It's routine for presidents to replace US Attorneys *upon entering office*. Reagan did it too. However, once in office, US Attorneys must have independence from political pressures, and among recent administrations, only the Bush Administration either doesn't understand this or is bent on scuttling this norm. Independence is essential because US Attorneys' decisions on investigations and prosecutions can have lifelong consequences for their targets - lost reputations, ruined businesses, etc. These decisions must be made based on facts, law and fair, impartial investigation - NOT partisan politics. US Attorney positions are political appointments initially, but political influences must end then and there, with the initial appointment. US Attorneys must be free to do their jobs free of political influence. Thus, the MIDTERM mass firing of US Attorneys looks like the political purge it is. Firing USAs for any reason whatsoever is not acceptable.

Fred, Mankato, MN

To answer Alan from Iowa: A new U.S. President may with impunity dismiss any/all U.S. attorneys, as did Pres. Clinton.
But in the case of the Gonzales Justice Department firings of such attotrneys, I quote from an editorial in The New York Times dated Aug. 28, 2007: "Dedicated and capable United States attorneys were fired for insisting on doing their jobs with integrity -- for refusing to put people in jail, or shield them from prosecution, simply to help Republicans win elections. Lawyers were hired for nonpolitical jobs based on party enrollment and campaign contributions, and top members of Mr. Gonzales staff attended pre-election political briefings at the White House led by Karl Rove and his aides."

Valerie Sanford, Woodland Hills, CA

This is not a good turn of events from the Republicans' perspective. The Senate confirmation hearings on a replacement for Gonzales will be absolutely bruising, even if Bush nominates someone who is perceived as a "safe" choice. All of the topics in the article above will be raw material for senators to turn the confirmation hearings into a circus. It will be even worse if Bush nominates Chertoff (Secretary of Homeland Security) - a rumour currently in the media - because that wil lead to two contenious confirmation hearings, not one.

Marc, Saskatoon, Canada

RRD, Ascroft was in the hospital recovering from surgery not the removal of an ingrown toenail. His wife phoned acting AG Comey and FBI Mueller when she found out that Gonzales and company were on their way for a late night visit. If their visit was so innocent why did they wait until late at night when Ashcroft would be presumed to be alone, and quite vulnerable to their pressuring tactics. And why did they not accept the ruling of the acting AG on the matter? Why was the visit even neccessary? Alan in IOWA--a clearing of the decks is normal to occur in Justice but at the beginning of a presidential term. I guess you didn't hear what the unexperienced,undertrained aide said about political background being a top priority for new hirings,not their legal experience. Have you been under a rock all of this time?

km mackay, Vernon, B.C., Canada

W fired all of the US Attorneys when he took office as well. What Clinton did not do, and what W did do, was fire attorneys based on recommendations from the RNC and the White House political arm for solely partisan reasons.

George, Ponchatoula, LA

The answer is simple. It is always traditional for the incoming President to bring in all new U.S. Attorneys. The problem with Bush is that he fired or forced out prosecutors for illegal reasons such as not bringing political prosecutions that the White House wanted done right before the election.

Ju Lo, San Antonio, USA/Texas

Alan, President Clinton let go of people who were from the previous Republican Administration; what created the controversy here is President George W. Bush's Administration forced people that were his own appointees out because they weren't partisan enough for his liking. When the Administration did this, they said the attorneys (exept for one) were incompetent. This obviously wasn't true and so the attorneys who were dismissed rightfully protested.

Jason, Whittier, CA

Firing a group of presidential appointees when a new administration comes in is one thing. Firing prosecutors because they won't attack political opponents or open meritless investigations in order to help Republicans win local elections is something else. Selective prosecution based on political loyality is illegal. It seems this is what happened, and if anyone is associated with the firings, then they are probably guilty as well.

Evidence has not been found, since Gonzales and others have been playing the game that the Congress has to pry out of them everything they have done wrong, rather than turn over evidence which might find truth.

Eventually, perhaps after the next election, we will find out if the White House was involved in directing the independent Justive Department to fire particular attorneys because they would not allow their office to be used for political prosecution.

Lee, Sterling, US

If Bush's record on executive appointments is an indicator of future selections then there is little chance for improvement. Bush has consistently made poor choices Harriet Miers, Michael Chertoff to name but two. HIs gross incompetence is only exceeded by his naivete in his failure to comprehend why it is his choices are soo poor. BUsh seems to regard the presidency as an opportunity to reward friends and associates with high level government positions. Positions which very few seem qualified to hold.

