Short Term Memory Loss: Mukasey Surprised by Terror Threats

It seems that Attorney General Michael Mukasey is not particularly well-read on the subject of American foreign policy in the 20th and early 21st centuries. He has recently come out and said that he was surprised how varied and geographically spread out the terror threats that the United States receives are. He then declined to talk about the nature of the terror attacks and then declined to say whether there was any increased risk for the country. So why even bring it up? Beyond reinforcing the constant paranoia about Islamic radicalism (he specifically pointed out fatwas) that the current administration would like us to live under, he used this opportunity to push his agenda: he urged Congress to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Nothing like a little fear mongering to try to push legislation through our elected bodies.

Looking beyond the hypocrisy of the top lawman in the country's plea for immunity of telephone companies who broke the law, it was Mukasey's quote at the bottom of the CNN article that really struck me. When queried about Bin Laden (who has recently put out two tapes denouncing everything but Islam), he said, "Am I alarmed? I am alarmed, I guess. I wish he weren't in a position to issue them." I'm going to take this statement as "I wish Osama bin Laden were not in a position of power from which he is able to issue messages to the world."

For those who choose to remember, I would like to visit one of the last showdowns of the Cold War between the US and the Soviets: the Soviet-Afghan War. I'm currently reading Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars" which is an in-depth look at the US's involvement in the Middle East (specifically Afghanistan and Pakistan) from 1979 to September 10, 2001 and that is where a lot of the following information comes from. One of the reasons that Osama bin Laden has such a position in world affairs today can be attributed to Langley, Virginia. The CIA was pumping hundreds of millions of dollars to the mujahadin freedom fighters who were resisting Soviet influence in Afghanistan. However, through a deal with Pakistan, all money had to go through their secret intelligence force the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which was more corrupt than America's CIA. Saudi Arabian money also flowed into Afghanistan from that country's General Intelligence Directorate (GID). The CIA, both through the ISI and secretly behind the ISI's back, trained mujahadin fighters on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to fight the Soviets. America also supplied the Islamic rebels with numerous weapons and materials. While not dealing with Bin Laden directly (as far as we know), there is little doubt that both the ISI and the GID had relations with Bin Laden (keep in mind that the CIA worked closely with both these agencies). The CIA also backed the anti-Communist Taliban (who had a mutually beneficial relationship with Bin Laden) and also printed Qur'ans for mujahadin fighters in order to stir up Islamic nationalism in the region to fight the Soviets. The CIA was well aware of the anti-American and pro-radical Islamic tendencies of these fighters and rebel groups, but foresight is not a CIA characteristic and the higher ups in the Reagan Administration felt that communism was the bigger enemy. It should come as no surprise to anyone, Michael Mukasey included, that there are strong rebel groups in the Middle East who are well-armed and well-trained who want to hurt America because we are the ones who enabled them. That's like giving an alcoholic a truckload of booze and being shocked when he gets shitfaced.

But in addition to all of this, the nearly 7 year hunt for Bin Laden after 9/11 has proven to be a massive embarrassment for the Bush Administration and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not to mention the CIA. We had a chance to capture or kill Bin Laden. We essentially had him cornered in Tora Bora in late 2001 and he literally walked right by us. The military thought that the best way to try to capture or kill the most wanted man in the world would be to have General Tommy Franks call the shots - from Tampa, Florida. The military also denied a general's request to commit a large amount of ground troops to the area to capture Bin Laden, something that the Bush Administration has admitted was "the gravest error of the war." Instead of admitting mistakes in our past foreign policies, those in the upper echelons of our government choose to blame Islam, Arabs, and those who oppose unconstitutional "security" measures (who, through this opposition, are labeled as siding with the terrorists).

Of course, when Mukasey says that he is surprised by the geographical diversity of the origins of all of these threats, one may assume that the Middle East is not the only region in the world from which these threats are coming from. A brief look at American foreign policy might yield some answers as to where this country's image is not tip-top. Nicaragua (and subsequently most of the countries in the surrounding area), the Philipines, Bolivia, and the Congo are a few. This government need not blame others for discontent with America in other regions of the world, as the CIA (which was run by our current Secretary of Defense during George H. W. Bush's second term) has done more than enough to piss people off.

