Khalid Sheikh Mohammed And An Independent Department Of Justice
This column is really a second installment to yesterday's ("How To Not Give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed What He Wants"), where I took a look at two of the criticism's against Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in federal civilian court rather than in a military tribunal.
I ended yesterday's column with a summary of my two points (in case you don't feel like reading the whole thing):
The first is that the media must decide whether there will be a "media circus" at K.S. Mohammed's trial because they -- not him -- are the ones who have it in their power to either facilitate such or voluntarily ban it from the airwaves. And secondly, Attorney General Holder is not "playing into the hands" of K.S. Mohammed by denying him a military trial, he is instead refusing to give K.S. Mohammed what he wants -- a glorious warrior's death. Instead, he will be treated like any common criminal, because if the charges against him are proven in court, that is exactly what he is.
Today I'd like to tackle the biggest fallacy in the criticisms being voiced -- the biggest un-noticed elephant in the room in which this discussion is being held. As I said yesterday, I was truly surprised Holder's decision was even controversial. But then, these days, it seems just about everything is ginned up as a "controversy" by certain politicians, aided and abetted by a media which "just loves themselves a fight" -- any fight.
But in all this smoke and noise, something needs to be said. Because apparently a whole lot of people (who should really know better) have totally and utterly forgotten the way our system of justice is designed to operate.
An independent Department of Justice
A whopping amount of the criticism over Eric Holder's decision is being misdirected towards President Obama. This makes no sense whatsoever. It smacks of "Obama Derangement Syndrome," the symptoms of which seem to be staking out a position radically opposed to whatever Obama says, does, breathes, or broadcasts psychically to "tuned-in" brain wavelengths only Republicans can pick up.
Because President Obama, rightfully, had nothing to do with this decision. The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, is the one who should be being attacked and excoriated by critics of his decision. But, strangely, I have heard no loud cries for Holder to step down, or for Holder to be fired, or for Holder to be impeached. Almost all the energy in denouncing Holder's decision mentions him briefly, and then quickly elides over him in order to focus on the White House and Barack Obama.
But, again, President Obama -- entirely correctly -- had nothing to do with this decision. Unless you take it back to Holder's appointment, which Obama did indeed make. You can say, quite validly: "Obama never should have appointed Eric Holder, he's a dangerous lunatic who is obviously unqualified to make a decision on whether to issue a parking ticket, much less matters of national security." On the derangement meter, this would barely register. A little over the top on Holder, but still within factual reality (as a critic of Holder's might see it). In contrast, however, the statement: "Holder has said he didn't even consult with the president before making his decision, which he should have, and Obama should then have told him not to do it and to try K.S. Mohammed in a military tribunal" sends the Derange-O-Meter over into the red.
Because, for those of you who only remember the Bush years, this is not how the law works. The Department of Justice, which as Attorney General, Eric Holder leads, is supposed to be independent from political influence, and independent from the White House. It is the only Cabinet position to be so independent, as far as I know.
The "checks and balances" to the office are the Senate's confirmation of the Attorney General, and the president's ability to fire him or her. That's it. This is necessary, because sometimes the Justice Department has to investigate other parts of the Executive Branch, up to and including the president. The president does indeed have the power to stop such investigations by firing the A.G. (see: Richard Nixon and the "Saturday Night Massacre"), but any president who fires an A.G. unjustifiably, or for self-serving reasons, pays a huge political price for doing so (see: resignation of Richard Nixon). A further layer of separation was created after Nixon, in the form of Special or Independent Prosecutors, who are named by the Attorney General, and then given the power to investigate the president (or anyone else, for that matter) -- but the Attorney General is the one who makes this initial decision, not the president (see: Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, Ken Starr).
That's because the decisions about what to investigate, whom to prosecute, and how to prosecute them are solely the responsibility of the Attorney General. That's what an independent Department of Justice is all about. It's hard to remember, but before George W. Bush took office, this is the way it operated and indeed is supposed to operate now. The aberration of Dubya's term (and the resulting complete politicization of the Justice Department under a parade of hapless Attorneys General) was just that -- an anomaly to the way the system is supposed to work.
