Tony Snow Resigning Effective September 14

The number of resignations and those stepping away from the Administration continues to accelerate, as Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales have both gone by the boards in recent weeks. Snow is only the latest to go.

Snow's departure had been rumored for some time now, and this would again look like a Friday night news dump - or perhaps it has been timed to coincide with the possible Craig resignation rumored to happen later today?

Dana Perino will take over Snow's responsibilities.

Alberto Gonzales Resigns

Alberto Gonzales has resigned as the US Attorney General. His term in the position was one that was marked by questions over how or why several federal prosecutors were fired (it was badly mishandled despite the Executive's unassailable privilege to fire those prosecutors at will), and issues arising out of the treatment of enemy combatants. The official announcement will come later today.

I can't say that I'm sorry to see him go, because as a advocate for the Department of Justice, he did a poor job and did not communicate US policy clearly or concisely, which made the job of the Administration all the more difficult.

The resignation is effective upon the confirmation of his replacement.

There have been rumblings that President Bush would tap Michael Chertoff, the current head of Homeland Security, to become the next Attorney General, but I think that's an extremely bad idea given how poorly Chertoff has done at DHS. As Captain Ed notes, moving Chertoff from DHS to Attorney General raises the issue of not one confirmation hearing, but two. There have to be well qualified candidates from outside the Administration that President Bush can tap for the position.

UPDATE:
Hot Air points out that the President may seek to sidestep matters with recess appointments. That's entirely legal and possible, but is Chertoff really the most qualified candidate for the job? I don't think so.

Bush Reaffirms Strong Backing to Gonzales

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush renewed his support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday in the face of resignation calls, as the Democratic-led Congress moved to widen its probe into the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

White House counsel Fred Fielding was negotiating with lawmakers over which, if any, administration officials would testify about the sackings, which touched off a firestorm in Congress into whether the dismissals were politically motivated.

With a number of Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress calling for Gonzales to step aside as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, Bush telephoned him early on Tuesday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

"The president reaffirmed his strong backing and support of the attorney general," Perino said.

Congressional committees plan to vote this week on whether to subpoena those who refuse to testify. They are particularly interested in hearing from White House political strategist Karl Rove. A former aide to Rove was named to replace one of the prosecutors fired last year.

Critics charge the administration dismissed the prosecutors to make room for its allies or because it felt some were too tough on Republicans and not tough enough on Democrats.

Recently released documents showed the administration had considered firing all the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys, each a Bush appointee, at the end of president's first term in January 2005. But later it decided to dismiss just eight.

The documents also showed the U.S. attorneys were judged on such factors as their effectiveness as well as their loyalty to the administration.

Former prosecutors said they were given little if any reason for their dismissal and were warned the administration might retaliate if they complained. The administration denied any such threats.

Many Republicans lawmakers have said publicly that no judgment should be made on Gonzales until the facts are determined.

"I don't sense that members are rushing to his defense, nor does it appear that they would lose any sleep if he was replaced," a Republican leadership aide said.

Administration officials and GOP officials should tread lightly here. Acting to harsh or to quick may lead to accusations of racism, with Gonzalez being the first Hispanic Attorney General. Don't give the liberals fodder for claiming that he was thrown under the bus because of his race.

The Senate has already taken actions to limit the Attorney General's hiring/firing ability.

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to end the Bush administration's ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight federal prosecutors.

***

With a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that canceled a Justice Department-authored provision in the Patriot Act that had allowed the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. Democrats say the Bush administration abused that authority when it fired the eight prosecutors and proposed replacing some with White House loyalists.

"If you politicize the prosecutors, you politicize everybody in the whole chain of law enforcement," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

The bill, which has yet to be considered in the House, would set a 120-day deadline for the administration to appoint an interim prosecutor. If the interim appointment is not confirmed by the Senate in that time, a permanent replacement would be named by a federal district judge.

The vote came as Gonzales and the White House braced for more fallout from the firings. The White House also denied reports that it was looking for possible successors for Gonzales. "Those rumors are untrue," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

The Foley Scandal Grows

The fallout from the Mark Foley scandal grows in many directions - from the political to the criminal. The Florida GOP has decided upon a replacement for Mark Foley. He's three-term state legislator Joe Negron. Mark Foley, meanwhile has entered a rehab center. That has done little to stem the political fallout from the scandal:

White House press secretary Tony Snow, asked about that Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America," urged greater efforts to "figure out what happened here." He called it "a terrible story" and said he considered it unfortunate that "people are thinking, 'OK, can I get political advantage out of this'."

Hastert, in a letter sent Sunday to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, asked the Justice Department to "conduct an investigation of Mr. Foley's conduct with current and former House pages."

Republican candidates, meanwhile, are distancing themselves from Foley and seeking inquiries. Some Republicans also are calling for accountability from GOP leaders who knew about some of Foley's behavior and failed to take action.

"If they knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership," said Rep. Christopher Shays, a Republican in a competitive re-election fight in Connecticut.

Like other Democrats, his opponent Diane Farrell called the scandal indicative of House Republicans run amok, saying: "This leadership, which has been so terribly wrong on so many policies, now seems willing to cover up events to protect its members."

Privately, some Republicans concede that the party now is in even more danger of losing control of the House and a few fear the scandal could spill over to the Senate as well. Democrats need to win 15 GOP-held House seats and six in the Senate for control after a dozen years of Republican rule.

