Another Bush Assault on the Rule of Law: Going After JAG Lawyers

The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage, who won a Pulitzer for his reporting on Bush's use of signing statements, has a story out about how the Bush Administration is attempting to gain greater control over JAG Corps attorneys. This latest attack by the Bushies on the rule of law would put approval of promotions for JAG attorneys in the hands of political appointees at the Pentagon.

This is a quote from the story:

The Bush administration is pushing to take control of the promotions of military lawyers, escalating a conflict over the independence of uniformed attorneys who have repeatedly raised objections to the White House's policies toward prisoners in the war on terrorism. The administration has proposed a regulation requiring "coordination" with politically appointed Pentagon lawyers before any member of the Judge Advocate General corps - the military's 4,000-member uniformed legal force - can be promoted.

A Pentagon spokeswoman did not respond to questions about the reasoning behind the proposed regulations. But the requirement of coordination - which many former JAGs say would give the administration veto power over any JAG promotion or appointment - is consistent with past administration efforts to impose greater control over the military lawyers.

The former JAG officers say the regulation would end the uniformed lawyers' role as a check-and-balance on presidential power, because politically appointed lawyers could block the promotion of JAGs who they believe would speak up if they think a White House policy is illegal.

Why the media, with the exception of reporters like Savage, doesn't write about how the Bush Administration is trying to undermine the rule of law in America is amazing. Since 9-11 this Administration has claimed the right to:

1. Hold Americans indefinitely without trial and without access to attorneys;
2. Torture terrorism suspects;
3. Send people to other countries to be tortured for information;
4. Hold people indefinitely without any sort of judicial or quasi-judicial review;
5. Determine what laws it will and will not enforce;
6. Intercept Americans' electronic communications without any use of a warrant;

just to name a few. Now we have this latest assault on the idea that attorneys should be free to represent their clients to the best of their ability.

If this was being done by a Bill Clinton, the right-wing noise machine would be in hysterics and the mainstream media would be echoing the shrill screams of people like Limbaugh, Hewitt, Coulter, and Beck.

Since the installation of George W. Bush as President by virtue of a black-robed coup carried out by a Republican majority of the United States Supreme Court, this country has seen all out assaults on the concept of the rule of law. The media's response: to talk about Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

Bush Administration Keeps Corrupting the Rule of Law

As this article from the Washington Post makes clear, the Bushies are appointing partisan hacks to be immigration judges. This is a quote from the article:

At least one-third of the immigration judges appointed by the Justice Department since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been administration insiders, and half lacked experience in immigration law, Justice Department, immigration court and other records show.

The rule of law can be corrupted so many ways. An obvious way to corrupt the rule of law is for judges to take bribes. Another way is to apply the law in ways that favor one group over another. A third way is shown here: appoint unqualified people as judges because of their party connections.

Deep down inside Bush doesn't believe in the idea that the law should be applied equally to everyone. He is a person who has benefited from a system that rewards those who are born into the right social class. He was raised by a mother and a father who truly believe that the rich are better than the rest of us. Then, he couldn't get into law school at the University of Texas. Not exactly Harvard or Yale. No wonder this guy hates people like the Clintons, people who got into Yale Law School on their merits and not on their connections.

Because Bush really doesn't believe in the rule of law, he doesn't mind trashing the system by appointing unqualified judges. Alberto Gonzales, being a sycophant and all around Bush butt kisser, is more than willing to help him carry out the politicization of the Justice Department. This administration can't end fast enough and when it is over, Americans are going to have to do major repair work on the Department of Justice to remove the taint of corruption that Bush and Gonzales will have left behind.

Bush's Problems With Lawyers

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read an article in Newsweek about Monica Goodling and Alberto Gonzales. In that article is a fuller description of the confrontation between Ashcroft, Gonzales and Card over the Justice Department's refusal to sign-off on certain surveillance tactics being used by the Bush Administration.

One thing that a lot of people don't know about George W. is that while he was able to get into the Harvard Business School, it was not his first choice for a graduate school. He also applied to the University of Texas's law school. That school refused to admit him and its Dean suggested that he would not be happy as a lawyer.