In conclusion, it is slightly worrisome that our current Attorney General Michael Mukasey is surprised that there are factions within the world's population that strongly dislike America as a country and as a society. Obviously I'm sure there are groups out there who are batshit crazy and have no legitimate reasons to hate our country. But while there are groups like that, I'm sure that there are more groups who, though their tactics should certainly be reevaluated, have legitimate gripes with America due to foreign policy blunders that this country has made. To ignore American history abroad inevitably leads to grave misunderstanding (one of the reasons that we are still in Iraq). If Mukasey wants a little background information on what's going on in the world today I'll lend him my copy of Coll's book when I'm done with it. Peace.

Photos - Attorney General Michael Mukasey (www.newsgroper.com), Osama bin Laden (www.msnbc.msn.com), The CIA shield (commons.wikimedia.org), CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia (encarta.msn.com)

Outrage in California: Remember Lawrence "Larry" King

While I was perusing through Digg I found this tragic story about an 8th grade student out in Cali who was killed back on February 12 because he was gay. Usually this type of news causes quite a stir and ends up on nightly newscasts in the "National" section or on the front page of CNN for a couple of days, only to be forgotten. This story, unfortunately, did not get the chance to even garner national attention, but it really should. There are so many aspects of this story that are sad for both the victim and the shooter.

Lawrence King was shot in the back of the head in the computer lab of the E. O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, California (about an hour northwest of Downtown LA). The shooter was a 14 year-old classmate of King's who, according to the brief CNN article, had a "beef" with King. The "beef" that CNN refers to (which conjured up images of gang violence) was actually the fact that Lawrence (who went by Larry) was hitting on the classmate, 14 year old Brandon McInerney, as a way to get back at him for countless episodes of name-calling and verbal abuse because of King's sexual orientation. This apparently enraged McInerney so much that he brought a gun he got from his father's house and shot King twice in the head.

A look at both of the children's lives leaves one feeling sympathy for both of the boys. King had been living in a home for troubled and abused children for about six months prior to the shooting. His friends and classmates say that he was withdrawn socially at times and it seems that he was a kid lacking stability in his life; something that is essential for a teenager going through those tough adolescent years, especially a gay teenager who is subject to abuse at school.

Of course Brandon McInerney's life was not all silver spoons and roses, either. He grew up in a household with a father that abused his mother (even shooting her once, for which he spent 120 days in jail) and a mother who physically abused him. Both parents appear to have been addicted to drugs and the house that they lived in was a local drug house where junkies could be found passed out on the floor. McInerney, as I said earlier, procured the gun from his father's home where he lived after his parents got divorced.

McInerney's domestic situation, however, does not excuse his behavior and his harassment of King and his murder of King. My question is where was social services when McInerney's father was in and out of jail, beating up on his wife and drunk driving and all that? The tragedy in this is that McInerney is so young and was so full of hatred for King, apparently because of King's sexuality, and because of this ruined two lives (not counting the family and friends of both boys). McInerney is being charged as an adult with premeditated murder with the enhancements of use of a firearm and a hate crime. This means he is facing 50 to life if convicted.

Now onto the next question: why hasn't the media picked up on this? Time magazine's John Cloud wrote an article on it, but chose to take it from the angle of "Gays need to stop complaining that they are picked on in adolescence because everyone, at one point or another, gets picked on in adolescence." (Note, my paraphrasing of his words, not a direct quote). He then said that McInerney should be punished, but that prejudice against gays should not be made an issue because of this one incident. I don't have the time or energy to get into homophobia in this society, but suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with Mr. Cloud's argument of, essentially, "deal with it." Additionally, I do not know if that article was even in the magazine, as I simply got it online in a Google search. I have not seen the King murder discussed in any other national major news outlets, and this is disconcerting, as it deals with a lot of what plagues society today (hate, prejudice, violence, young offenders, etc.). Instead, outlets like CNN want to focus on some actress from Gilligan's Island being busted for grass or that Lisa Marie Presley is pissed about photos that make her look fat. It's unbelievable that bullshit "news" like that takes precedence over real stories like this.