So anyone who doesn't agree with Eric Holder's decision to try K.S. Mohammed in civilian federal court, feel free to criticize him for making such a decision. It's your right to disagree with such decisions. Feel free, even, to call for Holder's ouster. But don't try to drag President Obama into it, because he has no rightful place in the discussion.
Holder did talk to the groups that he thought had some valid input (i.e., non-political input) in the process of making his decision. He talked to the Pentagon and the Department of Defense (who are holding the prisoners currently in Guantanamo Bay), he talked to the mayor and police officials in New York City about the mechanics of holding such a trail and the security risks, and I'm sure Holder talked to quite a few other folks to get the details and information he needed to make an informed decision. But he did not talk to President Obama. Because he is not required to. A large part of the criticism currently being leveled is how Holder and Obama should have talked about how the decision would have played politically, either at home or in the rest of the world. But if the two had actually discussed this, it may well have been illegal for them to have done so. In other words, not only is Holder not required to have such a discussion, he is also not supposed to have such discussions in the first place.
So please, critics of Holder's decision, dig deep into your memory and try to remember the way the American system of justice worked before George W. Bush retooled it as an arm of the political agenda of the White House. Because the way it worked before Bush is actually how it is supposed to work, and that is exactly the way it did indeed work in Holder's decision-making process.
The C.I.A. doesn't get a vote, either
This one is so silly that I can dispense with it quickly. Many critics of Holder, in addition to "he should have gotten Obama's OK" are also -- stunningly -- saying "he should have gotten the C.I.A. to sign off on it as well."
Um, no.
The Central Intelligence Agency has many duties. Having a veto power over the Attorney General of the United States is not one of them. Nor should any sane individual argue that it should become one of their duties, because it is so far out of bounds of the mission of the C.I.A. that it isn't even visible on the horizon, as seen from Langley. I'm not knocking the C.I.A. here, just stating what should be obvious to people who really, really should know better -- we don't want the C.I.A. deciding who gets prosecuted and who does not in this country.
Neither do the victims
Some of these criticisms have been leveled from family members of victims of the 9/11 attacks. But, hard-hearted as it may sound, the victims don't get a vote in this either. This is the whole point of having a system of justice in the first place. Victims deciding punishment is not justice -- it is vengeance. An impartial judge and an impartial twelve citizens will decide this case. The victims may be heard during the trial or the sentencing, but they simply do not get a say in how the case is brought, or where. As I said, it's not easy for some to realize, but this also is a cornerstone of the foundation on which American justice is built.
The inevitability trap
But all of this is not to say, however, that defenders of Holder's decision have been completely blameless in this debate. Because they've fallen into a trap. To defend criticisms such as: "the defendants might actually get off on some technicality," or other versions of: "they could go free," Holder's defenders (up to and including President Obama) have painted themselves into a corner. And it's a tough corner to get out of. From an article today on this painted-in corner:
Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to [K.S.] Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."
Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of [K.S.] Mohammed's trial. "I'm not going to be in that courtroom," he said. "That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury."
Holder, in the same article, said: "Failure is not an option. These are cases that have to be won. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result."
On the one hand, Obama and other defenders of Holder's decision want to appear confident in the outcome. But on the other hand, they can't appear too confident, because that would broadcast to the world that what can be expected is a star chamber session -- where they might as well announce the guilty verdict before the trial even begins, and save everyone a lot of time and hassle.
This is a tough tightrope to walk. Ironically, in this situation, Holder is the one whose job it is to actually project such confidence in the trial's outcome. If this were a normal criminal case -- even a normal case that was highly political and had as high a profile -- it is the prosecuting attorney (the "D.A.," for instance) who is supposed to walk in front of the media's cameras and appear confident to the point of certainty that he or she is going to win the case and obtain a conviction. This is part of the psyching-out all attorneys (both prosecuting and defending) routinely perform in any high-profile case tried partly in front of the flashbulbs and the microphones. Holder's confidence is nothing more than par for the course, since one way to describe his job is as the head prosecuting attorney for the entire country.
But others defending Holder aren't on such solid grounds, which is why Obama was hedging his statements so much. If the President of the United States is saying he's 100 percent sure everyone will be found guilty, it smacks of the Old West and "hanging judges" and "hanging juries." If the outcome is so certain, then why go through the motions of a trail? Let's just take them all out back and hang them from their necks until dead.
