Why won't President Obama fire the remaining Bush/Cheney loyalists?

Washington D.C.--This has been perplexing me for months now, but recall that when George W. Bush entered office, one of the very first things he did back in 2001 was to fire virtually all of the 93 standing U.S. Attorneys. What was he thinking? He didn't want anyone who wasn't on the same page or loyal to him--that's not legitimate, incidentally, not in the public interest.

That's why President Obama needs to fire every single standing U.S. Attorney now, but he won't. That speaks volumes about him if it continues much longer, that he's no different than George W. Bush and his administration. But it's possibly worse than that.

But why do mass firings and what's the problem? Very simple: It's becoming obvious--for example--that embedded appointees within the DOJ are working against the new president as well as at the Pentagon and even within the confines of the CIA and throughout the federal bureaucracy, working against him, his party, and the public will. This doesn't appear to concern President Obama.

Is he crazy? Is he nuts? Is he stupid? No.

I think the 2008 revelations about Attorney General Eric Holder and his connections to the Chiquita Brands International Inc. corporation as an attorney representing their interests in a recent civil suit states-it-plainly: the Obama administration is riddled with the same kinds of scumbags from the corporate world and the realm of the political operative, the corporate gutter. Oh yeah, and included many of the very same scumbags that were there in the bureaucracy under Bush II. This is unacceptable and shows so far that the Obama administration has no problem with politicizing law enforcement, a very dangerous road to go down in a democracy. But it's all about money, isn't it? Yes it is.

For years, Chiquita was paying off right wing paramilitaries (AUC, listed as terrorists at the time by our government) not to attack their banana plantations in Colombia during their "dirty war" with Marxist guerrillas, FARC. In the interest of fairness, both sides (the paramilitaries are generally allied with the drug-smuggling oligarchs in the North) sometimes run cocaine to fund their activities. So, Chiquita was breaking the law--did I mention there have been allegations that they were also reported running cocaine in some of their shipments? It appears that they wanted to pad their bottom line, but this is still unconfirmed.

At the time--March 2007--I and most of the nation began noticing the DC Madam scandal and her prosecutor, the moronic U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor who'd been unethically appointed through a provision of the Patriot Act as an interim U.S. Attorney by George W. Bush while Congress was out of session, sometime in late September 2006. Just a few months later, Taylor was expediting the plea agreement for Chiquita...and bringing an indictment against Palfrey (no, I'm not drawing a connection here). Jeffrey was very busy during those months, covering-up for a gaggle of corporate bigwigs, Bush II appointees, government contractors, and not just with the DC Madam scandal--he had his work cut-out for him, but he's a rock, a skilled sycophant. Well...not exactly: he's also been known to file under the wrong statutes, but that's another story for another time.

And so, many other names that will be familiar from the Bush II years that never really ended were also involved in the Chiquita settlement; even the DOJ's/DHS's Michael Chertoff, but it was Holder and Taylor who brokered the deal that gave Chiquita a very tiny fine considering that they were paying off terrorists for several years, basically giving them material support. Holder has a lot to explain as their former attorney, and fine, he's going to claim attorney-client privilege so he's going to have to be investigated eventually if it ever even happens.

No criminal holding public office has ever been known to allow the prosecution of themselves, other than Richard Nixon, and he didn't go down quietly. Obama isn't going to fire these standing U.S. Attorneys from the Bush II years soon because he answers to the same bosses, and so does his Attorney General. Why fire the appointees after that? The current president is just another fraud. Power concedes nothing without a demand. Beware these businessmen who come at you with knives: they're you're businessmen.

"The Department of Justice, Corporations, Buying the Law-Part II: Strange Bargains," Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane, Rawstory, 07.21.2009: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/21/buying-the-law/

Obama Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel releases more Bush II administration war on terror documents

Washington D.C.--You wanted change? You're getting it, today. This is a switch--even for the incoming administration: the release of more key Justice Department legal documents from the immediate aftermath of the events of September 11th, 2001, and they're eye-openers.

The Obama Justice Department has made available a series of key legal memos crafted byt eh Bush II administration that cover the power of the office of president to declare war, "Congressional Authority over Captured Enemy Combatants," the legality of torture, "Interpreting FISA and its Applicability to Presidential Authority," "Presidential Authority to Suspend Treaties" (curiously, ABM ones in one case), " 'National Self-Defense' as a Justification for Warrantless Searches," and so on.

The Obama Justice Department has made their stance on these questionable legal opinions of the Bush II Justice Department crystal clear:

For all the foregoing reasons, the propositions highlighted in the nine opinions identified above do not reflect the current views of the Office of Legal Counsel and should not be treated as authoritative for any purpose. A number of the opinions that contained these propositions have been withdrawn or superseded and do not constitute precedents of this Office; caution should be exercised before relying in other respects on the remaining opinions.

