Senator Leahy questioned Gonzo vigorously and vowed to do everything he can to restore habeas corpus. Gonzales said that his answers would be the same whether he was sworn in or not - that was after Senator Leahy swore him in. The new Rhode Island Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, the state's former attorney general, was particular about going over the procedural requirements of hearings with Gonzales. May sound boring, but the fact that he's doing that bodes well.

NY Times
January 19, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Surging and Purging
By PAUL KRUGMAN

There’s something happening here, and what it is seems completely clear: the Bush administration is trying to protect itself by purging independent-minded prosecutors.

Last month, Bud Cummins, the U.S. attorney (federal prosecutor) for the Eastern District of Arkansas, received a call on his cellphone while hiking in the woods with his son. He was informed that he had just been replaced by J. Timothy Griffin, a Republican political operative who has spent the last few years working as an opposition researcher for Karl Rove.

Mr. Cummins’s case isn’t unique. Since the middle of last month, the Bush administration has pushed out at least four U.S. attorneys, and possibly as many as seven, without explanation. The list includes Carol Lam, the U.S. attorney for San Diego, who successfully prosecuted Duke Cunningham, a Republican congressman, on major corruption charges. The top F.B.I. official in San Diego told The San Diego Union-Tribune that Ms. Lam’s dismissal would undermine multiple continuing investigations.

In Senate testimony yesterday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to say how many other attorneys have been asked to resign, calling it a “personnel matter.”

In case you’re wondering, such a wholesale firing of prosecutors midway through an administration isn’t normal. U.S. attorneys, The Wall Street Journal recently pointed out, “typically are appointed at the beginning of a new president’s term, and serve throughout that term.” Why, then, are prosecutors that the Bush administration itself appointed suddenly being pushed out?

The likely answer is that for the first time the administration is really worried about where corruption investigations might lead.

Since the day it took power this administration has shown nothing but contempt for the normal principles of good government. For six years ethical problems and conflicts of interest have been the rule, not the exception.

For a long time the administration nonetheless seemed untouchable, protected both by Republican control of Congress and by its ability to justify anything and everything as necessary for the war on terror. Now, however, the investigations are closing in on the Oval Office. The latest news is that J. Steven Griles, the former deputy secretary of the Interior Department and the poster child for the administration’s systematic policy of putting foxes in charge of henhouses, is finally facing possible indictment.

And the purge of U.S. attorneys looks like a pre-emptive strike against the gathering forces of justice.

Won’t the administration have trouble getting its new appointees confirmed by the Senate? Well, it turns out that it won’t have to.

Arlen Specter, the Republican senator who headed the Judiciary Committee until Congress changed hands, made sure of that last year. Previously, new U.S. attorneys needed Senate confirmation within 120 days or federal district courts would name replacements. But as part of a conference committee reconciling House and Senate versions of the revised Patriot Act, Mr. Specter slipped in a clause eliminating that rule.

As Paul Kiel of TPMmuckraker.com — which has done yeoman investigative reporting on this story — put it, this clause in effect allows the administration “to handpick replacements and keep them there in perpetuity without the ordeal of Senate confirmation.” How convenient.

Mr. Gonzales says that there’s nothing political about the firings. And according to The Associated Press, he said that district court judges shouldn’t appoint U.S. attorneys because they “tend to appoint friends and others not properly qualified to be prosecutors.” Words fail me.

Mr. Gonzales also says that the administration intends to get Senate confirmation for every replacement. Sorry, but that’s not at all credible, even if we ignore the administration’s track record. Mr. Griffin, the political-operative-turned-prosecutor, would be savaged in a confirmation hearing. By appointing him, the administration showed that it has no intention of following the usual rules.

The broader context is this: defeat in the midterm elections hasn’t led the Bush administration to scale back its imperial view of presidential power.

On the contrary, now that President Bush can no longer count on Congress to do his bidding, he’s more determined than ever to claim essentially unlimited authority — whether it’s the authority to send more troops into Iraq or the authority to stonewall investigations into his own administration’s conduct.

The next two years, in other words, are going to be a rolling constitutional crisis.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/opinion/19krugman.html?pagewanted=p...

Bob Parry on Gonzales and Habeus Corpus...

Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus
...Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

"There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.

Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican, stammering. "Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can't take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or invasion?"

Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

"You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense," Specter said....

Maybe if someone loaned Alberto a Declaration of Independence he might be able to remember (learn?) what it means to be an American?

By the way... in case you didn't notice... we ARE in a state of Martial Law since the signing of the Military Commissions Act at the end of the 109th Congress. Habeas Corpus is dead and could only be resuscitated by a Supreme Court decision rendering the Military Commissions Act illegal.

Just because it hasn't been formally announced doesn't mean we aren't...

www.ImpeachforPeace.org

To follow Mr. Dean's advice and go after impeaching Gonzales instead of Bush/Cheney is a cop-out. Mr. Gonzales is a pawn, and Mr. Dean an infiltrator - trying to distract the impeach Bush/Cheney movement from accomplishing what should have been done years ago - he is no better than Pelosi. To say that we shouldn't go after Bush/Cheney because the Republican votes are not there is a weak argument - the Republicans will have to vote to impeach Bush/Cheney once investigations prove the points and the public gets outraged enough so that the masses demand impeachment - it would be political suicide for anyone not to vote for impeachment at that point. What we need to do is focus on educating the public so as to get them off their butts and in the streets demanding investigations & impeachment. Mr. Dean - go back to your Republican cohorts and try something else.

The firing of eleven staff attorneys who were prosecuting prominent politicos, is just another reason to impeach Alberto Gonzalez and Alice Fisher.
"I don't got to show you no stinking justice, Gringo" Lwayno

im not able to send petitions from your site ...you need to check on this!!!!!