| My dearly departed friend, Dr. Nellie McKay, former distinguished professor at UW-Madison used to often say, "I yearn for the day when there will be enough Black women in this town and at this University when I don't have to like everyone just because they are one of only a precious few Black women here." I thought deeply about her statement as I reflected on the big fuss about U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the firing of the Federal Prosecutors. Mr. Gonzales has achieved much in a very short time. He rose from very humble beginnings as a child of migrant farm workers to a graduate of Harvard Law School, personal attorney for Governor George W. Bush, to his current position as U.S. Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department. He has a wonderful story to tell and when you look at him, he is very impressive and appears to be an affable guy. Attorney General Gonzales is under fire because he recently dismissed 8 U.S. Attorneys. There are 93 U.S. Attorneys appointed to serve in designated districts across the nation. All of them, as is the case with Gonzales, are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. The U.S. Attorneys, as is the case for Gonzales, serve at the pleasure of the President. As such, they can be fired for cause, or for no cause. On the heels of the dismissals, Gonzales was called to testify in January before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Chuck Schumer asked Gonzales about his role and criteria for firing the individuals in question. Gonzales replied, "I would never make a change for political reasons or to jeopardize an ongoing investigation." In the ensuing maelstrom, what has come to light is the fact that at least four of the eight U.S. Attorneys were in fact fired for political reasons related to whether they did or did not pursue specific investigations that were advantageous to the Bush Administration. Karl Rove, the President's Chief Political Advisor who has also been implicated in the politics of these firings, has dismissed the actions taken by the Judiciary Committee as mere politics. In a recent interview, he posited that based on constitutional law, these positions were created to serve at the pleasure of the president. He admonished that it was hypocritical for the Democrats to make political hay out of these dismissals while they said nothing when President Clinton had dismissed several more when he came to office. What differentiate these firings from others are when, how and why they were fired and the half-truths and differing explanations used by Gonzales to justify his actions. This "changing of the guard" rarely happens in the middle of a presidential term. It is almost always at the end or beginning of a new term. In four of the cases in question, Republican politicians called the Federal Prosecutors to try to influence the pace and direction of active investigations. Efforts were undertaken to thwart investigations to protect other Republicans; while in another, Republicans interfered to try to get a Federal Prosecutor to pursue an investigation against a Democrat before the November election. The most egregious case occurred with the firing of Carol Lamb, the Federal Prosecutor for the Southern District of California as an attempt to thwart an investigation of Republican Duke Cunningham that was getting a lot of attention in the media. Senator Schumer and Chair of the Judiciary Committee Senator Patrick Leahy are in the process of conducting hearings to get to the bottom of this. Based on the information obtained so far, they have called into question Mr. Gonzales' credibility suggesting that his actions have put a cloud of mistrust over the Justice Department. They have accused Gonzales of continuing to act as if he was the President's Legal Counsel in direct conflict with his duties as the nation's chief law enforcement officer and thereby undermining the mission and role of the Justice Department. They noted with alarm that Mr. Gonzales had even considered invoking the emergency provisions contained within the Patriot Act to give him the authority to appoint replacements for the eight that were fired, bypassing the Senate's review/approval process. Senator Schumer, who is leading the investigation, has indicated that he, with the support of Senator Leahy, intends to subpoena Karl Rove and the President's Legal Counsel, Harriet Myers, to get them to testify under oath. Speculation is that the Bush Administration will use Executive Privilege to keep them from testifying. It appears that Bush is making a calculated move aimed at protecting Rove and Myers while he distances himself from Gonzales. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' former Chief of staff, has expressed his willingness to testify before the Committee. The call for Gonzales ouster is getting louder and with broader support as Senator John Sununu, Republican from New Hampshire, has joined the Democrats in stating "Attorney General Gonzales must go as he no longer has the confidence of the President." Capital Times editorial writer John Nichols poses some even more troubling questions about broader implications regarding what has transpired here when he asks: "How many U.S. attorneys got the call asking them to start conducting inquiries and prosecutions designed to harm Democrats and help Republicans? How many of those U.S. attorneys agreed, either explicitly or by their actions, to do what they were asked? How many U.S. attorneys did not need to get a call in the first place because they were already pursuing the sort of cases White House political czar Karl Rove wanted them to be on as the difficult 2006 election approached?" What a huge embarrassment for an administration that came into office vowing to restore ethics in the White House. As I reflect on this situation, one side of me says, in the spirit of Nellie McKay, given that there are so few of "us" at the top, I should force myself to like him and lend him my support. However, similarly to how I feel about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, each person must be judged by their deeds, not from whence he or she has came nor by their ethnic or racial background. Like Gonzales, Thomas and Rice have given full, blind and uncritical commitment to Bush and both has been given huge promotions to major positions as a result. While I certainly disagree with the way that all of them advance the far right conservative agenda, the sad part about all of this is the fact that these three individuals, like the "Wooden Horse inside the Walls of Troy" are in positions where they could do a lot of good -- particularly for those who are downtrodden, in need of services, legal and social justice. It is too bad that Gonzales erstwhile friend "W" is turning his back on him. In what may seem as a contradiction, as someone who has served "at the pleasure of" and been victimized by racism, politics and a media feeding frenzy, I feel some sympathy for Gonzales. The fact that he is a person of color who has climbed to a highly visible position at the top makes him an easy target for politicians, petty jealousies and racism. Given that, I suspect that his tenure as U.S. Attorney General will very soon be coming to an end. |
| The Literary Divide/Dr. Paul Barrows U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under fire |
 |
 |