So where does this leave the situation? Larry King is still dead and, unfortunately, nothing can bring him back. Brandon McInerney is going to go to prison for a very long time (thanks to Prop 21). But one has to think, why was McInerney allowed to live with such irresponsible adults such as his mother and father? I mean, not only was the father abusive to the mother, but he left his gun about so that his 14 year old son had access to it. Personally I feel that the father should be held slightly responsible, given that it was his gun and bullets that killed Larry King. But I don't have much faith in the state of California to do anything about it if they allowed Brandon McInerney to continue to live with him in the first place. The national news has not picked up on it (instead focusing on asinine stories) and two lives are ruined because of hatred. This is just a very sad story that should have been reported on more because of its severity and societal implications. Peace.

Photos - Lawrence "Larry" King in December 2006 (www.nytimes.com), Brandon McInerney (www.latimes.com), A memorial for King outside of E. O. Green Junior High, where the shooting took place (www.latimes.com)

Why Eliot Spitzer Needs to Resign

Unless you have been living under a rock, you probably know by now that Eliot Spitzer pays hookers to have sex with him. Obviously when this news broke one would assume that Spitzer's political career was essentially over (I would argue it is), but he is holding back on resigning. The media is spinning it as "Spitzer Says to be Weighing Resignation" or "Will prostitution-linked governor quit?" I'm wondering why it is even a question. There is no way that he can survive as governor with this over his head. He was an Attorney General of New York, the highest law enforcement officer of the state, and he pulls this shit as governor? You wanna talk hypocrisy, talk about Eliot Spitzer.

What's even more criminal than the outrageous price he paid ($4,300 for an hour or two with "Kristen"), is the fact that he ran on a "Mr. Clean" premise and that he would be a change from politics as usual and would clean up Albany. There is no greater "politics as usual" than the combination of sex and money. And there is little that is dirtier than outright paying a woman to have sex with you.

A look at Spitzer's short time as governor, however, would leave one thinking to themselves "Maybe this is not so surprising after all." Just look at the whole Joseph Bruno affair. In what has been labeled "Troopergate", it appears that Eliot Spitzer knew about all of the actions that he claims his aides took without his knowledge. These actions, such as misusing the State Police to keep tabs on Bruno, etc., were blatant abuses of power and led to an investigation by the Attorney General's office. Many New Yorkers believe that Spitzer was lying through his teeth about this affair (and I'm inclined to believe them). The melodrama got so weird that one of Bruno's people called up Eliot Spitzer's father (an 83 year old) and bitched him out on the answering machine about loans given to Eliot during the 1994 Attorney General elections in New York. You can hear the audio of the phone call here (the man who made it, Republican consultant Robert J. Stone, Jr. said that someone framed him by compiling various recordings of his voice and stringing it into that message). So while Spitzer went to Albany under the guise of cleaning it up, he ended up simply participating in its bullshit.

Back to Spitzer's being a john. It seems that this information did not come about from snooping for personal information on Spitzer (like he and his aides did on Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno), but a routine check into public corruption, as the IRS noted that Spitzer was moving around a decent amount of cash while trying to make sure no one knew about it. This is what first led investigators to Spitzer. It only turned up later that the money was going to shell companies of Emperor's Club VIP, the company that Spitzer used to get his gals. It seems that the main issue here is how Spitzer paid for the prostitutes. It appears that he made a clear effort to hide the authentic use of the money by transferring it to shell companies, among other things. This is called structuring, which is essentially moving money around to conceal how the money is being spent and where it is ending up. Some news outlets are reporting that this crime carries a maximum of five years in the pokey.