This is kind of a specious argument from critics of Holder, as well. Because the course of action they are arguing for -- a military trial -- also requires the presumption of innocence and the possibility of an acquittal. Otherwise it wouldn't be seen as "justice" by anybody, even its defenders.
It's a hard thing to face, and perhaps an impossible one to admit in the face of political criticism, but every trial in all parts of the American justice system must have both the presumption of innocence and the possibility of acquittal. Otherwise it would not be justice, by any stretch of the imagination. As I said, this may be politically impossible for Holder's defenders to forcefully say right now, but it either is the truth, or this trial will be a star chamber session. You can't have it both ways.
Conclusion
The bare facts of the matter are that New York and the federal courts both have a near perfect record of conviction on the over 200 terrorism trials they've held. While this is in no way a guarantee of the outcome of the K.S. Mohammed trial, it certainly seems that the Department of Justice prosecutors, the judges, and the juries in New York are quite capable of rendering guilty verdicts in terrorism cases. Many of these cases involved "national security" issues, which were dealt with adequately without any wholesale release of national secrets to America's enemies. New York City says it is ready and willing to host the trial, and that they've got the security situation under control. Most people, when they first heard about the decision to hold the trial right next to the World Trade Center, thought it appropriate that the people who had seen the effects of the attack would be the ones sitting in judgment as jury.
To be honest, I still find the entire subject to be completely uncontroversial, and am amazed the debate even exists or has gone on this long. It's a relatively obvious choice for the Attorney General to have made. Nothing I've heard said against his decision has caused me to change my mind about it, either. The whole thing seems like nothing more than this week's stick which the Republicans have picked up in order to whack President Obama politically, in an effort to show him in the worst possible light at all times.
Here's a good test of the sincerity of the opposition (media talking heads, feel free to use this, with or without attribution): the next time someone is interviewed who says something like "but they could go FREE!" immediately ask them to wager on the outcome of the trial -- "I'll bet you $100 right here and now that they are all found guilty, if you'll bet that they'll be let off on some technicality." I bet very few of these critics would be willing to put their money where their mouths are. Because deep down, they know the criticisms they are bringing up are largely unfounded, and that they are instead merely interested in scoring some cheap political points.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
NEW! Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
Because President Obama, rightfully, had nothing to do with this decision. The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, is the one who should be being attacked and excoriated by critics of his decision. But, strangely, I have heard no loud cries for Holder to step down, or for Holder to be fired, or for Holder to be impeached. Almost all the energy in denouncing Holder's decision mentions him briefly, and then quickly elides over him in order to focus on the White House and Barack Obama.
{{{cough}}} Bush {{{cough}}} John Ashcroft {{{cough}}} Albert Gonzales {{{cough}}}
:D
I should have heeded your suggestion that I hold off on any comments until this commentary.. :D
My bust, CW... :D
Michale.....
"I'll bet you $100 right here and now that they are all found guilty, if you'll bet that they'll be let off on some technicality." I bet very few of these critics would be willing to put their money where their mouths are. Because deep down, they know the criticisms they are bringing up are largely unfounded, and that they are instead merely interested in scoring some cheap political points.
Here is a wager to test the sincerity of those advocating civilian trials for terrorists..
"If the terrorists are acquitted, your entire family will be brutally murdered."
Now, how many advocating civilian trials for terrorists would be willing to take THAT wager, eh??
I bet very few of these advocates would be willing to put their family's lives where their mouths are.
Because deep down they know that there is a very real possibility that many hundreds or thousands of innocent lives could be at risk, and that they are instead merely interested in scoring some cheap political points.
See how it works both ways??
So, does anyone here want to make the wager??
{{{chirrp}}} {{{chirrp}}} {{{chirrp}}}
Didna think so.... :D
Michale.....
The GW Bush legacy is insidious, indeed.
That's my take away from how the critics of trying KSM in a civilian court in New York City are forgetting about the independence of the Department of Justice.
And, you're so right about the fine line supporters of this course of action must tread...if this is going to be the showcase for all that is great about America to the Muslim world that I hope and expect it to be.
