way, and the only reason anybody's noticed is that the liberals are crying home to mama.
My Google-fu is weak, and I'm having trouble finding the article again, but a cursory examination showed that under Gonzales' watch, Federal investigations of local Republican candidates were in the tens, independents in the tens, and Democrats received 700+. That's getting into a level of using the Justice Department for partisan gain the likes of which hasn't been seen since Tammany Hall.
The attorneys who refused to play along got dropped. Period. This is a Republican-on-Republcian scandal, pure and simple. Attempting to blame it on Congress, the MSM or Bill Clinton will just demonstrate a poverty of imagination.
~:confused: Would you care to elaborate ?What I was trying to say is that America is falling apart and nobody is going to care/notice until it is already gone.
The attorneys who refused to play along got dropped. Period. This is a Republican-on-Republcian scandal, pure and simple. Attempting to blame it on Congress, the MSM or Bill Clinton will just demonstrate a poverty of imagination.Huh, well I guess the vast majority of them must've played ball then. Bush's biggest mistake was in not immediately purging all district attorneys upon taking office. Apparently that's the appropriate way to get your cronies in place- this piecemeal stuff is just unseemly. :yes:
More on topic, I'm not particularly surprised that the Feds cut corners and broke rules when it comes to such a powerful tool as NSLs. They're not new to the Patriot Act, they stink, and hopefully Congress will get off their worthless asses and do something to reign them in. Having the police essentially writing their own search warrants strikes me as a fundamentally bad idea.
How long till one of our US fellow backroomers says that we shouldn't whine about this and worry about our own countries, 'cause we're not US citizens ? ~;)
I really don't see why you would care in the first place, other than than to say bad, America, bad! :whip:
Banquo's Ghost
03-11-2007, 10:06
I really don't see why you would care in the first place, other than than to say bad, America, bad! :whip:
Mainly because our legislators, often nursing much less robust constitutions than yours, look at the home of liberty and see what they can get away with.
Hosakawa Tito
03-11-2007, 11:24
Then its obvious that its a pheasant in expectation from what you wrote.
This has littlle to do with some new idea that the president can purge U.S. Attorneys. It has always been done and they have always served at the pleasure of the president and do not have to be given reason. The only reason this became a headline is because of the battle in Congress right now over federal districts having jurisdiction over a failed senate confirmation.
The line in the patriot act gave the President the power to appoint directly and did not change his ability to fire with no reason at all.
The oddity that they were fired at the same time is poor form, and thats it...
Ahhh, just a coincidence, despite glowing reviews for their work. Let's see, judge X gets a phone call from Republican Legislator Y inquiring why he isn't speeding up investigation on political opponent Democrat Z in time for mudslinging convention before the election. Judge X, and others of his ilk, suddenly goes on the axis of evil list. Serve at the pleasure of the Prez, yes, serve the political machinations of the Prez's political party, as judicial hitmen,:thumbsdown: . Just because both parties engage in it, doesn't make it okay. This just happens to be an extreme and blatant incident. Whoever is piloting the Republican Ship of State is either stupidly arrogant or just plain stupid.
ShadeHonestus
03-11-2007, 15:08
This just happens to be an extreme and blatant incident.
Its only extreme because it is blatant.
Whoever is piloting the Republican Ship of State is either stupidly arrogant or just plain stupid.
In the political sense of the words, they are a little of both, arrogant and stupid, but thats the extent of it. Poor show, good game.
Yes, yes, if it isn't Clinton's fault, then it has always been that way, and the only reason anybody's noticed is that the liberals are crying home to mama.
Wow, what a poverty of imagination. It must be the reality of perspective.
My Google-fu is weak, and I'm having trouble finding the article again, but a cursory examination showed that under Gonzales' watch, Federal investigations of local Republican candidates were in the tens, independents in the tens, and Democrats received 700+. That's getting into a level of using the Justice Department for partisan gain the likes of which hasn't been seen since Tammany Hall.