But "structuring" is not the only crime Spitzer may be guilty of. He paid for sex, which is prostitution and is punishable (for the first offense) by a fine of $500 (which is peanuts compared to what he was paying for the hoes) and imprisonment of no more than 90 days in the District of Columbia. There is also a very old record on the books called the Mann Act (of 1910) that makes it illegal (a felony, even) for someone to transport a woman (in 1978 the act was amended to make it gender-neutral in order to tackle child pornography) for prostitution or other immoral acts. As alleged in the affidavit released regarding this case, "Client-9 [Spitzer] would be paying for everything - train tickets, cab fare from the hotel and back, mini bar or room service, travel time, and hotel." (Top of page 35). So, in the sense that he paid for the transportation, he was responsible for her transportation and could be charged under this statute. Whether or not he actually will be is up to the prosecutors.

In conclusion, there really is no way that Eliot Spitzer can maintain his position as governor of New York. He ran on a platform that he was going to reform Albany, and one of the first things he did was use dirty tricks to attack Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno. On top of that, he is lying about not knowing the actions that his aides undertook to try to discredit Bruno. Now, of course, this whole prostitution thing. News outlets are reporting that this is not Governor Spitzer's first time using prostitutes and some say that it happened in Florida, too. In any event, Spitzer needs to step down from the governorship, as there are important legislative matters that need to be tended to (such as the state budget which is facing a $4.6 billion deficit). I will leave this post with a quote from Mr. Spitzer himself in 2004 after busting an intricate prostitution ring as Attorney General: "This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure. It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring." One could say the following about Mr. Spitzer now: "He was a governor who won in a landslide and promised to bring reform to Albany. He was, however, nothing more than a john."

Photos - Eliot Spitzer (commons.wikimedia.org), Joe Bruno (nymag.com), The New York State Capitol in Albany (photo.architect's flickr)

Governor Eliot Spitzer Apology

Rikers CO Facing Serious Charges (Again)

Ricard Walters (YouTube)

It appears that when I discussed a Rikers Correctional Officer named Ricardo Walters and his alleged robbery at gunpoint (allegedly his service weapon, mind you) of a middle-aged woman at a bus stop in Hempstead, New York, it was only a small picture of the overall story. It was reported today that Walters is now the suspect in a number of rapes around his hometown of Hempstead, New York. In addition to two rape charges, Walters has been charged with six counts of kidnapping, five counts of robbery, and four counts of sex abuse, among other charges.

I remember that when I posted about Walters' first arrest and brought up his previous incident in which he killed a man who was stealing a CD player from his car, I was rebutted by a commenter who said that I was judging Walters and that I did not know him. I was told that he was a church-going family man. This all could be true, but these new allegations, especially coming after his alleged robbery of the woman at the bus stop last September, are going to be hard to defend. Various news outlets are reporting that they have DNA evidence that links Walters to some rapes and they fear that he may have committed more. In the words of Nassau PD detective Anthony Repalone, "The bottom line is: This guy, he's a predator." Plus, DNA evidence tends to be pretty solid in court.

In one incident, Walters is alleged to have ambushed a woman after she loaded her 3 year old into her car and was putting her groceries away. He allegedly put a gun to the child's head and forced the mother to perform sex acts on him. How does someone who does this maintain a job at Rikers Island for 11 years? I certainly hope Walters never took advantage of any inmates at Rikers, which has been known to happen before. A look at any complaints against Walters by inmates or staff should be revisited, as it appears that Walters may not be an upstanding citizen. What should also be revisited is the shooting back in April of 2006 in which he killed someone allegedly breaking into cars in his Hempstead neighborhood. If this man is capable of doing what prosecutors charge he did, then another look should be taken at this case. It could be he was well within his rights when he shot and killed the guy that he did, but given these circumstances a closer look is certainly garnered.

Sign at Rikers Island, where Walters used to work
 (peterkreder's Flickr)

As if this case could not get more disgusting, Newsday is reporting that police are looking into the possibility that Walters targeted Latina women under the assumption that they may be undocumented immigrants in this country and thus less likely to report any kind of assault. This possibility has arisen because, as the article explains, all but one of his known alleged victims were Latina and most were undocumented.

