The Observer, March 30, 2007
Volume XXXIX, Issue 22
Political Connection: Firings of U.S. Attorneys create controversy
It seems like we are approaching yet another big shake-up in the Bush administration. This time, it seems Attorney General Alberto Gonzales could be on his way out.
Despite the fact the Bush has stated that he fully supports Gonzales, we had a similar story play out earlier this year with Donald Rumsfeld. In this situation, many were also hoping for his resignation – Rumsfeld submitted it only a few days after Bush publicly stated that he had great confidence in the former defense secretary.
Unlike Rumsfeld, though, Gonzales is not in a bind over Iraq. Instead, he is being brought under fire for the removal of eight U.S. Attorneys in December. Many of the attorneys were given very little notice about their firings and were hard-pressed to find answers as to why they were forced to leave.
Brought to light through the media circuit, the entire drama has now reached a Senate committee hearing. With this hearing, a number of subpoenas for Justice Department Officials and a few White House staffers have been given.
Now it seems logical that the attorneys should have been told a reason for the firings, but that is not necessarily true. The U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be asked to leave at any point in time without an explanation. In fact, this is not even the first time an issue like this has risen.
During the Carter Administration, Attorney David Marston was also fired under suspicious circumstances. In 1978 he was fired for what was determined to be political reasons and Carter did not acknowledge the firing incident until it became a newspaper story. Marston however, has publicly noted some differences in his experience versus the current situation.
With all that in mind, this entire ordeal takes on a bit of a different tone. Yes, it seems like the loss of such high profile jobs deserves an explanation, however by creating a Congressional Committee with officials testifying under oath, more issues have arisen.
One in particular is executive privilege. Currently, Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have been subpoenaed, but it will be very difficult for the committee to prove that executive privilege does not apply (which would only not apply if criminal conduct is indicated).
Overall, it should be interesting to see how this entire situation ends. The Bush administration has a history of digging itself into a political hole in defending allegations until it has no other choice. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the administration has learned from its past mistakes yet.
Davis is a first-year student and has yet to decide on a major. She is a member of the Spartan Tappers and the Case Camerata Orchestra and enjoys writing, reading, watching movies, and good debates.
