More on the prosecutor purge

Maybe you haven't been following this story. When the Patriot Act was renewed late last year there was a clause slipped into the bill the the Attorney General would have the power to appoint interim replacements for US district attorneys for up to 120 days without congressional approval.

On the surface this makes basic political sense. The Republican congress, just before it lost control of the legislature transfered some power to the executive, where Republicans still have control. That's not how checks and balances are suppoed to work...but so far it's kinda par for the course.

They then set about using this power, by purging 8-10 district attorneys. All of these attorneys were appointed by Bush and the saying goes they "serve at the president's will" so if the Pres decides to can them, that's hunkie-dory. I guess there's a minor scandal in that the administration initially claimed they were canned for performance reasons, but now it looks like they've come clean and are saying it's for political reasons.

Part of this new truth campaign is because four of these attorneys are scheduled to testify to congress this Tuesday. One attorney believes he has been fired because he did not indict a Democratic lawmaker before elections. Evidently, he was called by two members of congress and urged to indict before election. He didn't do it - and two months later was fired. He's about to testify to Congress on Tuesday. Another DA was responsible for the conviction of Former Republican "Duke" Cunningham, who is currently in jail for corruption. So a pattern is emerging wherein the administration is firing DA's who prosceute Republicans or do not indict Democrats.

The good news is the administration has finally learned that it's not the action that burns you, it's the cover up. So now they're claiming it has political motivations. They're probably going to run some partial-truth cop-out like they're trying to deepen the bench of judicial nominees. As I say there is some partial truth there and it might be enough to keep Congress and the Press off their backs for what's really a vindictive and corrupt purge of people who were actually doing their jobs.

But that's not really the story. The president could have fired the DA's without changing the Patriot Act (and who exactly made that change anyway?). By firing ten he would certainly affect the legal climate and send a message to all the DAs. But they went that extra step to get the law changed. Why? There's something more nefarious here - and that's the real story. The missing piece is the ability to appoint DAs without cnogressional approval. Who are they appointing and why? That's the key.

Oh, and let me just say that the Patriot Act was supposed to be for our national safety. Using that bill to work in riders for political machinations is disgusting. It's not a new low, but I don't think it's well known to the average American how much the administration is using 9/11 to screw the Constitution. It's time it became more well known.

On top of subpoenaing the fired attorneys, Congress should subpoena their replacements and ask them under oath whether they had any quid pro quo marching orders. The answers could be very interesting.