Lessons Learned

Spencer Ackerman travels the world, assembling apropos anecdotes. For example, when he was in Mosul he saw a Provincial Reconstruction Team helping to oversee a terrorism trial and teach the Iraqis a thing or two about the rule of law:

Then at the end, as people are milling about and chatting on their way out the door, one of the PRT officials tells a judge how important it is to stand up against terrorism and promote equality and fairness before an impartial system of law. The judge nods at the platitude. "Tell me," he says through a translator, "is it true that in America, Bush can fire prosecutors he doesn't like?"

Let freedom ring.

Comments

The PRT official should have told the Iraqi judge that yes, the President can fire U.S. Attorneys, because, by law, they are political appointees who serve at his pleasure -- but Bush still got shit for it, because the law also allows Congressional Democrats to be hypocritical opportunists. Instead of uniting America, Democrats chose to divide us with partisan political opportunism like this.

Posted by Fred | February 17, 2008 4:01 PM

Indeed, Fred. I agree that is exactly what the PRT official should have told the judge. Of course, I'm an anti-imperialist and (unlike Matt and most on the left) I think that U.S. defeat in Iraq would ultimately be a good thing for the world, and therefore I favor totally incompetent occupation propaganda.

Posted by Kalkin | February 17, 2008 4:17 PM

I've corrected Fred's post to make it a useful response to the Iraqi judge:

The PRT official should have told the Iraqi judge that yes, the President can fire U.S. Attorneys, because, by law, they are political appointees who serve at his pleasure -- but Bush still got shit for it, because the U.S. Attorneys he fired were insufficiently committed to trumping up bogus charges of election fraud against groups hostile to the Bush regime so as to further entrench the Republicans in power. So it wasn't so much that he fired prosecutors as it was the pressure brough to bear to bring politically motivated prosecutions in the first place that was the problem. Fortunately, the U.S. is a free society where opposition parties are able to point out the corruption in the ruling party without violent reprisals and hack supporters of the ruling party are left to bitch in blog comment sections about the opposition party "dividng America."

Posted by Led | February 17, 2008 4:27 PM

Fred is half-right--the point of the U.S. Attorneys scandal was not that Bush fired them--all presidents can do that--but that the mid-term purge for such transparently partisan and possibly corrupt reasons (e.g. not enough bogus electoral fraud charges against Dems) was fairly unprecedented and demonstrated contempt for honest and competent prosecution.

So, while we shouldn't be embarrassed that American law allows the president to fire prosecutors, we should be embarrassed that we chose a president who handles the job so irresponsibly.

Posted by Consumatopia | February 17, 2008 4:35 PM

I think it's "let freedom reign."

Posted by A different matt | February 17, 2008 4:48 PM

Come on, let's not lose sight of Matthew's/Spencer's post and at least agree on one thing: the supreme test for the Rule Of Law in a nation-state is whether some lawyers who work for the executive branch can be fired by the chief executive. If they can, no rule of law.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | February 17, 2008 5:13 PM

I eagerly await the election of Obama or Clinton, so that I can see Matt explain how the summary replacement of US attorneys by a Democrat is somehow different.

Posted by James Robertson | February 17, 2008 5:41 PM

James,

It is very different since, traditionally, the incoming president reviews these positions and replaces most or all of them. Replacing U.S. attorneys in the middle of his term as Bush did, then lying as to why they were replaced by somehow suggesting that the replacements were performance based; that process is, as anyone with a working neuron can see, different! Don't play dumb and act as if forced replacements of people who do their jobs with integrity rather than as "loyal Bushies" is the same thing.

Posted by tw9ff | February 17, 2008 5:49 PM

Hey, James Robertson, nice misdirection. Of course Presidents have the right to replace US Attorneys. Clinton/Obama will do it too, but they'll be doing it to get rid of people who have demonstrably misused their offices for partisan hackery, not to get rid of people who REFUSED to do that!

Posted by Ref | February 17, 2008 5:50 PM

I eagerly await the election of Obama or Clinton, so that I can see Matt explain how the summary replacement of US attorneys by a Democrat is somehow different.

