WASHINGTON, DC — In an article published by the New York Times two weeks ago, it was reported that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently asked seven U.S. Attorneys from around the country to voluntarily resign from their positions, a move that some Bush administration critics, including California Senator Diane Feinstein, decried as politically-motivated.As rebuttal to the assertion that the requests for resignation were driven by political concerns, a DOJ representative told the Times that the prosecutors had been asked to step down “based on a review of their performance in carrying out [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales’s violent crime priorities.”
Were the dismissals politics, or a matter of prosecutorial priorities?
Enter Radley Balko, a former Cato Institute policy analyst, current senior editor of Reason magazine and author of the blog at TheAgitator.com, who asks, in essence, “What’s the difference?”
In an article published on FoxNews.com yesterday, Balko notes that the “position of U.S. attorney is inherently political.”
“New federal prosecutors are appointed by the president, and he’s naturally going to appoint attorneys who share his values and views on crime,” Balko contends.
What was different about past presidential administrations, Balko argues, is the level of oversight regarding the attorneys selected by Bush to replace the attorneys who got the boot.
Balko notes that “in the past, the president’s appointments for the position had to be confirmed by the United States Senate within 120 days… (A) wholesale dismissal of attorneys appointed by a prior administration would be met with skepticism in the Senate.”
The reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, Balko asserts, put an end to that political equation.
“Included in that [PATRIOT Act reauthorization] bill was a provision allowing interim U.S. attorneys appointed by the president to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation. This means that the prosecutors appointed by President Bush to replace those he just fired will be able to serve out the remainder of his term without being subjected to scrutiny from the Senate.”
Hence, Balko contends, the Bush Administration’s policies and the priorities of the Gonzales DOJ are now one in the same, and they pair together shielded by a nifty little circumvention of Congressional oversight.
In a rare “mainstream” media echo of an argument commonly forwarded by members of the adult industry, Balko proceeds to take issue with the stated priorities of the Gonzales DOJ.
“All of this grows even more troubling when you consider what the priorities of the current Justice Department actually are. Attorney General Gonzalez himself, for example, has [said] that the ‘top priority’ of his tenure at the Justice Department would be, of all things, the prosecution of pornography. Not child pornography, mind you. Regular, adult porn – the kind starring and bought, produced, and sold by consenting adults.”
Balko also cites the aggressive prosecution of online gambling business owners, including business owners who are citizens of countries where online gambling is entirely legal, the costly “Operation Pipe Dreams” sting operation that led to the arrest of actor/comedian Tommy Chong and 54 others for distributing glass bongs over the internet and the Extreme Associates case as more evidence of the DOJ’s questionable priorities.
For the full article published by FoxNews.com, refer to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248339,00.html
Radley Balko’s blog is located at http://www.theagitator.com.
