Why One US Attorney Was Fired
Reporters are still combing through the mountain of documents and emails the Department of Justice and the White House sent to Congress in the US Attorneys scandal. The NY Times has an article today on the firing of the Arizona US Attorney, Paul K. Charlton. He wasn't fired to make room for a Karl Rove protege or for not pursuing a corruption case against a Democrat. He was fired for trying to do his job better.
Paul K. Charlton, the United States attorney in Arizona, was ousted after spending months protesting a Federal Bureau of Investigation policy that, for practical purposes, forbids the taping of almost all confessions, in stark contrast to the practice of many local law enforcement agencies in Arizona and other locations across the country.
Eight states, by law or court action, mandate taping of interviews with suspects in at least serious felony cases, turning a tape recorder or video camera into an important tool in convictions, like DNA tests, fingerprints and ballistics. More than 450 law enforcement agencies in major cities and smaller jurisdictions also require the taping of certain interrogations.
The F.B.I., a division of the Justice Department, has strenuously resisted the practice unless special permission is granted by supervisors, under the theory that it may discourage suspects from talking and expose juries to interrogation methods that the department would rather not highlight. [Emphasis added]
And what would those interrogation methods that the FBI didn't want highlighted?
The F.B.I., in documents defending its policy, argued that taping was not always possible, particularly when agents were on the road, and that it was not always appropriate. Psychological tricks like misleading or lying to a suspect in questioning or pretending to show the suspect sympathy might also offend a jury, the agency said. [Emphasis added]
I guess the FBI doesn't trust juries very much, or think they are particularly intelligent. I also guess the FBI doesn't have much faith in its own agents when it comes to conducting a proper, constitutionally acceptable interview.
Mr. Charlton had no such qualms and was adamant in wanting those interviews taped (audio or video) as a means of proving up some fairly serious felony cases. He pushed, and the FBI shoved back. It was Mr. Charlton who lost that contest.
Mr. Charlton’s name was not on the early versions of this list. It showed up only in September, as the review of the taping policy drew to a close. Around the same time, Mr. Charlton had a conflict with Justice Department officials over a homicide that he did not believe should be prosecuted as a death penalty case.
Mr. Charlton was removed before officials in Washington gave him a final verdict on his proposal. After his dismissal they cited his adamancy about the taping and his position on the death penalty case as two major reasons for his dismissal.
I find this firing just as meanspirited and deplorable as the others, even if it did fall under the "performance" issues category. The Department of Justice fired him for trying to do his job properly and within constitutionally permissible boundaries.
Paul K. Charlton, the United States attorney in Arizona, was ousted after spending months protesting a Federal Bureau of Investigation policy that, for practical purposes, forbids the taping of almost all confessions, in stark contrast to the practice of many local law enforcement agencies in Arizona and other locations across the country.
Eight states, by law or court action, mandate taping of interviews with suspects in at least serious felony cases, turning a tape recorder or video camera into an important tool in convictions, like DNA tests, fingerprints and ballistics. More than 450 law enforcement agencies in major cities and smaller jurisdictions also require the taping of certain interrogations.
The F.B.I., a division of the Justice Department, has strenuously resisted the practice unless special permission is granted by supervisors, under the theory that it may discourage suspects from talking and expose juries to interrogation methods that the department would rather not highlight. [Emphasis added]
And what would those interrogation methods that the FBI didn't want highlighted?
The F.B.I., in documents defending its policy, argued that taping was not always possible, particularly when agents were on the road, and that it was not always appropriate. Psychological tricks like misleading or lying to a suspect in questioning or pretending to show the suspect sympathy might also offend a jury, the agency said. [Emphasis added]
I guess the FBI doesn't trust juries very much, or think they are particularly intelligent. I also guess the FBI doesn't have much faith in its own agents when it comes to conducting a proper, constitutionally acceptable interview.
Mr. Charlton had no such qualms and was adamant in wanting those interviews taped (audio or video) as a means of proving up some fairly serious felony cases. He pushed, and the FBI shoved back. It was Mr. Charlton who lost that contest.
Mr. Charlton’s name was not on the early versions of this list. It showed up only in September, as the review of the taping policy drew to a close. Around the same time, Mr. Charlton had a conflict with Justice Department officials over a homicide that he did not believe should be prosecuted as a death penalty case.
Mr. Charlton was removed before officials in Washington gave him a final verdict on his proposal. After his dismissal they cited his adamancy about the taping and his position on the death penalty case as two major reasons for his dismissal.
I find this firing just as meanspirited and deplorable as the others, even if it did fall under the "performance" issues category. The Department of Justice fired him for trying to do his job properly and within constitutionally permissible boundaries.
Labels: Justice Department
posted by Diane at 3:32 AM
2 Comments:
Glenn Greenwald speculated about the real reasons the FBI (and not only the FBI) was resisting the taping of interrogations, and it wasn't pretty.
The bottom line is not, I think, that the FBI doesn't have faith in juries. The bottom line is that whatever the FBI is actually doing would not be able to face scrutiny.
It's possible that even if their interrogation tactics are technically within the law, they wouldn't pass muster with ordinary people called to jury duty, which brings up the question of whether the law itself is correct, and whether it shouldn't be modified to be more in line with the way people believe our officials should behave.
With this administration, though, I think it's a safer bet to believe that they're doing something underhanded and illegal.
This is just another stick in the fire, because it's still widely held here that Charlton was fired for investigating congressman Rick Renzi, a carpet-bagging Republican from Virginia who doesn't even really live in his district.
The whole thing stinks. Why did they even put language into the Patriot Act that allowed the President to end-run-around the Senate when replacing Attorney Generals?
What was *that* about?
Post a Comment
<< Home