He won't need to. It's already been explained over, and over, and over again. It's commonly done by incoming presidents, and they're ALL FIRED AT ONCE. Every last one of them. This fire 8 or 9 of them mid-term thing for what are obviously political reasons for not bringing enough 'voter fraud' indictments is pretty unusual.

And please, please, please tell me you would have given Clinton a pass if he had done exactly the same thing. I would enjoy the laugh.

Posted by Ted | February 17, 2008 5:51 PM

James: When administrations change, political appointees also change. Happened in 2000, in 1992, in 1988, in 1980, in 1976, .... What's your point?

Posted by Craig Nelson | February 17, 2008 5:52 PM

You folks who still can't figure out the difference between the routine purging of the prosecutors that occurs with every change of administration and the blatantly political firing of a handful of prosecutors who refused to pursue bogus politicized cases against Democrats, can I ask something? Are you willfully this stupid, or does it just come about accidentally?

Posted by Fast Eddie | February 17, 2008 5:53 PM

You folks who still can't figure out the difference between the routine purging of the prosecutors that occurs with every change of administration and the blatantly political firing of a handful of prosecutors who refused to pursue bogus politicized cases against Democrats, can I ask something? Are you willfully this stupid, or does it just come about accidentally?

Posted by Fast Eddie | February 17, 2008 5:54 PM

"I eagerly await the election of Obama or Clinton, so that I can see Matt explain how the summary replacement of US attorneys by a Democrat is somehow different.

Posted by James Robertson | February 17, 2008 5:41 PM"

On the off chance that you are not a troll and really don't understand, I will endeavor to explain in some detail. When a new Administration comes in, it is SOP for all political appointees, including US Attorneys, to tender their resignations. The new President has the discretion to replace all, some, or none of these appointees with his or her own selections for the posts. Particularly if the change in Administration is accompaninied by a change in party, it is more likely than not that the new President will replace virtually all such appointees within a matter of months. Bush replaced most of the US Attorneys that had served under Clinton in this way in 2001 and nobody raised a peep of objection because that is the way it works.

The 2005-2006 firing of a handful of Bush-appointed US Attorneys bears no resemblance to this standard political process. The evidence is overwhelming that those US Attorneys were fired because they declined to pursue politically motivated prosecutions against Democrats or, even worse, had the gall to prosecute or investigate some of those loyal Bushie Republicans. The number of mid-term firings of a President's own appointees is unprecedented and the "reasons" given by the DOJ for the dismissals are contradicted by mountains of evidence.

It's really not hard to see the difference.

Posted by peachkfc | February 17, 2008 6:08 PM

"I eagerly await the election of Obama or Clinton, so that I can see Matt explain how the summary replacement of US attorneys by a Democrat is somehow different.

Posted by James Robertson | February 17, 2008 5:41 PM"

On the off chance that you are not a troll and really don't understand, I will endeavor to explain in some detail. When a new Administration comes in, it is SOP for all political appointees, including US Attorneys, to tender their resignations. The new President has the discretion to replace all, some, or none of these appointees with his or her own selections for the posts. Particularly if the change in Administration is accompaninied by a change in party, it is more likely than not that the new President will replace virtually all such appointees within a matter of months. Bush replaced most of the US Attorneys that had served under Clinton in this way in 2001 and nobody raised a peep of objection because that is the way it works.

The 2005-2006 firing of a handful of Bush-appointed US Attorneys bears no resemblance to this standard political process. The evidence is overwhelming that those US Attorneys were fired because they declined to pursue politically motivated prosecutions against Democrats or, even worse, had the gall to prosecute or investigate some of those loyal Bushie Republicans. The number of mid-term firings of a President's own appointees is unprecedented and the "reasons" given by the DOJ for the dismissals are contradicted by mountains of evidence.

It's really not hard to see the difference.