I must say, though, that I completely forgot about the hapless media's role in all of this. How did I think it would get broadcast to the world. Duh! The media is about the only entity that could screw this up.
Excellent piece, Chris - as per usual, you covered all the bases.
Hey, Michale
I wouldn't take that bet about my family being brutally murdered...you know, just on principle...and that goes for ALL of them, too...the family members, I mean. :)
Did you catch one of my favourite senators, Lindsay Graham, today and his cockamamie rantings at the Holder hearing before the judiciary committee?
That Lindsay...he's worried about the terrorist-in-chief receiving his Miranda rights. Doesn't he know that bin Laden just has to get captured to be convicted in a civilian court in New York City! He can crazy glue his mouth shut and it wouldn't affect the outcome of that trial, one way or the other.
Man, you just never know what Senator Graham
...will come out with next!
As for the death penalty...
I think we've had a discussion here about this in more general terms before. But, I had hoped that the death penalty would not be sought in the KSM case as I would love to see him spend the rest of his miserable life in solitary confinement. He deserves no better. He most certainly does not deserve martyrdom.
But, I have a question...does the fact that prosecutors will be seeking the death penalty mean that the jury is bound by that or could they decide against the death penalty and recommend instead life in prison?
Can I get to pick which family members would be brutally murdered? ;)
Yikes!
"If the terrorists are acquitted, your entire family will be brutally murdered."
Chris, this unnamed person always wants to pose a false choice. Let's say that, wonder of wonders, a Gitmo detainee is found not guilty. What then? They get a one-way ticket to somewhere that isn't here, is what. Your family is extremely unlikely to face any consequence, even assuming the (now former) detainee still wants to harm Americans in America.
A more honest question is, would you take a one-in-a-thousand chance of having a one-in-a-million chance of your family being killed. Earthquakes and car accidents are far more likely scenarios.
The analogy is false.
Liz,
And, you're so right about the fine line supporters of this course of action must tread…if this is going to be the showcase for all that is great about America to the Muslim world that I hope and expect it to be
What showcase?? A kangaroo court where the verdict and the penalty phase is all decided ahead of time.
That's yer "showcase"??
I wouldn't take that bet about my family being brutally murdered…you know, just on principle…and that goes for ALL of them, too…the family members, I mean. :)
I was simply putting the wager in better context with what is at stake here. We're not talking about losing a hundred bucks here. We're talking about that, if I am right, many hundreds of thousands of people could lose their lives.
But that very real possibility doesn't seem to concern anyone at all. It seems that political posturing is more important than insuring the safety of millions of American lives.
Look... Let's find some common ground...
Are we all agreed that these terrorist scumbags deserve to die for their crimes??
YES or NO....
But, I have a question…does the fact that prosecutors will be seeking the death penalty mean that the jury is bound by that or could they decide against the death penalty and recommend instead life in prison?
The jury can decide just about anything they want. Yes, there will be judge instruction, but they can choose to ignore that. If the jury is made up of those from the Hysterical Left, they can decide that, in order to "punish" the Bush Administration, the jury is going to acquit all terrorists of all charges and send the defendants home with a nice fruit basket and the apologies of all Americans for inconveniencing them and casting aspirations on their religion...
But I guess that answers my previous question.. :D Didn't you say before that you were NOT a pacifist??? :D
Chris, this unnamed person always wants to pose a false choice. Let's say that, wonder of wonders, a Gitmo detainee is found not guilty. What then? They get a one-way ticket to somewhere that isn't here, is what. Your family is extremely unlikely to face any consequence, even assuming the (now former) detainee still wants to harm Americans in America.
Wooot!!! Now I am an "unnamed person"!! Classic inferiority complex with a obsessive need to dehumanize those that are superior...
Ya'all know I will have "made it" when Ink starts referring to me as "He Who Shall Not Be Named"... :D
Anyways, the analogy is perfectly apt..
Whether Ink, or David or Liz or even CW admits it or not, there IS a real and tangible threat to the city of New York or elsewhere in the US by bringing these terrorists to NYC for a civilian trial. Percentages are anyone's guess.. It could be 50% risk, it could be 30% risk or it even could be 5% risk.
The question is.. Is it WORTH the risk??
Now, it's easy to say, "HELL YA" when one knows that they don't really have to risk anything.
