Mistakes Made on Prosecutors, Gonzales Says

‘Mistakes’ Made on Prosecutors, Gonzales Says - Really? I love how this is being blamed on Gonzales' former chief of staff and Harriett Miers, yes the same Harriett Miers, that the President was ready to send to the Supreme Court.

Now the first Republican, Sen John Sununu, is calling for Gonzales head on a platter and here too. (Thanks to Ragged Thots for the leads.) Maybe we might see some justice in this whole ugly situation

With Democrats, including the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, nsisting that Mr. Gonzales step down, his appearance underscored what two Republicans close to the Bush administration described as a growing rift between the White House and the attorney general. Mr. Gonzales has long been a confidant of the president but has aroused the ire of lawmakers of both parties on several issues, including the administration’s domestic eavesdropping program.

The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales’s credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions.

An interesting observation from Chris Weigant from the Huffington Post titled, whose head will role next. Once you read it, makes you wonder where King George II is getting his rules from?

Some historical facts are necessary here. From Wikipedia's definition of lettres
de cachet:

In French history, lettres de cachet were letters signed by the king of France, countersigned by one of his ministers, and closed with the royal seal, or cachet. They contained orders directly from the king, often to enforce arbitrary actions and judgments that could not be appealed.

In the case of organized bodies lettres de cachet were issued for the purpose of
preventing assembly or to accomplish some other definite act. The provincial estates were convoked in this manner, and it was by a lettre de cachet (in this
case, a lettre de jussipri), or by showing in person in a lit de justice, that the king ordered a parlement (a court of justice) to register a law in the teeth of its own refusal to pass it.

The best-known lettres de cachet, however, were penal, by which a subject was sentenced without trial and without an opportunity of defense to imprisonment in a state prison or an ordinary jail, confinement in a convent or a hospital, transportation to the colonies, or expulsion to another part of the realm. The wealthy sometimes bought such lettres to dispose of unwanted individuals.

Now consider the following:
* The French monarchy had Justinian law, which clearly stated: "Rex solutus est a legibus" ("The King is released from the laws"). George Bush had legal advisors John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales insisting on the concept of a "unitary executive" (basically, "the executive, especially in times of war, is absolute and must not defer to the other branches of government").

* Pre-revolutionary France had lettres de jussipri. George Bush has "signing statements," where he explains why the law he is signing into effect doesn't really apply to him, or to his executive branch.

* King Louis XVI could, with a single piece of paper, send you for life to an insane asylum, or perhaps exile you to the countryside or even the colonies. George Bush has "extraordinary rendition."

* Louis XVI could chuck you into the Bastille for no reason whatsoever (other than his own whim), and he could keep you there as long as he wished, with no judicial oversight. George Bush has "enemy combatants," and Guantánamo Bay.

* The French king handed out patronage jobs to political allies and close friends. George Bush hired plenty of people just like Michael "heck of a job" Brown (who headed FEMA even though he had virtually no qualifications), and had Alberto Gonzales fire his own Republican federal prosecutors for not being loyal enough (ironically enough, today's scandal du jour).

* There's one parallel that doesn't quite fit this mold, however. George Bush sent our country from being in surplus to being heavily in deficit in order to pay for a very expensive and risky war and (incidentally) to give lots of tax breaks to rich folks. France had a huge debt not (as you might think) because they were screwing poor people to make the aristocracy richer, but because they had just spent all their money financing a risky proxy war against their hated enemies, the British. The French, to a large extent, financed the American Revolution (it's true... we'd all still be drinking tea and singing "God Save The Queen" today if not for the French). The French Revolution may not have even taken place (or may have been postponed by decades) if their treasury wasn't bare due to footing the bill for America's war of independence.