Posted by peachkfc | February 17, 2008 6:09 PM

I'll bet even the Iraqis can understand the difference between the routine of terms ending when a new president is elected (& in bush's cases, when the Supremes appoint one) & the firing of groups of prosecutors because you have an unlimited supply of ideological whack jobs who attended the 165th best law school in the country & they need jobs.

Posted by tom | February 17, 2008 6:09 PM

"I eagerly await the election of Obama or Clinton, so that I can see Matt explain how the summary replacement of US attorneys by a Democrat is somehow different.

Posted by James Robertson | February 17, 2008 5:41 PM"

On the off chance that you are not a troll and really don't understand, I will endeavor to explain in some detail. When a new Administration comes in, it is SOP for all political appointees, including US Attorneys, to tender their resignations. The new President has the discretion to replace all, some, or none of these appointees with his or her own selections for the posts. Particularly if the change in Administration is accompaninied by a change in party, it is more likely than not that the new President will replace virtually all such appointees within a matter of months. Bush replaced most of the US Attorneys that had served under Clinton in this way in 2001 and nobody raised a peep of objection because that is the way it works.

The 2005-2006 firing of a handful of Bush-appointed US Attorneys bears no resemblance to this standard political process. The evidence is overwhelming that those US Attorneys were fired because they declined to pursue politically motivated prosecutions against Democrats or, even worse, had the gall to prosecute or investigate some of those loyal Bushie Republicans. The number of mid-term firings of a President's own appointees is unprecedented and the "reasons" given by the DOJ for the dismissals are contradicted by mountains of evidence.

It's really not hard to see the difference.

Posted by peachkfc | February 17, 2008 6:09 PM

A triple-post wasted on a faux-naif troll. Oh well.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 17, 2008 6:13 PM

Every appointee is fired and replaced as soon as practical whenever a new administration/party takes over the White House. Not just the Justice Department but in every department and agency in the executive branch. There are occasional holdovers but usually only among those few who were not political type appointees.

If Democrats recapture the White House. Thank God. If Republicans keep control, a lot of the appointees from the Bush era will remain somewhere in the executive branch.

Voting for a President is never for one person it's for a whole host of people. People from the President's party.

Posted by cal1942 | February 17, 2008 6:17 PM

But JimBob basically gave us a preview of the whine that will be heard from the GOP next year, should an incoming Dem president want to clean house at the DoJ.

See, appointing Liberty U grads and Fed Soc true believers to career positions, as well as political ones, is a way to ensure that Bush Justice outlasts Bush; as soon as any attempt is made to get rid of the remaining Monica Goodlings and Sara Taylors, the usually suspect will start wailing about politicised firings.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 17, 2008 6:50 PM

Bush has the right to fire political appointees.

His DOJ hacks like Gonzalez, OTOH, do NOT have the right to lie about it to Congress in order to insulate the President from political criticism.

And the executive branch does NOT have the right to destroy records and defy Congressional subpoenas in order to try to contain the political damage when it becomes clear that the Attorney General and other DOJ officials lied to Congress.

An administration that ignores subpoenas and laughs at FOIA requests and asserts national security privilege in civil litigation is an administration that defies the rule of law. It's pretty simple.

And that's before we even touch on administration policies which have been illegal or in defiance of treaty obligations.

Posted by Fluffy | February 17, 2008 6:56 PM

I disagree about the firing of US attorneys.
Recall if you will that in 2001 they investigated Clinton for suspected Obstruction of Justice in the pardoning of Mark Ritch (Rich?).
Clearly several of the firing were done to obstruct the prosecution of republicans.
Its just unfortunate that the rule of law does not apply to Republicans.

Posted by Aaron | February 17, 2008 7:11 PM

What we opprobriously call stupidity, though not an enlivening quality in common society, is nature’s favorite resource for preserving steadiness of conduct and consistency of opinion, Fred. According to Bagehot.

Posted by ww | February 17, 2008 7:13 PM

Nice debunking of the troll, all, but their purpose isn't to act dumb or pretend to be edified, but to detract from the substance of the post that spawned their trolling.

