Letters to the Editor
MacK..
Published Letters: 436 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Picking which rope and who hangs on the scaffold with him
[Read the article: Gonzales in training]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You missed a development -- David Iglesias, the fired New Mexico US Attorney is filing a claim under Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). So what is USERRA -- well it's that statute that says that prohibits dismissing military reserve and National Guard members for doing their duty.
The thing is, the Justice Department, when trying to make a case that Iglseias had been fired for performance and political reasons made a big deal about the amount of leeave he took, and called him an absentee landlord. Problem, the leave he took, 45 days, was to fulfill his obligations as a reserve Captain in the US NAVY JAG Corps. Other problem, the Bush administration has cited enforecement of USERRA as a very major policy priority (i.e., Justice department officials who do not push this policy should be fired for not following policy.
However, the other problem is that if Iglesias was fired for annoying Pete Domenici, Rep. Heather Wilson, Rove, etc, and the Republicans by not bringing voter fraud cases, or at the behest of Karl Rove, well that is a violation fo the Hatch Act, a serious offense, which should land Rove, Gonzales, Domenici, Wilson et al in very hot water indeed.
But, oh dear, Justice, with Gonzales apparent approval already gave the absentee landlord explantion to the Senate, and well, if they withdrew that, well then that is more lying to Congress, which is what has Gonzales and Justice in hot-water already.
So now you see a quandry -- how can Gonzales maintain that Iglesias was fired for the perfomance reasons given (Navy Reserve duty) and not have to resign and face trouble under USERRA (or given the firing criteria fire himself for ignoring Bush Administration priorities), or withdraw the performance reason leaving only the political, and have to resign becuase of the Hatch act efforts to influence an ongoing case with political connotations. He cannot really argue incompentence ("I did not know it was illegal," from an AG who recently issued a press release over his name about USERRA), although that too should get him fired.
What it coems down to is he gets to pick, either:
* the USERRA rope, and hang with Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, who referenced this reason in e-mails, or William Moschella who gave this reason to the House Judiciary Committee -- of course they are probably also in trouble if it was a Hatch Act violation; or
* The Hatch Act rope and hand with Rove, Pete Domenici, Heather Wilson and nice company from Justice and the White House.
Of course the problem is self important Senators, who preen for the camera. When will one of them realise that talking about what a great guy he is is less important than showing what a great Senator he is by getting straight down to asking the tough questions:
"So, Attorney General Gonzales, are you familiar with USERRA?"
"So, Attorney General Gonzales, are you familiar with the Hatch Act?"
"So Attorney General, was the statement that the US Attorneys were fired for performance reasons false"
"So Attorney General, was the specific reason given for Iglesias false"
"So Attorney General doe you stand by the absentee landlord explanation?"
"So Moschella lied?" 'How long did you know this statement was false"
"So Attorney General, if Iglesesias was not fired for performance reasons that just leaves the political, right?"
"Are you familiar with the Hatch Act?"
"So why are you not resigning?"
"Have you appointed an independent prosecutor to investigate whethe the firing or any of these US Attorneys violated Federal Law?"
"If a Justice Department or White House official takes the fifth in such an investigation will you dismiss them or insist on their immediate resignation?"
"Isn't everything you said so far and argument that you are not guilty because you are an incompetent?"
"Why has the President not asked for your resignation on performance gorunds then? Should you be fired on performance grounds?"
-
Chlorine Gas as a Weapon
[Read the article: The right-wing brain in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]People care about chemical weapons. The problem is that there is very little that you can do about the use of chlorine gas, unless you want to deny the world clean water.
How is that -- what do you think chlorine gas is used for -- well mostly water purification. It is also broadly one of the most important chemicals used in industry, for making everything from plastics to fabrics and fine chemicals, refining oil and petrochemicals, as well as bleaching.
Put simply, it is very hard to do anything to control chlorine gas -- its legitimate uses are too important. More significantly, as a chemical weapon chlorine gas is pretty useless, espite this bombing. It was the first chemical agent used in WW I, but was so easily countered, and of such limited effect, that it was rapidly dropped.
It is really astonishing how stupid and ill-educated Ledeen and the bizarre Professor are. One of the long recognised problems with terrorist weapons is that all sorts of supposedly innocuous things can be used by terrorists, castor oil beans (form which ricin is extracted), Cherry pits (Cyanide), fertiliser and fuel oil or diesel (ANFO bomb as used in Oklahoma), thyristors Itiming circuits in nuclear weapons and photocopiers), colloidal silicon (a gelling agent used to make pharmaceutical gels and even toothpast, but also weaponising anthrax (in 2001 for example)); acetone (a major solvent) and hydrogen peroxide (a bleach and disinfectant) plus a drop of drain-cleaner (TATP, the high explosive used for the London bombings (luckily making this is tricky and it tends to kill the person making it if they are even a little sloppy). The funny things is that Ledeen et al probably back the NRA in fighting restrictions on single use materials such as black powder or assault weapons . . . morons.