Eric, Little Rock, US

Alan-- he CAN fire them, constitutionally. However, if he fired them because they were insufficiently vigorous in persuing democrats, well Congress and the American people are entitled to know that! At the very very least, such a thing is awfully smelly. At worst, there may be criminal issues facing Alberto and Sen. Pete Domenici, who apparently attempted to pressure the New Mexico U.S. Attorney.

One other point. Clinton (and Bush in 2001 I believe) fired all of their PREDECESSOR'S U.S. Attorneys. Bush in 2006-07 fired HIS OWN PEOPLE. Now that doesn't change the legality of the firings, but it sure as heck raises questions. Alberto lied through his teeth to Congress, repeatedly. If the democrats had any backbone they would have begun impeachment proceedings months ago.

Daniel, New York, NY

There will be continuing fights over the domestic wire-tapping programme by which the US Government is permitted to eavesdrop on terrorism suspects communicating with US residents".What you mean is,"The American public object to having their phones tapped by the government"They are not accountable to anyone for the reason or target of their phone tapping.Any terrorist who has ever thought that their calls were not being intercepted is not worth his salt,dont forget,FISA was brought in because of Nixons Watergate which had nothing to do with terrorism and Bush has made the corrupt Nixon administration look like amatuers.Just because someone resigns from government does not mean their goals can not be persued ie,PNAC/AIPAC.There is still room for Gonzales and Rove behind the scenes,I think Rumsfeld still has an office in the Pentagon.Why?

JohnP, Newcasle, UK

The issue was never over the ability of the president to dismiss at will employees---Reagan also dismissed all of the US attorneys during his tenure. The issue was over the reason--failure by the dismissed to target political enemies of the administration. All of the US attorneys are political appointees, but are expected to have at least a snippet of ethics for the job they hold. Those who were dismissed were targeted solely, based on documents presented to congress, on their reluctance to investigate democratic candidates for office.

Michael Jones, Oklahoma City, OK

My pleasure. Upon taking office, a new president almost always accepts the resignations of all the previous president’s political civil servants (known as schedule C appointees). George Bush did so in January 2001 (just as Clinton had in 1993) as was his right and as was tradition. But, once he appoints new US Attorneys the rules are different. All civil servants, even the politically appointed ones, take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Their loyalty must be to the Constitution and the American people even though they serve a sitting president. US Attorneys especially are expected to practice independence as they uphold the law, even in matters of wrongdoing involving their own party and their own president. The scandal here is that Mr Gonzales apparently fired these seven US Attorneys precisely BECAUSE they practiced independence in upholding the law in that they refused orders from the Administration to prosecute Democrats for political purposes. That is why this is a scandal.

Greg Weinman, Washington, DC, USA

I do not remember Clinton slandering the attorneys after they had been released. Whereas the Bush group tried to harm the reputations of the released attorneys. The Bush team exhibited a mean-spirited attitude which was uncalled for.

Bruce C. Keener, Woodbridge, USA, Virginia

If you believe that Gonzalez's resignation was voluntary, I have a lovely Swiss ski chalet in the Florida Everglades that I'll let you have at a very reasonable price. He was given the "resign or be fired" choice that will enable the Bush/Cheney administration to make a "recess appointment" (one that Congress cannot scrutinize) to the attorney generalship that will last till the end of the congressional session (i.e. the end of the Bush/Cheney term).

Milton Hirsch, MIami, FL/USA

Alan

You are absolutely right - in principle. Unfortunately, Mr. Gonzales' shortcomings are not as an attorney but as a politician. The right answer to the Democrat inquisitors would have been a defiant "they serve at the pleasure of the administration and they no longer please us."

He also failed to realize just how biased the media is. I'm sure he never imagined that going to the hospital to see if Ashcroft could discuss an important security matter would get turned into "he tried to force his ailing predecessor John Ashcroft to agree from his sickbed to approve the Administration’s domestic eavesdropping programme" or that the mainstream media would try to turn a routine laproscopic gall bladder removal i(typically a one night process) into a deathbed scene and ignore the reality that Cabinet members are treated in ICUs for minor matters because of security reasons. I am sure Mr Baker finds that tends to ruin the story line of his gripping yarn of hard-hearted Republicans

RRD, Chicago, USA

President Bill Clinton fired ALL the US Attorneys when he took office, as was his right. How is it that President George W. Bush isn't able to dismiss a handful that serve at his pleasure? Someone please explain this to me.

Alan, Des Moines, Iowa, USA