I think it would be more entertaining to faux-troll them back, for instance, "That the Iraqis know about Bush's totally legal and ethical firing of US Attorneys shows that they're getting international TV news. Freedom's on the march, etc." I mean, really, trolls, for shame. You should've come up with that.

Posted by JB | February 17, 2008 7:28 PM

Sigh.

Fluffy pretty much covers the obivous points. It's perhaps worth noting that while Bush can fire U.S. attorneys for no reason at all, firing them for bad reason is against the law, even if it takes impeachment to enforce the law.

I used to know the guy who is running the PRTs in Mosul and he's everything you might want in a US diplomat, smart, reasonable, educated, fair, experienced, an old Africa hand, and ex-intelligence. He's even had some nice success in Iraq. I saw he was running PRTs and felt kinda sorry for him. His current job is kinda like being an excellent engine mechanic on the Titanic. He's shown up in the press a bit but I'm surprised a smart reporter like Spenser hasn't attached himself to him and hung around long enough to hear what he really feels about his job.

Also, FWIW, I've heard exactly the same conversation several times from hanging around UN workers in NY. The whole world, unfortunately, is learning from Bush's bad example.

Posted by numbertwopencil | February 17, 2008 7:29 PM

I believe he is looking for apposite anecdotes, not apropos anecdotes. Apropos anecdotes would mean that he is looking for information concerning anecdotes. Further decline in the use of the English language by the most educated members of the chattering class.

Posted by GBH | February 17, 2008 7:46 PM

I believe you mean to say he is looking for apposite anecdotes, not apropos anecdotes. Apropos anecdotes would mean that he is looking for information concerning anecdotes. Further decline in the use of the English language by the most educated members of the chattering class.

Posted by GBH | February 17, 2008 7:47 PM

I got about two thirds of the way through these comments, and nobody seems to have noted that while the president can indeed fire US Attorneys at will, their replacements must be confirmed by the Senate. This provides a deterrent against political firings, and bad replacement appointments for purely political reasons.

Except.

The Patriot Act was amended after passage to permit the president to make interim appointments of indefinite duration, a change to the law that the Judiciary Chair, Arlen Specter claimed to be unaware of. It was out of the ordinary for the president to fire USAs en masse in the middle of his term. It was unique, and a violation of the separation of powers, to exempt the replacements from confirmation.

Posted by jayAckroyd | February 17, 2008 7:50 PM

Matt, all of a sudden you've become the snarkiest motherfucker that ever snarked, and I love you dearly for it.

Posted by fumphis | February 17, 2008 7:54 PM

See also, Bush ally Musharff.

Posted by Mr.Murder | February 17, 2008 8:52 PM

Shorter Fred:

"Mmmmm, Bush's ass smells good!"

Posted by marty | February 17, 2008 9:17 PM

Matt, all of a sudden you've become the snarkiest motherfucker that ever snarked, and I love you dearly for it.

And so do I, baby! You're such a cute boy! So serious. Policy wonks turn me on. I much prefer you to your brother Julio, the singer.

Posted by Queer Eye for the Straight Y | February 17, 2008 9:17 PM

It's almost cute (and predictable) when people scream "troll" at any information that challenges their official talking points. Here's a reality pill to the "only firing attorneys at the beginning of a Presidential term is normal" crowd.

The norm was to RETAIN all of your predecessor's attorneys; after all, that's what Carter and Reagan did. They only replaced them as their terms expired to keep some continuity. Clinton firing 93 of them all at the same time was unprecedented, and incidentally, one of them was investigating the Whitewater scandal.

In any case, whether Bush's 8 firings were justified or not, they were totally legal (as were Clinton's and everyone else's). He could fire them for incompetance, for political reasons, or because he didn't like the way they looked when they got up in the morning. It doesn't matter. Change the law if you don't like it.

And the quote above is pretty stupid anyway. The President only has the power to fire these guys, not every prosecutor in the whole country.

Posted by John Rohan | February 17, 2008 9:38 PM

"Matt, all of a sudden you've become the snarkiest motherfucker that ever snarked, and I love you dearly for it.

