Quote:
... I'm sorry. I don't mean to treat this lightly. We knew damn well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn't be tortured. He'd be held. He'd be investigated.
We also knew damn well, if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured.
And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured.
You know, and I know, that has happened a number of times, in the past five years, by this country. It is a black mark on us. It has brought about the condemnation of some of our closest and best allies.
And it is easy for us to sit here comfortably in this room knowing that we're not going to be sent off to another country to be tortured, to treat it as though, well, Attorney-General Ashcroft says we've got assurances.
Assurances from a country that we also say, now, we can't talk to them because we can't take their word for anything?
article wrote:John McKay of Washington state, who had decided two years earlier not to bring voter fraud charges that could have undermined a Democratic victory in a closely fought gubernatorial race, said White House counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley, "asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me."
Quote:Supposedly these DAs that got fired where done so for "poor performance" yet this guy - who was once held in such high reguard that he was being considered by the whitehouse for federal judgeship(yes he is Republican) - at least he was being considered before he decided something not in their favor during elections - yes apparantly this guy was fired for "poor performance." Call me crazy if I'm a little cynical about that.
The use of the word "mishandled" left open the possibility that White House officials -- who in September were weighing whether to recommend McKay for a federal judgeship -- merely disputed McKay's professional judgment. But his statement yesterday lent new credence to suspicions that partisan political concerns weighed heavily in his firing.
Quote:
Gonzales, who said earlier this month that he was "not involved in any discussions about what was going on," approved plans for the firings at an hourlong meeting in late November --two weeks before seven of the dismissals--according to the latest of many documents the Justice Department has released.
Quote:
Two of the dismissed federal prosecutors--David Iglesias of Albuquerque and John McKay of Seattle--also appeared on "Meet the Press."
Iglesias, asked if he has confidence in Gonzales, said: "Right now, I've got serious doubts."
McKay, suggesting that Gonzales' "status is something that's going to have to be decided" by the president and attorney general, said: "I think there is a cloud over the Justice Department, and that is just going to have to be removed."
Iglesias, asked if he believes he was fired for political reasons, said, "Absolutely, yes."
Asked about a comment by presidential counselor Dan Bartlett that Iglesias had shown a lack of leadership as the U.S. attorney in Albuquerque, Iglesias said: "Mr. Bartlett was never my supervisor. ... I thought, he's out of touch. He doesn't know what he's talking about."
When he received a complaint from Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Iglesias said, he felt "pressured, leaned on" and, in retrospect, he "should have reported it right away" to the Justice Department.
"I felt deeply conflicted," he said. "It is troubling, connecting these political dots. ... I hope that, when this scandal is over, the tradition is returned to, that U.S. attorneys keep politics out" of the job.
McKay, maintaining that his office had recently received an "outstanding" evaluation, said he had been given shifting reasons for his dismissal. "First of all, I was given no reason for my dismissal," he said. "Then I was told there were performance issues. Then I was told it was a disagreement over policy.
"The Justice Department's reasons kept changing," McKay said. "I think what's happened here is the department has gone back and tried to find a reason to justify our dismissals."