You should write editorials for the New York Times.
The attorneys who refused to play along got dropped. Period. This is a Republican-on-Republcian scandal, pure and simple. Attempting to blame it on Congress, the MSM or Bill Clinton will just demonstrate a poverty of imagination.
I know you want more scandal and are having problems finding it and the only places you do are in your lack of understanding the battles of governmental constitutionality, but thats okay, you seem more adept at poor political caricature than commentary.
You should write editorials for the New York Times.
I hear they're destroying America.
ShadeHonestus
03-12-2007, 05:52
I hear they're destroying America.
Editorial contributors? Yes, burn 'em at the stake I tell you...:smash:
Samurai Waki
03-12-2007, 07:52
You can always trust that Big Brother will take a peek in his own drawers once and awhile to make sure the junk is still there.
Ahhh, just a coincidence, despite glowing reviews for their work. Let's see, judge X gets a phone call from Republican Legislator Y inquiring why he isn't speeding up investigation on political opponent Democrat Z in time for mudslinging convention before the election. Judge X, and others of his ilk, suddenly goes on the axis of evil list. Serve at the pleasure of the Prez, yes, serve the political machinations of the Prez's political party, as judicial hitmen,:thumbsdown: . Just because both parties engage in it, doesn't make it okay. This just happens to be an extreme and blatant incident. Whoever is piloting the Republican Ship of State is either stupidly arrogant or just plain stupid.
Who's talking about judges?
A little detail to add to the pile (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17560718/):
The chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party was quoted Saturday as saying he urged presidential adviser Karl Rove and one of his assistants to fire the state’s U.S. attorney.
McClatchy Newspapers reported that Allen Weh said he complained in 2005 about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to a White House liaison who worked for Rove, asking that he be removed, and followed up with Rove personally in late 2006 during a visit to the White House.
“Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?” Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event.
“He’s gone,” Rove said, according to Weh.
“I probably said something close to ’Hallelujah,”’ said Weh.
The GOP party leader made clear his dissatisfaction with Iglesias stemmed in part from his failure to indict Democrats in a voter fraud investigation.
Strike For The South
03-12-2007, 16:31
This is where my solution of killing them comes in. You get elected, you do something stupid, we shoot you. That should keep these idoits in buisness.
Told you so! ~;p
PS. It's not the Patriot Act, it's the PATRIOT Act. I'm sure somebody wasted plenty of taxpayer dollars to come up with the acronym, so we may as well use it!
Told you so! ~;p
PS. It's not the Patriot Act, it's the PATRIOT Act. I'm sure somebody wasted plenty of taxpayer dollars to come up with the acronym, so we may as well use it!
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism= USA PATRIOT Act.
Dumbest acronym ever. :yes:
But again, let me point out that NSLs have their beginnings in the '70s. From what I've seen, the Patriot Act only added slightly to them- which has been done many times over the years since their inception. According to my reading of Wiki, it would seem they were originally created as a way of skirting the need for court oversight and they've only strengthened since.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism= USA PATRIOT Act.
Dumbest acronym ever. :yes:
Crap, I forgot the USA part of it. :shame: That was probably an extra hundred grand right there.
Mainly because our legislators, often nursing much less robust constitutions than yours, look at the home of liberty and see what they can get away with.
I didn't realize it was our job to play the role of global role model for democracy and freedom...
Tribesman
03-12-2007, 20:03
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
Well it could be said that Bush and his cronies are right tools , but it is surely very debatable if they are appropriate or able to obstruct terrorism .
Now to wonder how describing people as "right tools" will translate into different forms of English .
Banquo's Ghost
03-12-2007, 20:46
I didn't realize it was our job to play the role of global role model for democracy and freedom...
Maybe not a job you want, but your country is founded in the finest ideals of the enlightenment and liberty. Like it or not, many people find inspiration in what has been achieved in your country, and disappointment in its failures.
