US Attorney Firings. Patriot Act Problem?

[Kurtdg19]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031300776.html

Recent news thats now coming to public perspective shows a little bit more of this administrations dirty laundry. Although legally, this adminstration has the right to dismiss and appoint new US Attorneys, but its the way they did it that should be a key indicator to the misuse and abusive qualities that are inherent to the patriot act drafted under the same administration.

And all this time I was under the impression that the patriot act was designed to combat terrorism and other means of threatening behavior...

[YogsVR4]

I've got more reading to do on this topic, but as far as I know, these guys work for the administration. They are employed as long as the justice department wants them. Which means they can be fired for whatever reason they want. Clinton replaced 93 when he was elected. Bush 41 replaced some as well (I can't find the exact number).

This issue looks like another hack and slash on the Bush administration based on sound bites.

[taranaki]

And yet again Yogs plays the Bush martyr card......

Yes, Clinton replaced all of the US Attorneys who had served under the previous administration when he took office.

Bush has been in power for over 5 years. His party is no longer trusted to run the country. Why then should he still be permitted to stack the legal system in his favour by firing those who may harm the Republican cause by prosecuting his crooked buddies?

Bush makes Nixon look honest.

[drunken monkey]

are you having at go at Yogs or at Bush?

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

are you having at go at Yogs or at Bush?

What a silly question!

One of the above is a crook hellbent on corrupting the Stars and Stripes.

The other is a harmless old geezer from Michigan.

Do you need any further clues?

[YogsVR4]

So now its not the fact they were fired, now its about when they were fired.


I'm not going to lose sleep over a lawyer losing their job. Feel free to keep fretting

[VR43000GT]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

are you having at go at Yogs or at Bush?

Haha, no one is ever real sure. He is always good for a laugh or two though. So witty..

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by taranaki

The other is a harmless old geezer from Michigan.

Do you need any further clues?

You're not that far off either Taranaki. A lot of us are old geezers. Even I resemble that comment except I'm not from Michigan.

Do you actually lose sleep over U.S. politics and G.W. or is this your hobby? I sure as hell don't. Doesn't do any good.

[taranaki]

Of course I don't lose any sleep over it. I leave that to the misguided souls who can't tell the difference between being loyal to their country's constitution and being loyal to a greedy corporate President.

[fredjacksonsan]

I'd have to agree that it's a little late in his presidency for Mr. Bush to remove a bunch of attorneys. With 2 years of 8 remaining, my thoughts are why now and why not before? Has there been some change, political or otherwise, that has sparked the sudden change? After all, these guys were ok for the first 6 years.... There is more to this than meets the eye.

[Kurtdg19]

Now this may seem as another trivial hand in the deck of cards that has once again been dealt out to fuel the democratic fire, that’s trying ever so hard to burn town the bush administration, (even if you feel that’s so, that’s how the political game is played on either side of the spectrum, and it shouldn't be of any surprise) we should at least as individuals sit down, think, and access the deck at hand.

Why is this such a big deal? U.S attorneys have been fired before by other presidents. Present Bill Clinton replaced 93 U.S attorneys when he was elected president (as yogs stated). The firing of all the U.S. attorneys isn't by any means normal from any presidency, and he did take good scrutiny for doing so. Most new administrations will wait until the attorneys four year term is up before replacing them when they come in office. After all, the position of us attorney is to prosecute violations of federal law and defend the federal government in civil suits while serving the president. What makes this such a big deal is how, and why they were replaced.

In previous presidencies, the reappointment of an us attorney had to go through a senate approval. This means that the current administration couldn't just appoint new attorneys "out of the blue" so to speak. Its appointees needed approval from the senate. Through new legislation that comes from the U.S Patriot Act, it allows the current administration to appoint new us attorneys without senate approval. Although it’s temporary, it can become permanent.

Now I may be viewing this as over speculation, but this seems to be somewhat of an abusive quality of the Patriot Act. The democratic system of government that’s inherent in our state (US) was brought up upon individual rights and liberties and the pursuit of happiness through separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of governorship. Allowing the executive branch to make decisions as such without a checks and balance systems imo begins to swim out of the safe zone and into the "there may be sharks in the area" zone of the water....to put it differently, abusing their power. But the big question is why?

Why did they replace these individuals who served the position of us attorney? As Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said before becoming us general attorney said, he would not use his position for political gain and in more present terms, said that he believes each us attorney must serve independently and serve but law itself. So why has this issue caused such turmoil? Is it just business as usual, or are there political motives that could be another blow to republican battleship?

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

I'd have to agree that it's a little late in his presidency for Mr. Bush to remove a bunch of attorneys. With 2 years of 8 remaining, my thoughts are why now and why not before? Has there been some change, political or otherwise, that has sparked the sudden change? After all, these guys were ok for the first 6 years.... There is more to this than meets the eye.

Setting aside the politics of this B.S., IMO one of the fired US Attorneys deserved it. This idiot prosecuted two US Border Patrol Agents (Hispanic) that were doing their jobs. They were convicted on a technicality of not reporting the shooting incident properly which is total B.S. The families of these Agents and thousands of supporters throughout the U.S. lobbied to have the two pardoned but Bush so far has refused and stood by the US Attorney's actions until the recent firing. Definitely more than meets the eye.

I should point out that one of the ousted U.S. attorneys led the prosecution of those border patrol officers who were sent to prison for shooting and wounding a drug trafficker who had attempted to cross the Mexican-U.S. border. Isn't this the type of U.S. attorney that the attorney general might be dissatisfied with? Isn't it up to the attorney general to decide just who is doing a solid job and which federal prosecutors might do better, say, in another line of work?

So why all the hoopla over Gonzales firing these U.S. attorneys? Why are some partisans declaring that Gonzales should step down from the post? They know that the attorney general could legally fire all 93 U.S. attorneys. They've seen it happen. They're just counting on you not knowing nor remembering it.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/laney/3...ANEY19.article

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by bnaylor

Setting aside the politics of this B.S., IMO one of the fired US Attorneys deserved it. This idiot prosecuted two US Border Patrol Agents (Hispanic) that were doing their jobs. They were convicted on a technicality of not reporting the shooting incident properly which is total B.S. The families of these Agents and thousands of supporters throughout the U.S. lobbied to have the two pardoned but Bush so far has refused and stood by the US Attorney's actions until the recent firing. Definitely more than meets the eye.

-snif.....snif....sniff-

I smell politics. That pretty much explains all the BS.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

-snif.....snif....sniff-

I smell politics. That pretty much explains all the BS.

Duh! The whole thing smacks of politics. Mainly, posturing for the 2008 elections. But honestly, who really cares about the fate of these US Attorneys. If you have ever been prosecuted by one I don't think the sentiment would be in their favor. I guess the media has nothing better to do and as usual blows things out of proportion or omits the real details and facts of each case.

On the issue of the US Attorney for the Western District of Texas I do not believe politics was involved unless there is proof otherwise. After all Bush supported the idiot and to date has refused to pardon the two Agents. The US Attorney's downfall is he pissed off many Hispanic Americans in El Paso County who are predominantly Democrats or at least traditionally vote for the Democratic Party. I think the protesters got Bush's attention especially when the rally they had downtown in favor of the Border Patrol Agents was much bigger than any anti-war protest. People were asking for his removal.

[fredjacksonsan]

Sounds like he really screwed the pooch. You don't prosecute someone for doing their job.