Duty, Honor — and the Justice Department

By: Andrew Cohen
Topics: Field Notes

(CBS)

Lawyer Andrew Cohen analyzes legal affairs for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

You fire eight bright, aggressive, savvy lawyers for reasons that have little to do with their job performance and guess what? You are likely to be sued. So it should come as a surprise to no one, including the nation's top lawyer, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, that at least one of the eight fired U.S. Attorneys is taking legal action to determine whether his dismissal violated federal law. You ride the tiger long enough you eventually end up inside.

Newsweek is reporting this week that David Iglesias, the former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, has filed a formal complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency, to determine whether the Justice Department violated his rights under Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. USERRA is the federal law that is designed to protect our military personnel from job discrimination when they return from service or otherwise are required to undertake their service to the detriment of their ability to do their jobs.

What does that law have to do with Iglesias? Perhaps plenty. In addition to being a loyal Bush appointee until he was fired by Gonzales and Company, Newsweek reports that Iglesias also is "a captain in the Navy reserve, teaching military officers about international terrorism." Iglesias told Newsweek that he decided he had better pursue some sort of legal action when he learned that one of the so-called justifications for his dismissal was that he was deemed "an absentee landlord" by Justice Department officials. He was absent, of course, because he was doing his duty for the military.

There is no guarantee that Iglesias ultimately will win his case—no way to tell whether the provisions of USERRA apply to top-of-the-line political appointees like a federal prosecutor. But you can imagine that political ammunition this will provide the Attorney General's ever-expanding list of critics and doubters. Can't you just hear a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 17th asking Gonzales if he even knew that Iglesias was honoring his country by serving in the military while also acting as a U.S. Attorney? And can't you just hear the Attorney General fumbling with his answer?

There is no good answer. If Gonzales knew that Iglesias was a captain in the Navy reserve, and still held it against him, the Justice Department isn't practicing what it is preaching in USERRA cases all over the country. It is guilty of hypocrisy, at the least, and unequal protection of law at worst. And if Gonzales did not know that the man he was about to fire was helping fight the war on terror then it is just another example of the carelessness and negligence that has marked the Gonzales era at the Justice Department. Iglesias and the other prosecutors were treated shabbily by their bosses and leaders. It is no surprise that they are beginning to strike back. Any good lawyer would.

3 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by Lyleblog April 6, 2007 12:39 AM EDT: The Issue has now become a matter of having to review the past appearances of Seedy Gonzales Due To His being caught lying to Congress.

How much other testimony has been contaminated due to the perjury of Gonzales?

Why does Specter remain aloof, on his side of the table, after abdicating his duties, and responsibilities, to Brent Tolman, his party committee overseer, too insert legislation and not say a word about it until it was abused? Gonzales, Goodling and Sampson must tell the truth. But, alas, that day will never occur.; Reply to this comment


by harp1963 April 6, 2007 12:11 AM EDT: http://www.post-gazette.com/robrogers/; Reply to this comment


by adian1-2009 April 5, 2007 8:34 PM EDT: To me that repeated ground to insinuate that since the prosecutors serve at the will of the president they can be fired just like that, has never been a convincing one. The relation between an excecutive who appoints and a public servant that is appointed and confirmed by the proper legislative body, must be and are based in good faith --bona fides--, like any contractual relation between two or more people. Good faith in these cases should mean that even though serving at the will of the excecutive, in a cvilized relation under a democratic form of government, arbitrariness MUST be excluded. If there is good faith in the appointment, then there should be a reason to fire. It is different --and, honestly, morally it should not be, and it should be regulated by law to avoid discrimination for political reasons-- when there is a new president or party that comes to power. I know that Senators will be unwilling to limit their power to influence those appointments and to dream about changing the law is merely that, dreaming. But, honestly, I do not see a good moral, legal or political reason not to appoint federal prosecutors for a fixed period of four or six or eight or twelve years. I hope that Mr. Iglesias, who judging from the information brought out was not fired for good reason, prevails in his case. It will be another significant detail to support the contention that Gonzales does not merit to be allowed to stay as our top national legal officer.; Reply to this comment