So my "wager" simply personalizes the risk...
And let's take count..
Liz says NO, but she makes it on principle. The same principle that gives American Constitutional Rights to brutal murdering terrorists...
David says OK and is jotting down his victim's list. :D
And Ink??? Well Ink just sticks his head in the sand so he won't read the logical rational words of "He Who Cannot Be Named". :D
On another note....
No one has addressed the procedural questions in this upcoming trial..
Why is that??
Let's go over them again, because you can bet they are going to be the predominant defense strategy.
You are the sitting judge in the trial of the terrorists. How do you rule on:
1. Change Of Venue
How can the judge respond to this? It's a given that these terrorists simply cannot get a fair trial anywhere in New York. So, on what basis could a judge deny this defense request. As I said before, I think Chicago would be an excellent place to hold this trial. I mean, after all, Obama blew the city's chances with the Olympics. Maybe Obama can make it up to Daly and give the city the "Trial Of The Millennium"...
2. Sixth Amendment Violation
A speedy trial is guaranteed by the US Constitution. Since ya'all are hell bent on giving these scumbags American Constitutional Rights, how do you get around the fact that the terrorists were not afforded their 6th Amendment Rights?
3. Fourth Amendment Violations
According to the hysterical Left, there was no warrant to intercept the terrorist's communications. Therefore any evidence that was obtained must be thrown out. Any "arrests" or captures resulting from that tainted evidence are rendered null and void.
4. Fifth Amendment Violations
No Miranda warning, tortured to provide intel, self-incrimination... The list of 5th Amendment Violations are long indeed. Of course, they would be completely moot if those who love terrorists so much hadn't worked so hard to give the scumbag terrorists Constitutional Rights that Americans had fought and died for, but hay... The Hysterical Left must have their shiny bat to beat the Bush Administration over the head with, so.... so be it..
I know, I know.. It's hard to look past the glee the Left will have over humanizing terrorists and de-humanizing fellow Americans...
But, if one looks at things logically and rationally, one sees the very real and very dangerous pitfalls that are part and parcel to the path the President Obama is leading us down.
If just ONE American dies because we are having civilian trials of terrorists, that blood will be on Obama's hands. And you can bet the GOP will be right there to point to it over and over and over and over again..
Once again, I have to wonder how such a smart person could make so many dumb and moronic decisions. Obama seems to go out of his way to put this country and his fellow Americans at risk.
One has to wonder.. If everyone in the country had a 1 year "Flash Forward" for 2 minutes and 17 seconds on Nov 1st 2008, would Obama be President right now??
I can almost guarantee you the answer would be a resounding NO...
Food for thought....
Michale.....
Did you catch one of my favourite senators, Lindsay Graham, today and his cockamamie rantings at the Holder hearing before the judiciary committee?
Graham made several very good points that the Left finds impossible to refute..
Maybe you can take a shot here.. :D
"There's a difference between fighting wars and fighting crime."
"Never in the history of this country have we ever taken a non-citizen enemy combatant captured on a battlefield and put him in federal court."
"Al Qaeda is every bit as dangerous as the Nazis, and we're giving him the same constitutional rights as an American citizen"
" If we capture an al Qaeda member in Pakistan or Afghanistan tomorrow, what is the military to do? Because under domestic criminal law, you have to Mirandize them. The moment they are in the custody of the government and they begin to be questioned, they have a right to a lawyer and to remain silent. Under military law, we can talk to them all day long to find out what you know about the enemy that we're fighting so we can get good intelligence. So now the military is going to give up intelligence-gathering because we've criminalize the war."
" And the theory is because they killed 3,000 civilians, we're going to put them in civilian court, and the guy that bombed the Cole naval ship is going to go into military court. So you're giving a reward, basically, to someone for killing civilians. It makes no sense."
I am also constrained to point out (again) that 67 civilians died at Pearl Harbor. So, using the "Holder Method", we should have hauled all the pilots of the fighters and the bombers into civilian courts in Hawaii. And, apparently, (again, according to Holder) we should have done it, even while the war was still raging.
Do you see the utter foolishness of that position?? The complete ridiculousness of making war a criminal matter??
It all goes back to mindset.
Are we at war or not??