As I said before, all of this is mounting against Walters as his innocence looks slimmer and slimmer. Barring a massive conspiracy against him by multiple women who probably do not know each other, then I would say that DNA evidence is pretty damning. One of the Newsday articles said that he was already in jail awaiting trial for the robbery charge. These are going to be tough charges to defend oneself against (again, DNA evidence). It will be interesting to see whether he pleads out or not (if the DA is even willing to offer him anything).

Staten Island Officers Indicted in Halloween "Arrest"

As I discussed last November, two NYPD officers out of Staten Island's 120th Precinct got in way over their heads when they decided to mess around with a 14 year old kid who they thought was throwing eggs at cars on Halloween night. Instead of arresting the boy (I don't even know if you can get arrested for that, back in my city the cops just took your eggs and told you to get lost), they put him in cuffs, put him the back of their police car and drove him to a remote part of River Road in the neighborhood of Bloomfield - three miles from where they picked the boy up - and told the boy to get out of the car. They then, according to the Staten Island Advance - allegedly began prodding him in the ribs with their boots until another call came over the radio. They then uncuffed the boy - some reports say they removed his shirt and shoes, others say the boy did this himself to avoid detection in the dark woods (these items where white) when he saw a pair of headlights that he feared were the two cops coming back - and left him there. The boy ended up at a nearby Burlington Coat Factory in his shorts, where he was helped by a security guard. Good thing the cops got another call, who knows what they would have done had they not had to do real police work.

The two cops - Richard Danese and Thomas Elliassen - were indicted on Monday of 33 counts, some of which are felonies. When the arrests occurred the cops only got DATs and were suspended without pay before being reassigned to modified duty (according to the SI Advance). But to make matters worse for himself, Richard Danese decided to illegally log onto a computer at the Brooklyn Gang Squad (where he was reassigned) with a seargent's log-in and password to look up the boy's past criminal history (once) as well as the boy's father's (38 times). That won't help with professing your innocence. For these actions, Danese has been charged with additional crimes which could put him in the pokey for four years. One of the cops has been alleged to have said, "We know you and all your nigger friends [the boy is black] friends talk about how you don't like us. We don't like you either." This would be hard to prove in court, because it's going to boil down to a he-said-he-said argument, but if these two are convicted of this, I wouldn't doubt that one of them said that. It takes a twisted person to leave a 14 year old boy in the middle of the woods by himself at night. Imagine if something had happened to him out there?

Obviously with the Sean Bell case currently taking place, this is not good for the NYPD's public image. It makes one wonder what the screening process is for people who want to join the NYPD as people like this can make it onto the force (as one commenter here said). The two have been suspended without pay and are expected to be arraigned on these charges today (the suspension apparently can last up to 30 days, so it will be interesting to see what the NYPD does after the 30 days, as Richard Danese has proven himself to be a liability even in modified duty). If convicted, of course, these two lose their jobs automatically because felons cannot serve on the force (though those convicted of misdemeanors can, so maybe they'll plead out to keep their jobs, which, it seems, they should not have anyway). Peace.

Photos - Thomas Elliassen (left) and Richard Danese outside of Staten Island Supreme Court on Tuesday (www.nydailynews.com), A Staten Island Advance article with some details about the crime, with the boy's face cropped out (northshore.noizart.com)

America Helps Turkey Invade Northern Iraq, Then Tells Them to Get Out

What do you do if you're Washington and have had a hellish Iraq "conflict" with the entire country except the Kurdish north region? Well, of course, go stir the pot in the most peaceful area of Iraq. That's what the United States is on course to do, as they provide intelligence to Turkish forces who have temporarily invaded the Kurdish portion of Iraq looking for members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).