We have advised the Attorney General, the Counsel to the President, the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, the Principal Deputy General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and appropriate offices in the Department of Justice of these conclusions. ("Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda," DOJ.gov, 0303.2009)

Here's what this writer finds most interesting: the opinions by the OLC were made just five days before the Obama administration came into office on January 20, 2009! In short, these decisions were likely being withheld from release by the outgoing Bush II administration and this week's release indicates the decisions were all but predetermined by the incoming administration for potential release. In other words, the Bush II administration was doing some back-peddling in their legal assertions at the tail-end.

That it took a little over a month for the Obama administration's Attorney General to releases them is a very tangible change considering these memos were suppressed by the Bush II administration for years. Say what you want--that it's "not enough," that it's "belated" (for whom?), and that we "won't be seeing much more of this," but it doesn't matter. It's real, and it happened, and more is coming. So far, it doesn't appear that the Obama administration have ruled on the findings of the OLC, but it's likely that they will concur with them in their own decisions.

Maybe it's just a start, but it's one of the best starts we've seen in at least three decades (if not more), and it's happening almost overnight. Patience has its own rewards, but keep demanding more of this, don't ask, and do tell.

"Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda," DOJ.gov, 0303.2009:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/olc-memos.htm

Obama Justice Department ends raids on medical marijuana facilities

Washington D.C.--There's a new sheriff in town. Once again, we're seeing valid and significant change that we would never have seen under a Republican president and/or a Congress dominated by them. As Attorney General Eric Holder stated yesterday, it's "now policy."

For those who are cynical about the incoming administration (only in office now a little over a month, a bit premature and telling of the cynics), this is good news and a real change as well as a move away from wasteful government spending for law enforcement programs that do more harm to our society than good.

Marijuana drug pigs had their "last hurrah" at the end of January before the Obama administration could do anything to stop it, just three days after the new president's inauguration. Thirteen states have now legalized the licensing of production, distribution, and use of medical marijuana. It's not going to stop there, and the ranks of the police are turning against past drug interdiction policies.

The last two states to recently legalize medical marijuana were Michigan and Massachusetts in November of last year during the national and state elections. In Massachusetts, the police union initially lobbied against the legislation but have been coming around to the new reality. Nobody said change was easy to adjust to, but they're doing it in Massachusetts right now, and in several other states.

As part of Drug War policy, appointed "Drug Czars" who run the ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy) are supposed to lie--yes lie--about the properties, medical uses and beneficial or benign attributes of marijuana. From Section 704 of the Reauthorization Act of 1998:

...[The Director of Drug Control Policy] ...(11) may serve as spokesperson of the Administration on drug issues; (12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that-- (A) is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
(B) has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;...

Incredibly, federal drug control agents and officials can even use government funds to meddle in local and state elections to effect the outcomes of any marijuana legalisation proposition up for vote during elections, a clear violation of the Hatch Act, but we don't need no stinkin' badges anyway.

Remember that this was passed under a Republican controlled Congress at the time back in their salad days of 1998. The Clinton administration did little to oppose it, but they were trying to save themselves over a lie told under oath about a blowjob, it being a national priority and obsession of the GOP at the time. If you don't like the government meddling in your lives, and you want a government that does less of it in general, hitting rightist and reactionary advocates of these drug policies is a good place to start. The time is ripe since they're losing on all fronts.

Sitting on our laurels isn't going to be a smart move for anti-prohibition forces and the point will be to keep pushing (back) until significant victory and precedent are achieved. All this aside, this is a state's rights issue, period. The incoming Obama administration supports this contention and the legitimacy of medical marijuana for those with terminal illnesses who need it desperately, and this isn't even mentioning all the green uses (including the production of needed biomass, food, and energy) from the cannabis plant. The Drug War is the finest and most obvious example of wasteful spending outside of the F-22 fighter and the failed "Star Wars" program, but in America, if it's broken, don't fix it.

But it really is a state rights issue. This is where I agree with Libertarians...but that's about it, and I'm hardly alone. For those who want to live in a police state, I advise relocation to Colombia or Russia, their authoritarian digs should be to your tastes. Our drug laws were originally crafted to legally harass people of color--Blacks and Hispanics in-particular. The support was bipartisan, but as is their wont, and when there are rights to be rolled back, the Republican Party tends to be leading the charge.

It's fitting that when we finally got a president of color, the walls began to fall regarding drug prohibition, ultimately race and class-based laws primarily for the purpose of arbitrary antidemocratic social control. Just over 75 years ago, the walls came down with alcohol prohibition in the face of an unprecedented economic crisis and sustained calls for its end. We live in similar times and in a much less "racialist" culture. There are other problems to address. Bluntly-put, we need the revenue. It's time to legalize and regulate (including taxation) of all psychoactive drugs, and a time to move towards treatment and away from the militarization of our police departments.

Cops Against Prohibition:

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

The Reauthorization Act of 1998:

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/98reauthorization.html

AG Holder's statement yesterday in a Q&A:

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821