21 March 2007
The US Attorney "Scandal"
A couple of quick comments:
1) As I understand it, the position of US Attorney is a political appointment, and one that serves at the grace of the powers-that-be.
2) A tradition has grown up around the position that these federal prosecutors should not be fired (or "asked to resign") as the powers-that-be shift between parties. That tradition serves to insulate the prosecutors from the whims of administrations, and provides some stability to these offices and the cases they are working.
3) The scandal has allowed to flourish due in no small part to the mixed messages the administration has been ending regarding these forced resignations.
What can we learn from this?
One thing to take away from this is that tradition is an important consideration during deliberation of political action. Regardless of the right of the administration to appoint new attorneys, they should have considered that doing so without a non-political reason would bring the ire of their opponents, those who were fired, and the media looking for a scandal.
Another lesson to be learned is that we live in an era of cynicism and accountability. The press and the public feel they deserve a certain amount of openness and honesty from their government, even if they don't expect to really get it. Perhaps if the administration had openly given the reason for these personnel changes from the start, they wouldn't have provided more fuel for the scandal fire.
In the end, from a legal standpoint as far as I can see (though I'm no expert), no "wrong" was done. But we Americans hate to see dirty politics flaunted (it needs to stay hidden), and regardless of it's legality, it still seems wrong.
David Iglaeias, one of the eight US Attorneys that were fired, has a NYT Op-Ed today titled "Why I Was Fired", which really shines the light on the dirt in this scandal.
1) As I understand it, the position of US Attorney is a political appointment, and one that serves at the grace of the powers-that-be.
2) A tradition has grown up around the position that these federal prosecutors should not be fired (or "asked to resign") as the powers-that-be shift between parties. That tradition serves to insulate the prosecutors from the whims of administrations, and provides some stability to these offices and the cases they are working.
3) The scandal has allowed to flourish due in no small part to the mixed messages the administration has been ending regarding these forced resignations.
What can we learn from this?
One thing to take away from this is that tradition is an important consideration during deliberation of political action. Regardless of the right of the administration to appoint new attorneys, they should have considered that doing so without a non-political reason would bring the ire of their opponents, those who were fired, and the media looking for a scandal.
Another lesson to be learned is that we live in an era of cynicism and accountability. The press and the public feel they deserve a certain amount of openness and honesty from their government, even if they don't expect to really get it. Perhaps if the administration had openly given the reason for these personnel changes from the start, they wouldn't have provided more fuel for the scandal fire.
In the end, from a legal standpoint as far as I can see (though I'm no expert), no "wrong" was done. But we Americans hate to see dirty politics flaunted (it needs to stay hidden), and regardless of it's legality, it still seems wrong.
David Iglaeias, one of the eight US Attorneys that were fired, has a NYT Op-Ed today titled "Why I Was Fired", which really shines the light on the dirt in this scandal.
"I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political."
Labels: politics, scandal, US Attorney