This story is a long one, as the Kurds have been under foreign rule since around the 7th century when the Ottoman Empire took over their area. Currently they are split into four nations: Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Iran. To say the least, it appears that the Kurds have not been treated as the other Arab inhabitants of the region and have turned to nationalism in an attempt to establish an autonomous Kurdish nation. Promises of a Kurdish state in Iraq in 1974 were reneged because the Kurds are sitting on a good deal of oil. Everyone knows about the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein upon the Kurdish people of northern Iraq in the Anfal campaign, one of the reasons that Iraq needed a "regime change" at the hands of George W. Bush.

The Kurds in Iraq's northern neighbor, Turkey, have not fared very well in that country, either. When the PKK went to war with the Turkish army, the Turks responded by not only crushing the PKK, but terrorizing Kurdish villages in southern Turkey. The Kurdish language was illegal until 1991, the Kurdish political party is illegal, Kurdish nationalism is deemed separatism and is illegal, and the only Kurd to make it to parliament back in 1994 was jailed for 15 years for calling attention to Kurdish issues. So for the Kurds, life in northern Iraq and southern Turkey has been no picnic.

Hence the PKK (which stands for Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan). The PKK is the radical and militant arm of Kurdish nationalists, which started as a Marxist-Leninist political organization but turned to more violent means in 1984. As stated previously, the PKK has been in a few wars with Turkish forces, but in 1999, after the capture of the PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, they decided to stick to political means of reaching an autonomous nation. Since then, the PKK has split into separate factions, some violent and some not, all assumedly under the umbrella of PKK. The PKK has done some less-than-stellar things, such as some suicide bombings and other civilian-related violence in an attempt to harm Turkish economic interests and markets and are thus labeled as a terrorist organization by the UN, America, and the EU.

Recent attacks in Turkey have inspired Turkish forces to enter into Iraq to try to capture PKK militants who they suspect to be involved in a few attacks on Turkish soil. This involves going into northern Iraq, the Kurdish region of the country, and searching for the militant Kurds. This is where things get very tricky. The majority of Kurds in northern Iraq who do not commit any attacks on the Turks will not be pleased to see a major oppressive power (Turkey) rolling into their communities with weapons searching for the PKK. The United States really finds itself stuck in this situation.

Turkey is a key ally in the "War on Terror", mainly because of its prime location to the north of Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Additionally, Turkey has helped us out a bit during the Cold War by letting us build missile installations for American Jupiter missiles to scare the Soviets. So we've got this country that we should not piss off because they've helped us out in the past and we need them for the future (if we continue with Cold War II: Terrorism).

On the other side, there are the Kurds. Shat on by Iraq and Turkey for the past century and seeking an autonomous state, which they have already been promised almost 30 years ago, they are clearly being repressed by both countries. If Bush wants to export democracy to the Middle East, then helping the Kurds might be a good step (of course, communist paranoia still applies here and I am sure that the PKK's insistence on a Kurdish state and their Marxist-Leninist beginnings probably scare him). But helping the Kurds does not equal helping the PKK; in fact, it would help the Kurdish people and then invalidate any future action of the PKK because it would have a Kurdish state and would not have anything more to fight for.

So what do we do? We try to play both sides. The word from Washington was, in essence: go do what you need to do, but make it quick and don't piss too many people off. This way, they can say that they gave their blessing to Turkey (which they already did by giving them intelligence) and also say that they were acting in the Kurds' best interests by telling the Turks to not linger. It's basically like saying to one friend that they can go into another friend's house (after they told the first friend where the friend lives and what times he is or is not home) looking for something that is very hard to find as long as they don't make too much of a mess and are quick about it.

Plus, there is the whole issue of taking intelligence from the Americans on finding hidden peoples in mountainous regions in the Middle East. First of all, the Americans giving them the intelligence clearly shows whose side they are on. Second of all, why would you take intelligence information from a country that has not been able to find Osama bin Laden, despite having every chance at Tora Bora? Also, given that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and General Myers (Chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff) all said that the Iraq conflict would be quick before we went into Baghdad, where does America find the authority to tell another country to be quick in their military efforts in Iraq? That's like OJ Simpson being outraged that Robert Blake got off.

