NYT Editorial: BUSH ADMIN Has Made It CLEAR-It Does Not CARE About Integrity Of DOJ

[kpete]

Editorial
Questions About a Governor’s Fall

Published: June 30, 2007

It is extremely disturbing that Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama, was hauled off to jail this week. There is reason to believe his prosecution may have been a political hit, intended to take out the state’s most prominent Democrat, a serious charge that has not been adequately investigated. The appeals court that hears his case should demand answers, as should Congress.

...................

The most arresting evidence that Mr. Siegelman may have been railroaded is a sworn statement by a Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson. Ms. Simpson said she was on a conference call in which Bill Canary, the husband of the United States attorney whose office handled the case, insisted that “his girls” would “take care of” Mr. Siegelman. According to Ms. Simpson, he identified his “girls” as his wife, Leura Canary, and another top Alabama prosecutor. Mr. Canary, who has longstanding ties to Karl Rove, also said, according to Ms. Simpson, that he had worked it out with “Karl.”

The idea of federal prosecutors putting someone in jail for partisan gain is shocking. But the United States attorneys scandal has made clear that the Bush Justice Department acts in shocking ways. We hope that the appeals court that hears Mr. Siegelman’s case will give it the same hard look that another appeals court recently gave the case of Georgia Thompson. Ms. Thompson, a low-level employee in a Democratic administration in Wisconsin, was found to have been wrongly convicted of corruption by another United States attorney.

Congress, though, should not wait. It should insist that Mr. Canary and everyone on the 2002 call, as well as Mrs. Canary and Mr. Rove, testify about the Siegelman prosecution. In standing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales throughout the attorneys scandal, the Bush administration has made clear that it does not care about the integrity of the Justice Department. By investigating Mr. Siegelman’s case, Congress can show that it does.

more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/opinion/30sat2.html?ex=1340856000&en=6522ac53b9fc2a90&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[spanone]

1. If bu$h* appointed the appeals court judge, mr. siegelman's fucked.

...and so is our once great nation.

[kurth]

2. Where are the subpoenas?

Dems in Congress should get them out ASAP.

[CJCRANE]

3. You have to remember

that Bush-Cheney's best buddies are absolute rulers of third world dictatorships or One Party states. They've seen how it's done and want to replicate the same in America. Not to mention that some neocons were former communists and have attempted to implement a capitalist version of One Party rule, state sponsored propaganda and collectivism.

[robinlynne]

11. some neocons were former communists? what are you talking about?

[CJCRANE]

12. Weren't some of them Trotskyites?

Are at far left, that's my understanding. The result is the same anyway, a totalitarian mentality.

On edit: I'm talking about the academic roots of the neo-conservative movement.

[robinlynne]

13. fascism and communism are polar opposites.

(Yes, we can call Stalin a fascist, but not in the real definition of the word, nor was stalin a true "communist', certainly not a "trotskyite". Trotsky was far to the left of Stalin, and tried to remove Stalin; unfortunately Stalin won the power struggle.)

Fascism, economically, gives corporations control of the government. that is the neocon ideology. That is what the neocons stand for. That is the concept which is ruling America right now.
Communism, the opposite, is where the government takes over the role of the "corporations". I am over simplifying, but not losing the core.

The concept that the any neocon would have come from a trotskyite is just absurd. When you say "the end result is the same", I figure that is where you started your logic. Because you believe that, (I do not) you may have created some facts to go along with that concept.

simply nope. no go.

[librechik]

18. it's true, look it up--that's why the "neo"

They started out at the Univ of Chicago as Trotsky ites, then were "reformed" becoming a new kine of conservative.

[tom_paine]

19. You are incorrect when viewing policitcs as 2 dimensional not 1 dimensional

In the 1 dimensional view, there is only left-right. And yes, such a view places these at polar opposites.

But that is an incomplete picture, IMHO, which does not reflect the reality of why Hitler and Stalin, while "polar opposites" were not only such similar people, but who's nations bore striking similarities into how their citizens were treated, etc.



