THE FIRST VICTIM OF TYRANNY

For at least thirty years, the great democracy created by our founding founders has suffered from alarming attacks on the rule of law caused by increasing abuse of power by the executive branch with the cooperation and acquiescence of both of our other two branches of government - the legislative and the judicial. This has resulted from the ascendency to power by a very few people for whom power is the primary motive. The question is: should we forgive them for they know not what they do, or stop them before they lead us into dictatorship? It is important that none of us assume that it cannot happen here. I'll explain why in these comments. The people must become informed. For this we need great leadership. This is the first in a series of comments on that subject. The comment below was published in an op-ed piece by me in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on May 10, 2007.

Larry Shafer


THE FIRST VICTIM OF TYRANNY
The Rule of Law

In the past 25 years, prior to the recent decision by President Bush to dismiss eight U.S. Attorneys, only two U.S. attorneys have been dismissed by any president before those attorneys completed their four-year terms. Both of them were dismissed by President Reagan for reasons which were justified and well-documented.

According to the Congressional Research Center, the circumstances under which President Bush fired the eight U.S. Attorneys are without parallel in at least the past one quarter of a century.
The President does have the power, granted by the Constitution, to replace the Attorney General and all 93 U.S. Attorneys. This is frequently done, as President Clinton did when he took office. However, President Bush is not merely using a power granted him; he is abusing that power. This is not a fine point. For more than six years, the Bush administration, in response to criticism on how it abused its powers, has attempted to confuse the public by claiming that other presidents have done the same thing when they have not.

There are many examples of this erosion of the rule of law by the Bush administration. This discussion is limited to the firing of the eight U.S Attorneys.

The prosecutorial and investigative powers of the United States Department of Justice are awesome. The F.B.I uses its investigative powers at the request of the U.S. Attorneys. Until now, the independence of the Department of Justice and its U.S. Attorneys has always been maintained as consistent with the rule of law under the Constitution. Any effort by the political arm of the Federal Government to coerce U.S. Attorneys to attack American citizens it considers political enemies, or to refrain from prosecuting its political friends who should be prosecuted, is the beginning of tyranny.

The first victim of tyranny is always the rule of law. “We are a nation of laws, not of men,” said John Adams, a prime architect of our Constitution.

During this recent debate, what defenses have President Bush and his supporters offered?
1. They frequently claim that all presidents fire U.S. attorneys and that they “serve at the pleasure” of the President, and have added that President Clinton was even worse because he fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office.

As indicated above, this claim does not fit the facts or the law.

2. They, including Attorney General Gonzales himself during his
recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, frequently claim that “there is no evidence whatever that we have done anything wrong” or “that we dismissed the attorneys for political reasons.”

To the contrary, nearly all of the evidence points in the opposite direction. We still don’t know why these prosecutors were dismissed because no one has produced any reason for the firings other than the President has the power to do it.

Mr. Gonzales seems unaware of the definition of evidence. It was evidence when several of the fired prosecutors testified that they had been the subject of strong political pressure to act contrary to conscience. It was evidence when e-mails demonstrated that Karl Rove was involved in the firing decisions. This is alarming. The political arm of the Bush administration, knowing nothing about law or the Constitution, was allowed to give orders to the Department of Justice. There is a good deal more evidence from witnesses as well as documents, many of which the Administration claims are lost.

3. Many have attempted to make this an issue about the lying and
incompetence of Roberto Gonzales.
This approach is an effort to direct the public away from the essential problem. The question is not whether he lied but what he lied about. He can be forgiven for lying or even only fired for it, but to admit that the entire Bush administration was in the act of eroding the rule of law is a matter for posterity and can lead to prosecutions and impeachment.
This was not just a clumsy failure of Mr. Gonzales to adequately explain the firings. If it were, he could have acquitted himself thoroughly during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings at the end of the week of April 15th, 2007. His testimony was a clear demonstration that the firings involved an abuse of power.

Whether Mr. Gonzales is fired or resigns his office of Attorney General is of little significance. Congress must pursue its investigations to determine the roots of these nearly unbridled attacks on the rule of law and the Constitution.