In conclusion, America should not have helped out either side. Turkey has a lot to lose if they screw up as bad as America has fucked up in Iraq. They have been softening their repression of the Kurds in their country (including freeing the aforementioned jailed parliament member) in hopes of improving their chances of joining the EU. If they go into Kurdish Iraq and bungle it a-la America, then the EU certainly won't be accepting them anytime soon. Therefore, the Kurds are in decent position (obviously if the Turks completely disregard EU opinion and slaughter Iraqi Kurds, then the US, who is essentially in charge of the country, would have to step up). All in all, America really has little to gain in this predicament and should have stayed as neutral as possible, but now the Turks are on the defensive against accusations of bowing to American pressure to pull out of Iraq. Egos and diplomacy don't mix well.

Photos - The PKK flag (CRW Flags), General Yasar Buyukanit, the man in charge of Turkish forces, who has also vowed to rid Turkey of Kurdish separatists (yandunts.blogspot.com), Map of Kurdish distribution in the Middle East (www.globalsecurity.org), United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates (commons.wikipedia.org)

Subpoenas No Longer Legally Binding?

It appears that subpoenas - the court order embodied by a piece of paper that requires one to show up at court and tell the truth under the threat of punishment (namely contempt of court) - have become legally obsolete, at least in Washington. Two staffers of George W. Bush have refused to comply with subpoenas from the House of Representatives regarding the infamous firings of eight U.S. prosecutors last year which led to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' resignation. White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers refused to turn over documents and testify in the case, respectively, despite receiving congressional subpoenas to do so.

The case of the firings of the U.S. attorneys, of course, was highly contentious and controversial and raised many questions about the role that politics played in the pink slips. While the White House maintains that the firings occurred because of poor performance, Time magazine reports that all but two of the fired attorneys "had won outstanding evaluations for competence." So why the firings? It seems that some of the prosecutors had been leaned on by some republicans concerning politically-related crimes and the timing of their indictments. One of the attorneys who was fired was slated to be replaced by Timothy Griffin, a Karl Rove protege. It becomes harder to argue that these firings were not politically motivated as one reads more and more of the facts.

But that was all two years ago. This current story is about the fact that, under George W. Bush's orders, both Bolten and Miers ignored congressional subpoenas and now will face no consequence from the top law enforcer in the country - Attorney General Michael Mukasey. This is the definition of being above the law. To invoke executive privilege in a case like this is absurd. It is important to understand that the theory of executive privilege has no basis in the Constitution; there is no mention of it. (Michael Dorf, a Columbia Law professor, has a good, brief look at executive privilege in America on that link). So, essentially, it is an invented theory meant to create more autonomy of the executive branch from the legislative and judicial corners of government.

But let's pretend that this theory is legitimate for certain situations. Bolten's and Mier's situation simply does not seem like one of them. Michael Mukasey says that the contempt of Congress statute does not apply to executive branch officials who invoke executive privilege. I guess that begs the question: who does it apply to? Mukasey is setting a dangerous precedent, because now any executive official could do anything they want and claim executive privilege when asked to testify about their role in a situation. Madison is rolling over in his grave right now.

It's pretty clear that something about the firings of these attorneys was amiss. Gonzales resigned due to this scandal, the aforementioned lawyer slated to replace one of the fired attorneys (Karl Rove's protege) never did get that post because of the controversy surrounding it, and now Bolten and Miers are hiding behind claims of executive privilege. At the end of the day this case does not involve national security or anything that would jeopardize the American public if these documents and testimony become public. The only thing at stake here is the reputation of the Bush administration, which is apparently hiding something so damning that taking a public opinion hit by hiding this information is a better alternative than complying with the law. Peace.

Photos - Alberto Gonzales answering some questions (www.doublespeakshow.com), Harriet Miers (hugozoom.blogspot.com), Joshua Bolten (thinkprogress.org), Michael Mukasey a little frustrated (www.msnbc.msn.com)