Posted by fumphis | February 17, 2008 7:54 PM"

I take credit, after I launched a semi-inappropriate personal attack on MY last weekend, he went on a rampage. Which we all love!

Posted by Andruw | February 17, 2008 9:39 PM

Since this post and thread were already pre-trolled for everyone's convenience, I would like to point out that:

Prosecutors != Judges

Posted by Kolohe | February 17, 2008 9:41 PM

"the Whitewater scandal."

Thanks for the laugh, John.

Posted by Andruw | February 17, 2008 9:42 PM

I hope Obama or Clinton will renominate the attorneys Bush fired midterm. That would be a nice kick in the cojones of these bushophiles.

Posted by Willem van Oranje | February 17, 2008 10:25 PM

God you American pigs make me sick. B...b....b....b....b....it's not the system's fault!

Posted by Name | February 17, 2008 11:24 PM

God you American pigs make me sick. B...b....b....b....b....it's not the system's fault!

Posted by Name | February 17, 2008 11:25 PM

God you American pigs make me sick. B...b....b....b....b....it's not the system's fault!

Posted by Name | February 17, 2008 11:26 PM

John writes "In any case, whether Bush's 8 firings were justified or not, they were totally legal.."

Then why did so many LIE about the firings?

Posted by Steve J. | February 17, 2008 11:43 PM

In any case, whether Bush's 8 firings were justified or not, they were totally legal (as were Clinton's and everyone else's).

In any case, whether Bush's 8 firings were illegal or not, they were totally unjustified, as would be any case where a president fired prosecutors he himself appointed, for being insufficiently willing to prosecute made-up fake-ass not-real crimes.

In any case, whether Bush's 8 firings were illegal or not, that Iraqi judge was dead right, that we look like a bunch of damn silly idiots sending people to lecture anybody on judicial impartiality, when our totally partial President is firing the attorneys he already hired based on their partiality, for their insufficient partiality towards prosecuting the nonexistent make-believe crimes the President is partial towards seeing prosecuted.

Posted by Dan | February 18, 2008 2:27 AM

"On the off chance that you are not a troll and really don't understand..."

That was your first mistake.

Anybody who asks the question is almost certainly a troll because the whole issue has been covered over and over by now, and the reasons for the investigations are quite clear.

These right wing scum aren't interested in facts, or precedent, or anything else. They're liars and bullies, and all they care about is beating down any opposition to their brain dead belief systems.

So they troll. Not one of these jerks here has ever come up with one single half-way rational argument for any of their posts. It's all random, revisionist, content-free, evidence-free assertions to which we're all supposed to bow down and obey.

Fuck 'em.

Call them what they are - trolls.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 18, 2008 4:28 AM

I sure seem to remember leading up to the 2006 elections that a lot of Republicans, including Tom Delay, were under investigation or about to be indicted. I wonder how all of that turned out.

Thankfully, the military trials at Gitmo have all proceeded without a hitch, according to the people I heard on the illegal wiretaps that AT&T execs provided me after I legally and humanely waterboarded them.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | February 18, 2008 4:46 AM

Why do rightists so thrill to the phrase "at the pleasure of the president"?

One thinks of Lenny Bruce's Lone Ranger routine -- "clean him up & get him ready."

But they must have something else in mind.

Posted by tantalus | February 18, 2008 5:24 AM

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers26%5Cpaper2590.html

This Pashtun anger on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border can be contained and hopefully reduced only by a change in the present counter-terrorism methods of the American and Pakistani Armed Forces, which involve a disproportionate use of force, resulting in a large number of civilian casualties----particularly children studying in madrasas. It is alleged that during the three years from 2005 to 2007, at least 600 children studying in the madrasas were killed by the Pakistani security forces during their bombing of tribal madrasas suspected to be terrorist training centres, either on their own or at the instance of the Americans. While no one can find fault with bombing of clearly identified terrorist training camps, the bombing of madrasas because of a suspicion that they are in fact terrorist training centres is adding to the anger.

Posted by Arun | February 18, 2008 7:14 AM

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers26%5Cpaper2592.html

"Good riddance."

