Spring Break
Amnesia in Washington
The Justice Department "on trial"
Bryan Cockrell
Issue date: 4/23/07 Section: Opinion
When I embarked on my spring terms at Cambridge University, I thought I would be distancing myself from constant news of the Bush administration's failures. Lent term passed smoothly: some occasional glances at The New York Times online left me with my typical frustrations about Bush, Cheney, Rove, the familiar gang. But hearing word that US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I instantly purchased a ticket for the next British Airways flight out of London to go back to Washington. (Or perhaps I simply wanted to visit home during Cambridge's ridiculously long Easter break, and coincidentally, I was free on April 19th).
So, with great enthusiasm, I headed down to the Hart Senate Building on Capitol Hill, stood in line for a surprisingly short time, and took a seat among all of the federal workers on their lunch breaks who couldn't resist seeing the show. Gonzales was being questioned for the motivations behind the firings of eight US Attorneys last year, a historically unprecedented removal. The reasonable suspicion is that the firings were politically motivated. The majority of the attorneys who were fired were engaged in public prosecution cases of conservatives.
From my seat, Gonzales' coiffed hair was barely visible above the milieu of cameras in the press area. The questioning was tough, mainly because several of the senators on the committee were former prosecutors. The chair, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), offered some strong criticisms, but he talked so slowly that his arguments lost their punch. By far, the most impressive interrogator was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who made it clear that US attorneys historically have an independence in their jobs that allows them to operate effectively in their administration of justice. As Whitehouse argued, the firings that Gonzales condoned tampered with this independence and tarnished the position of US attorney. How can one of them make an entirely just decision aware that their job may be in jeopardy? The most disrespectable performance was given by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who pretended that Gonzales was doing a fine job as attorney general. I was befuddled.
So, with great enthusiasm, I headed down to the Hart Senate Building on Capitol Hill, stood in line for a surprisingly short time, and took a seat among all of the federal workers on their lunch breaks who couldn't resist seeing the show. Gonzales was being questioned for the motivations behind the firings of eight US Attorneys last year, a historically unprecedented removal. The reasonable suspicion is that the firings were politically motivated. The majority of the attorneys who were fired were engaged in public prosecution cases of conservatives.
From my seat, Gonzales' coiffed hair was barely visible above the milieu of cameras in the press area. The questioning was tough, mainly because several of the senators on the committee were former prosecutors. The chair, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), offered some strong criticisms, but he talked so slowly that his arguments lost their punch. By far, the most impressive interrogator was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who made it clear that US attorneys historically have an independence in their jobs that allows them to operate effectively in their administration of justice. As Whitehouse argued, the firings that Gonzales condoned tampered with this independence and tarnished the position of US attorney. How can one of them make an entirely just decision aware that their job may be in jeopardy? The most disrespectable performance was given by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who pretended that Gonzales was doing a fine job as attorney general. I was befuddled.
Be the first to comment on this story