The resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is long overdue, and a welcome development. The damage inflicted by his tenure, however, lives on in the deterioration of civil liberties and the demoralization of the Justice Department.
Unfortunately, we expect that President Bush’s choice to replace Gonzales will have similar views. That makes it all the more vital that Congress, particularly senators confirming the next nominee, muster the courage to challenge the president and his nominee. Federal lawmakers also must revise the sweeping wiretap powers they recently granted the Bush administration.
It’s also important to get to the bottom of why nine U.S. attorneys were dismissed on Gonzales’ watch and whether the force of law was used to single out political opponents.
When Gonzales was nominated in 2004 to replace John Ashcroft, we had hoped he would show more respect for the Constitution than his predecessor did. But Gonzales, an architect of the administration’s deplorable policy on torture, quickly showed his interest in politics over justice.
Democrats seem energized in continuing to probe the U.S. attorney firings, and revisiting hastily passed amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that Gonzales and others had championed. These are necessary tasks.
The FISA changes gave the administration far-reaching new warrantless eavesdropping powers and didn’t build in adequate accountability. Worried about being labeled as “soft on terror,” Congress became an enabler of administration officials who demanded the ability to, in some situations, spy on Americans on U.S. soil without warrants.
It’s true that some minor changes were needed to update FISA, a 1978 law. But it’s mind-boggling to think that members of Congress were so easily cowed into making significant changes at the request of an administration that has such an abysmal record on civil liberties.
Congress’ experience with the administration and Gonzales on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 should have been a lesson in the need for a measured, deliberative process when it comes to tampering with constitutional rights.
The act, passed by a Republican- led Congress, gave the administration the statutory footing for the formidable presidential power Bush had asserted after Sept. 11. That act, which Gonzales was involved in creating, gave legal justification for secret prisons, indefinite incarceration of terror suspects and few, if any, rights for the accused.
Gonzales’ credibility has been stretched to the breaking point several times during recent years. The congressional testimony of FBI director Robert Mueller in July made it clear that Gonzales’ previous sworn statements about a government eavesdropping program were either an outright lie or a severe twisting of the truth.
At issue were a National Security Agency eavesdropping program, disputes within the administration over its legality, and a dramatic hospital visit to then-Attorney General Ashcroft. Mueller’s testimony, buoyed by his notes and the statement of another administration official, appeared to contradict that of Gonzales. Either Gonzales was not telling the truth or he was trying to obfuscate. Either scenario is not befitting the country’s chief law enforcement officer.
The president soon will name a replacement who will head the Justice Department for the last 16 months of the Bush term. That nominee will be vetted through the Senate confirmation process. It’s important the president choose someone who brings to the job credibility and a respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. The country deserves no less.
—————————————-
Online extras: With Alberto Gonzales on his way out, who should President Bush choose as attorney general? What attributes should his successor have? One rumored name is Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff. Thumbs up or down? Give us your thoughts at .