If you don't like the idea, keep electing fellows like Bush and we'll go off the role model thing soon enough. But mind, that leaves us with France. :wink:
I think Chuck Schumer is reading my mind. Should I be worried about the government breaching my tinfoil hat, or hopeful that my prayers might be answered?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101126.html
The third-ranking Democrat in the Senate called on Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to resign, and congressional reaction to two unfolding controversies at the Justice Department grew sharper.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the Democratic Conference vice chairman, criticized Gonzales on CBS's "Face the Nation" for the Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys -- which some have alleged was politically motivated -- and the FBI's illegal collection of personal information about people in the United States under the auspices of the bureau's counterterrorism program.
Blodrast
03-12-2007, 21:30
I really don't see why you would care in the first place, other than than to say bad, America, bad! :whip:
Also, for the same reason that anybody discusses international politics and events.
For the same reason newspapers have an "international/global/external" section, as in, you know, stuff that happens outside that particular country. Strangely enough, people find that to be of interest.
For the same reason that French news are allowed to be discussed by non-French citizens, British news are allowed to be discussed by non-British citizens, and so on.
ajaxfetish
03-12-2007, 23:10
I'm sickened on principle by the Patriot Act, but too cynical and lazy to think I can do anything about it.
Ajax
It's interesting how many of these scandals seem to be interrelated. Here we have a U.S. attorney being removed when he attempts to investigate Jack Abramoff (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/08/bush_removal_ended_guam_investigation/):
A US grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff more than two years ago, but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor, and the probe ended soon after.
Well, apparently the plan was to can the lot of them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818_pf.html
The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.
Surprisingly it was Miers who suggested it. Gonzales was apparently the voice of reason, firing them all might raise some eyebrows... :rolleyes:
Well, apparently the plan was to can the lot of them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818_pf.html
That's apparently the standard practice, yes. As I've said, the administration could've avoided much of this if they had sacked all of them from the outset. Then they could've appointed whoever they wanted from the getgo.
That's apparently the standard practice, yes. As I've said, the administration could've avoided much of this if they had sacked all of them from the outset. Then they could've appointed whoever they wanted from the getgo.
I'm fuzzy on the timeline though. When did the AG get the power to replace US Attorneys without running them through Congress? Was that with the original USA PATRIOT Act, or the revised one? I thought it got slipped into the revised act, which would mean they would have had to wait if they wanted to put interim cronies in all the spots.
IIRC, they could always appoint whoever they wanted for interim appointments. The change concerned how long the could serve in an interim capacity.
Interesting, apparently the "they should have replaced them wholesale like Clinton" argument originated with none other than Karl Rove (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002711.php). Not surprisingly, Clinton's Chief of Staff, Joe Podesta (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10193.html), says that's a duck-and-weave defense that doesn't add up.
Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings.
Another blogger's (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012993.php) perspective on the Rovian smokescreen:
And Clinton? Every new president appoints new US Attorneys. That always happens. Always. In early 1993, since the Republicans had held the White House for 12 years a few US Attorneys signalled that they might not be tendering their resignations and the new Clinton Justice Department asked for and received the resignations of all 93 US Attorneys. Eager to whip up scandal, Republicans at the time tried to make this into something untoward. Claiming this is a big deal is like grandstanding with the claim that President Bush 'fired' Clinton's cabinet secretaries when he came into office in 2001. At worst, it's the difference between giving them all several weeks to resign and just asking for their resignations on day one.
The whole thing is silly. But a lot of reporters on the news are already falling for it. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired -- a) because they weren't pursuing a GOP agenda of indicting Democrats, that's a miscarriage of justice, and b) because they lied to Congress about why it happened.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300776_pf.html
Mistakes were made, some people got fired unjustly, Congress got lied to. Nothing to see here. ~D
Again, that's my point Lemur. Bush should've purged them all from the outset and he could've filled the positions with his flunkies- as is apparently the norm. Instead, some were kept on and later dismissed- possibly for political reasons, possibly not. Either way, it was a mistake to handle it that way. Bush has made this mistake repeatedly throughout his administration- George Tenant is another example of someone who should've been sacked immediately but wasnt.