Now, here is a question to consider: does W's failure to get into law school help explain the contempt that he has for lawyers and for the law? He has made a lot of political points taking shots at trial lawyers. He has tried to politicize the Justice Department. He has installed a hack yes-man as United States Attorney General. He has disregarded laws he doesn't like and when he signs a law that he disagrees with often issues a "signing statement" indicating that his administration has no intention of following the law.

All of these acts are evidence of the disdain that he has for lawyers and for the law as a profession. Now a lot of business people don't like lawyers. Lawyers are often the people who screw up a deal by insisting on language in contracts that complicates a contract. Corporations see lawyers as people who sue them and insist on exposing the way they do business. So this attitude of W's is not surprising, but he is not any business school graduate. He is a person who runs the Executive branch of the United States government which, by the way, carries out its function by using laws.

Given his background, it is fair to ask whether we are now stuck with Gonzales as AG because the University of Texas's law school wouldn't let him in. Maybe a lot of this stuff could have been avoided if they would just have let W come to school and not insisted that he be qualified.

Guiliani & Romney Believe WHAT?

In this excellent article by Glen Greenwald, posted on his blog, he points out that both Romney and Guiliani were asked by the Club for Growth if they thought that the President should have the power to imprison Americans without any review. Romney said he would have to consult a team of lawyers and Guiliani said that he would hope to use such power infrequently. As Greenwald points out that means that two of the three leading Republican candidates for their party's nomination seem to believe that it is not un-American for the President to imprison American citizens without any review by the courts.

The Republican Party is becoming the party of right-wing authoritarianism, although perhaps "becoming" is really not the right word. Perhaps the phrase should be "continuing to be". It is incomprehensible that a person who is running for an office that requires the holder to take an oath to protect the Constitution would believe in something that is clearly unconstitutional.

Such a belief is not at all "conservative". It is instead very radical. It is radical to suggest that the President has the power to detain American citizens without review by someone independent of the executive branch. Such review is one of the pillars of the rule of law in this country. Candidates who believe otherwise shouldn't be elected.

Newsweek Poll: 58% Think U.S. Attorneys Fired Because of Politics

Newsweek magazine has a poll out which shows that 58% of all respondents, including 45% of Republicans, think that the seven U.S. Attorneys were fired for political reasons. Forty-seven percent agreed with the statement that the Bush Administration has introduced politics into too many areas of the Federal government. This U.S. Attorney scandal is a big problem for the Bushies because we Americans pride ourselves for having a "government of laws, not men." We take justifiable pride in our justice system. The sacking of U.S. Attorneys for not carrying out the political bidding of Gonzales and his political hatchet men is not sitting well and the only remedy that Bush has is to have Gonzales resign. The question becomes, though, what does Gonzales know about the Bush administration that Bush doesn't want exposed and what happens if you make old Alberto walk the political plank. (You can read the Newsweek story about its poll by clicking on the link in this entry's title.)

Threats Against the Rule of Law

The rule of law depends on, among other things, being represented by counsel. Counsel that is competent and free of intimidation. That's why the article linked to in this entry's title is so troubling.

Apparently the United States has been holding an Australian man named David Hicks for almost five years. Originally he was charged with three charges relating to terrorism, attempted murder, aiding the enemy, and conspiracy to commit war crimes. Those three charges have been reduced to one charge, providing material support to terrorists, which wasn't even a crime for Americans to commit until after we had seized him. He is to be tried by a military tribunal and is being represented by Major Michael Mori, a U.S. Marine.

Now Major Mori may be charged with crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice by the lead prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis. Apparently it is a crime under the UCMJ to use contemptuous language toward the President, the Vice President, or the Secretary of Defense. This crime is punishable by imprisonment. Obviously this will impede Major Mori's ability to conduct a defense of David Hicks. It would seem that even if Major Mori is guilty of this offense, Colonel Davis could have waited until after the Hicks trial, which is due to start fairly soon, to charge him.

This case, by the way, is receiving a lot of attention in Australia. It is not doing the US's image with the Australians any good and hurts our reputation as a nation that believes in the rule of law, even for its enemies.