The 2 dimensional, which is further explained on www.politicalcompass.org, places left and right but adds a Y-asxis, labeled authoritarianism libertarianism. In this picture, Hitler and Stalin are closer than you think because they are the far "north pole", even though they are seperated on the X axis still.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

And while a single website does not constitute authoritative proof, I think this is a very well-reasoned defense and explanation of this principle.

[robinlynne]

21. I know that website. It is great. Yes communists and capitalists can both be authoritarian.

of course. That's not what i'm arguing about. The poster said "communists and neocons are both the same thing in the end". which is ridiculous. Stalin was one "communist" who was authoritarian, no doubt. But being a "communist" absolutely does NOT make one authoritarian. That is simply absurd. The theory of communism is an economic theory. And we will never know it in practice. Perhaps in small, isolated communities, communes, as it were, but not in a larger context, because it cannot coexist with capitalism. communism is an ideal, a theory which has never happened, except as I say, perhaps in small indigenous communities or in isolated social experiments.

[The Count]

20. The end result IS THE SAME. Right and left extremes do converge: tyrany is tyrany

Whether is exercised in the name of one dogma or another - when a small group of people seize power and rule as an authoritarian regime for self preservations, the same effects will be felt by the people. And I happen to know, a story like this could have happened in either dictatorships.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. If even the staid editorialists of NYT say "It's time for Congress to...

>>>Congress, though, should not wait. It should insist that Mr. Canary and everyone on the 2002 call, as well as Mrs. Canary and Mr. Rove, testify about the Siegelman prosecution. In standing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales throughout the attorneys scandal, the Bush administration has made clear that it does not care about the integrity of the Justice Department. By investigating Mr. Siegelman’s case, Congress can show that it does.>>>

... move".... then IT IS TIME FOR CONGRESS TO MOVE.

[Ghost in the Machine]

5. Is the NYT turning on the Cabal? A hit piece on the chimp now?

Wasn't it the NYT that just did the 4 part hit piece on Cheney? I'll have to go look it up..

Maybe it's finally sinking in to some of the media that this criminal cabal is dangerous and no one, including the media, is safe around them.

[papau]

8. Cheney hit was Washington Post - but I expect Scafie/GE/Murdoch to did for both WP&NYT soon

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/

[Hubert Flottz]

6. K&R

America has become "THEM" in just seven years under PNAC misleadership. Heil "COMPASSION"

[SpiralHawk]

7. Of course they don't care, they are republicons and they HATE America

The republicons are a pack of lying, cheating fascist money-grubbers, as they have demonstrated repeatedly.

The republicons have no respect for the citizens of the United States of America.

Proof is everywhere.

[Hamlette]

9. good for the NYTimes....

what strikes me, in reading this, is the parallel story of Rupert Murdoch wanting to buy the WSJ to basically put the NYTimes out of business. Olbermann did a 2 part series on Murdoch this week. Murdoch's claim is that all the media is liberal in the choice of stories it airs/prints.

I've been disappointed in the NYTimes in the past and I don't know how much influence an editorial like this has but I'm glad to see this story "leave" the blogosphere. If Murdoch has his way we wouldn't even get this. Then we'd have a totalitarian government able to prosecute and imprison any of us for any trumped up reason and no one would ever know about it.

I haven't heard much about the 7 counts Siegelman was convincted of but what I have heard sure sounds like the Georgia Thompson case.

We are all political prisoners now.

[glitch]

10. Oh they care all right. They want to make sure it doesn't have any.

Otherwise why fire Carol Lam et al?

[malaise]

14. K & R

This is serious business.

[diane in sf]

15. "does not care" is a gross understatment--actively subverting the integrity

of the justice dept. is more accurate.

[KAT119]

16. k&R!! Thank you....

[sonias]

17. Good for the NYTimes

Talking Points Memo had a good video segment on this very issue. The segment is called More Rove Dirty Work and it's all about the Siegelman case.

Lets home Congress does get to the bottom of this.

Sonia