If we are at war, then we need to have that mindset..
If we're not at war, then we are committing brutal murder and atrocities in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So, are we at war or not??
Michale.....
Michale,
I like Lindsay Graham...always have, really. I don't agree with everything he says and he often surprises me with what he says but I like his style.
The points he was raising yesterday, however, struck me as being very disingenuous. Yes, he was bringing up some good points that should be raised...raised and dealt with. Nothing Lindsay said was a very persuasive argument to avoid the use of the civilian court option over the military commission option in some cases.
As for your question about whether we are at war or not and what our mindset should be...it can be argued that you are conflating two separate but related issues...and, I will...later, when I have more time!
Nothing Lindsay said was a very persuasive argument to avoid the use of the civilian court option over the military commission option in some cases.
My point (and Senator Graham's) was that there is absolutely NO GOOD reason to hold civilian trails except to appease the Hysterical Left.
And there are many MANY good reasons to keep things within the military.
It's really that simple.
Michale.....
Let's face facts here, people..
This isn't about "showcasing" our system of justice. If it were, we would not be putting on such a blatant and obvious kangaroo court.
This is solely and completely about a President whose poll numbers are in free fall. This is about an inexperienced president who is flailing around with soaring unemployment and ballooning budget deficits. He is in the midst of ugly wrangling over health care. He has blatantly failed on climate change, he is wrestling and dithering with indecision on Afghanistan. He is facing rising trade wars and churlishness from China and his showcase oratory skills are resulting in dead-end diplomatic efforts in Iran, Honduras, Israel and Palestine.
In short, Obama needs a distraction and he can always count on his base to rise and cheer if he drags out and starts pummeling on George W. Bush..
THAT is all that this is about.
Pure and simple...
2012 can't come soon enough.. Hell, President Palin would do TONS better than Obama on even her worst day...
Michale.....
Glenn Greenwald makes a great point in an article today that also brings up something you don't see in the MSM.
The DOJ is not defending a principle. If they were, they would bring all those held at Guantanamo to trial. Instead, it seems they are cherry picking cases they think they can win.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
While I don't think any of this has anything to do with "pummeling George W. Bush," I do think the DOJ would have a more solid foundation if they stood on principle.
The principle they seem to be standing by is "we'll stand on principle as long as it doesn't harm the Democratic party politically".
Cheers
David
The principle they seem to be standing by is "we'll stand on principle as long as it doesn't harm the Democratic party politically".
Just when I thought you were hopelessly lost to the Hysterical Left, you turn around and post something dead on ballz accurate... :D
Although we disagree on the pummeling George Bush. It has become apparent that any time Obama is taking real political hits, he somehow manages to drag out and dust off George W Bush and use him as a shield..
But there IS hope for you.... :D
As for Glenn Greenwald??? Even a busted analog watch is right twice a day.. :D
Michale.....
For the record (and I can't believe I am saying this) Greenwald outlines the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration perfectly...
It's a must read for those who believe that Obama's decision to try KSM et al in New York in civilian courts is based on "principle"..
It's based in politics, pure and simple. While it can be argued exactly WHAT kind of politics (Bush Bashing, Poll Number Free Fall, Desperation For A "Win" or (likely) a combination of all three) it is clear to all but the most virulent kool-aid guzzler that this decision is about principle or our vaunted system of justice, but rather political expediency..
Now, having said that, I really don't have a problem with the government gaming the system. Whatever is the best way to plant these scumbags terrorists in the ground is fine with me..
But what I object to is the hypocrisy of trying to claim it's because of some high and mighty principle...
Michale.....
You asked:
"RobHunt - So it would be OK with you for the president to order the FBI (part of the DoJ) to investigate political foes? That seems to be what you're saying."
My reply must have been deemed too inflammatory for HuffPo, so I followed you here to leave it:
Should a chief executive ABUSE his power and use his tremendous resources and state assets to make trouble for political foes, or to harass critics among the opposition? Of course not.
Perhaps you should ask Elliot Spitzer why he was directing the New York State Police to gather information, produce documents intended to damage New York State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, and leak them to a friendly media. Perhaps someone can get Bill or Hillary Clinton to explain who asked Little Rock P.I. Craig Livingstone to sit in a White House office and dig thru 700 to 900 classified FBI intelligence files of prominent members of the political opposition.