That has been the reaction of a large number of Chinese to the announcement of Hollywood film director Steven Spielberg that he has resigned as an artistic adviser to the forthcoming Beijing Olympic Games because of China's continued support to the Sudan.

Posted by Arun | February 18, 2008 7:18 AM

To Richard Steven Hack - thanks for proving my point above.

Posted by John Rohan | February 18, 2008 7:20 AM

To a great extent, by the time George Bush fired the prosecutors for not bringing enough cases against Democratic office holders, he had already so badly mismanaged every aspect of his office, made such attacks against the Constitution and the rule of law, and so baldly lied to bring about a War to Mask his Incompetence, that every single one of his actions became suspect.

This is what happens when members of Congress don't take their job seriously enough and refuse to impeach the most impeachable president in US history.

Posted by Pope Ratzo | February 18, 2008 8:17 AM

"Tell me," he says through a translator, "is it true that in America, Bush can fire prosecutors he doesn't like?"

"Well, yeah, but you know how some powerful people can do something that's wrong but is hard to prove in court, so they get away with it? Bush is like that. Most Americans would like to be rid of him."

Posted by RSA | February 18, 2008 8:51 AM

To John Rohan, Fuck off cocksucker!!!! We have had enough of you.

Posted by horatius | February 18, 2008 9:17 AM

Of course, John Rohan is a freakin' liar. From the CREW website:

"Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.

In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served prior to the Bush administration.

The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys."

Spread your shit somewhere else, fertilizer boy...

Posted by jjcomet | February 18, 2008 10:46 AM

The PRT official should have told the Iraqi judge that yes, the President can fire U.S. Attorneys, because, by law, they are political appointees who serve at his pleasure

Oooooh yeah, THAT would have worked.

Obviously the Iraqi judge knows that Bush fired those attorneys because he "doesn't like" them--thus undercutting the idea of fairness and impartiality before the law. That was the issue in question, not whether or not Bush had the legal right to do what he did.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | February 18, 2008 11:00 AM

To jjcomet:
Before you call me a liar, how about giving us an actual link? You're going to need it, because if you read through the comments here, even the biggest Bush-bashers in this thread agree with me on this point - that Clinton replaced them all right away.

Maybe you were in diapers back then, but some of us were old enough to live through the episode. But give us the reference, I would LOVE to see it.

Posted by John Rohan | February 18, 2008 11:23 AM

Sorry for the triple post, I don't comment very often and don't have the mechanics down. And to those who have pointed out that I was probably just feeding a troll, you may be right, but on the other hand, I don't think it hurts to lay out the facts again once in awhile. There may not be many here who don't know the whole story, but there are some newbies out there.

Posted by peachkfc | February 18, 2008 12:05 PM

Unfortunately, peachkfc, it looks like you don't know the full story either. See my first post above.

Posted by John Rohan | February 18, 2008 12:15 PM

Yes, John Rohan, I saw your post and I'd heard everything you say in there before. I don't want to get into a pissing contest on this, so all I'll say is that I stand by what I wrote. And, by the way, I didn't call anybody a troll.

Posted by peachkfc | February 18, 2008 12:31 PM

Firing federal Senate-confirmed attorneys is one thing. Replacing them with political hacks (and by-passing the senate confirmation process in doing so) is real similar to Musharraf firing all the judges who disagreed with his legitimacy as a duly elected president, and replacing them with ones who would uphold his claim to the presidency.

The claim that Bush has the right to ignore Constitutional law & precedent is becoming passe.

Posted by judyinnm | February 18, 2008 2:49 PM

I'm sure this has been said before, but even though Federal prosecutors serve "at the President's pleasure", that concept does not extend to a complete removal of prosecutorial independence. There are other concepts at work in the US legal system. For example, the President cannot legally fire a prosecutor simply because the prosecutor refuses to indict his political opponents, or for refusing to drop investigations of political allies. Concepts like "obstruction of justice" are also in play.

Posted by Whispers | February 18, 2008 4:22 PM