Personally, I'm a bit skeptical of the "I felt horribly pressured" stories. If felt they were being pressured and inappropriate contact was being made by congressmen, why didn't they report it at the time- as they are required to do? If someone was truly after their heads for political reasons, it may not have helped- but at least there would've been a record to point back to.
But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution.That's funny. No, he just preemptively fired them all.
ShadeHonestus
03-14-2007, 05:08
It's interesting how many of these scandals seem to be interrelated. Here we have a U.S. attorney being removed when he attempts to investigate Jack Abramoff (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/08/bush_removal_ended_guam_investigation/):
Bill Clinton’s last full day of his presidency ended as he began his first full day, with a subversion of justice.
Today Bill Clinton cut a deal with independent counsel Robert Ray that lets him off the hook for criminal prosecution.
We should not forget that Bill Clinton’s first act as president was to fire all the U.S attorneys across the U.S. – an unprecedented act by an American president.
At the time, critics of the president linked the firing to an effort to stave off the prosecution of House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski.
But the real truth became clearer as the scandal known as Whitewater unfolded.
The real reason Clinton fired every U.S. attorney was to save himself, not Rostenkowski.
As we now know, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock was closing in on Clinton for Whitewater-related matters and his and Hillary’s involvement in the defrauding of the Small Business Administration.
Clinton’s replacement for U.S. attorney in Little Rock was Paula Casey, a former law school student of his. She did much to protect her patron.
Clinton carried much criminal baggage before he arrived at the White House, and his administration soon opened his luggage to create an administration in his image: the most corrupt in American history.
Clinton is no dummy; he knew the Justice Department would be his Achilles’ heel.
This is precisely why he sacked all the U.S. attorneys.
This is why he put his "best" friend, convicted felon Webster Hubbell, over at Justice as associate attorney general.
This is why his administration secretly sabotaged the nominations of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood to make way for Janet Reno, the prosecutor from Miami Vice who had almost a perfect record of never prosecuting white-collar criminals or politicians.
This is why he fired FBI Director William Sessions in an unprecedented and sudden act the day before Vince Foster was found with a bullet hole in his head in Fort Marcy Park.
This is why he had Janet Reno hand-pick Robert Fiske as Whitewater special counsel – a man who as U.S. attorney in New York never found one politician who had committed a crime.
This is why he accepted Robert Fiske’s recommendation of Louis Freeh as the FBI director.
This is why he consented as Freeh quickly removed, retired or transferred out the entire executive committee of assistant FBI directors in a most effective coup d’etat that got no press ink.
Just some perspective for everyone...
ShadesHonestus, it would be a great courtesy if you could provide links to your sources. Just so's we curious types can see where it's coming from ...
[edit]
According to Bloomberg, Gonzales Has Few Republican Defenders Over Prosecutor Ousters (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aYyx_JuzIDFg&refer=us). Rather at odds with the tone of this thread.
ShadeHonestus
03-14-2007, 07:55
ShadesHonestus, it would be a great courtesy if you could provide links to your sources. Just so's we curious types can see where it's coming from ...
Yeah true, wish I could remember, it might of been a piece by Michael Reagen but I'm only about 50% sure of that reccollection, I could probably find it again eventually. It was a fast search for "Clinton firing US attorneys" in an attempt to find any reference to his wholesale slaughter which was purely political. The piece does stand on its own does it not? Especially if you take just the factual evidence for perspective and not some of the more fringe ideas. I personally think that the bit on Director Sessions' termination is just a bit too "tin hat" and lacking foresight that one would expect from somebody as intelligent as Clinton.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.