Despite these clear abuses of executive authority, the solution is not to disempower the office. The solution is to elect people who are worthy of the awesome degree of trust bestowed upon them. The chief executive is the head law enforcement officer of the federal government, as well as in all fifty states. In a world of limited resources, it is the executive who sets the agenda, and determines enforcement and prosecution priorities. I'll grant it's improper to ABUSE a trust by turning the apparatus of state against personal enemies, but it would be a dereliction of duty to REFUSE to exercise executive authority in pursuit of REAL enemies both foreign and domestic.
robhunt -
The rest of these guys are regulars, so I know they won't mind if I answer a newcomer first, here. Welcome to the site -- your comment didn't seem too inflammatory to me, but then I have nothing to do with HuffPost comment monitoring policy. The only rule here is don't be so personally abusive that I have to ban you. I haven't had to ban anyone yet, so you can see it's not that strict a policy so far. And, as I said, I didn't find anything inflammatory yet in what you wrote. First comments are always held for monitoring, but from now on you can comment here and it should appear right away (as long as you don't post more than one link per comment -- those automatically get held until I can take a look at them to see they're not spam).
I agree with you that executives from both political parties (I would add Nixon and his enemies list as well, but it happens a lot, that's just my favorite example) engage in this sort of thing. But that doesn't make it right. Wasn't right when Nixon did it, wasn't right when Clinton did it.
But you're also right -- the influence a president (or a governor, or even a mayor) has over his top cop (whether the AG, the state AG, or the local DA) is limited to setting policy and setting an agenda ("our Justice Department will very strongly pursue X type of crime"). But that's where it stops. All the nuts-and-bolts decisions about how to do so rest with the AG.
Or are supposed to. The position I took was a fairly idealistic one, I realize, but over on HuffPost you (I think it was you, forgive me if I remembered this wrong) took me to task for mixing up this ideal with the actual constitutional language setting up an independent judiciary. That's a false charge, I think, as before I wrote this I actually reviewed the constitutional language, and the AG isn't even mentioned (the difference between the Judicial Branch and the Justice Department is what you were talking about, I think). I don't believe I even mentioned the concept of the judge's role in the chain of command at all, because you're right, they're TOTALLY independent of everyone, being a separate branch and all. But I still maintain the AG is independent -- back when the subject du jour was whether to prosecute CIA agents, Obama got it right (even though the media barely understood the point) -- the decision was really up to the AG, and not him.
He can fire the AG any time he wishes (if he thinks he can sustain the decision politically), but he just is not supposed to interfere with his duties.
Thanks for continuing the conversation, though. I encourage any HuffPosters who get deleted to repost their comments here, as you have done.
-CW
RobHunt,
As I say to all newcomers here...
"Welcome to the party, pal!!!!
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D Don't worry, you'll get used to it, if ya stick around. :D
My reply must have been deemed too inflammatory for HuffPo, so I followed you here to leave it:
Oh, could I tell you some horror stories!!! :D But these pages are not the place for legitimate HuffPo bashing, so I will just let your own experiences speak for me..
I can also attest to the fact that CW has the patience of a saint. This is proven by the fact that I am still here. :D
Anyways, I have reviewed the exchange on HuffPo.. (I am still allowed to READ HuffPo... For now.. :D) I think that CW is being a bit over idealistic (as he claims or as he was accused of... :D) in his statements that the AG is independent of the President. Yes, in a perfect world (as CW states) this is the way it's SUPPOSED to be. But the reality is far from it. And, as recent history has shown us, whenever Obama get's in trouble politically, his handy dandy, trusty dusty AG is right there to bring out the BBB (not the Better Business Bureau but rather the Big Bad Bush) and fade the heat from his boss...
On another note, I find it comical that one HuffPo reader played the racist card.. :D Thank gods people here are not so moronic that they think every criticism of Obama and his administration is based in racism.
Finally, I noticed that LewDan is back amongst the living. I hope he will grace us with his presence here. Now THERE is a helluva debator!! :D
Again, welcome to the group, RobHunt. Here's hoping yer sanity remains intact. :D
Michale....