The Florida Masochist sends me the following links that are worth checking out including those from the Florida Beach Post what they knew about Foley's story and when.

Stop the ACLU has more on some of the hypocrisy creeping into this story.

Meanwhile, Denny Hastert's office says that they had no knowledge of the IMs that contained the sexual advances and suggestive language. I think some folks are trying to conflate the instant messages with the emails. While the emails contain suggestive language - like asking for photographs, it is the instant messages that contain exchanges that are of a highly sexual nature.

ABC's Blotter notes that Foley was trying to arrange a nighttime meeting with one of the pages.

It should come as no surprise that quite a few on the right are slamming the GOP leadership over the Foley scandal. Add the Wall Street Journal editorial board to that list.

Macranger continues to pursue the setup angle of the Foley scandal, based on the fact that quite a few leftist sites knew about the emails and IMs and yet sat on this information until right before the election. Yes, there is a problem with the timing of this scandal coming about 40 days out from the election.

The problem is that Foley's conduct is completely inexcusable and it appears that the GOP leadership conduct is questionable as to what they knew and when they knew it. That Democrats would wait til the last possible moment to unleash this information is politics as usual. The questions for the GOP leaders are numerous: Should Reynolds have done more to press the issue with Hastert and get to the bottom of the matter? Did Hastert investigate matters as fully as he should have?

Whatever the answer should have been, we're going to see lots of investigations into the situation from the FBI and DoJ.

LaShawn Barber calls for Hastert's resignation. Her voice joins that of Ed Morrissey and my own.

And yet, there is the possibility that some of those instant messages were doctored. That's right folks. Doctored. Passionate America has more.

I think there are still discrepancies in the story, and those will come out, as will the role played by the group C.R.E.W. Mark Levin has more on that angle.


Others blogging: Sister Toldjah, QandO, Newsbusters, Dan Riehl, Michelle Malkin, Flopping Aces, AJ Strata, In Search of Utopia, and The Moderate Voice.

UPDATE:
Ann Althouse and Don Surber have interesting takes on whether this is a matter of sex. I think this is about power - the abuse thereof. Sex sells the papers and inflates the blog statistics, but the core of this scandal is the abuse of power.

If the GOP loses power in either the House or Senate, they really have no one to blame but themselves. The Democrats have no policies or ideas of their own, other than to oppose whatever the GOP is doing (the odd exception being the fence legislation, where about half the Senate Democrats jumped the aisle to vote with the GOP on authorizing the fence).

Ace notes that the Washington Times is also calling for GOP leadership heads to roll. Add Beltway Blogroll to those calling for Hastert to step down. Even Instapundit thinks that Hastert should not be reelected to the majority leader slot - though that was after his handling of the Rep. William Jefferson scandal (aka the $90,000 cold cash in freezer story).

Prior coverage: Has Foley Scandal Gotten Worse?, Rep. Mark Foley Resigns Over Sexually Explicit Emails

Technorati: mark foley, email, im, instant message, congress.

NSA Eavesdropping Program Ruled Unconstitutional

A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush Administration disagrees with the ruling and has appealed.

"We also believe very strongly that the program is lawful," he said in Washington, adding that the program is "reviewed periodically" by lawyers to determine its effectiveness and ensure lawfulness.

The administration secretly instituted the program after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. It gives the National Security Administration authorization to secretly conduct wiretaps without a court order.

In a statement from the White House, Press Secretary Tony Fox said, "The program is carefully administered and targets only international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist.

The decision is 44 pages and is available here. I will comment more on this once I get a chance to read the decision.

What I found interesting was the list of Plaintiffs in this action:

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, based in Detroit. Plaintiffs included branches of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Washington and Detroit branches of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Greenpeace.

Greenpeace? How did they get mixed up with the ACLU, and CAIR? Politics makes strange bedfellows. You have a group allegedly dedicated to upholding the highest standards of the constitution, a group acused of maintaining terrorist ties, and a group dedicated to saving the wales. I understand the ACLU and CAIR challenging the NSA's actions. But why Greenpeace? What is their angle?

What I do know is that this decision weekens this country's ability to fight terrorisim. The government will appeal, and the loser of the appeal will appeal to the Supreme Court. Unfortunitaly, unless there is a stay of this decision, the decision takes effect immediately.

Anticipating the Miami Terror Cell Presser

Later this morning, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will give a press conference where he's expected to give more details about the terror cell that was arrested late yesterday.

Thus far, we know that seven people were arrested and the raids occurred on several locations, including a warehouse in Liberty City, Miami.

Things to look for in the press conference:
1) How the AG labels the group. Will he call them al Qaeda collaborators, wannabes, or independent jihadis who shared a common goal? My guess is that they'll be treated as independent jihadis who sought to emulate al Qaeda tactics and even tried to contact al Qaeda terrorists to further their plans.

2) More details about the targets. We know that the Sears Tower was at least one of the targets. What other areas were targeted? Buildings in Miami, including the federal building in downtown Miami are likely to be mentioned.

3) Background on the group. Who are these people and what were they doing before the FBI managed to infiltrate the group?

4) References to the domestic surveillance program. Expect some reference to the NSA program of eavesdropping on transjurisdictional communications (between the US and foreign countries), which tipped off law enforcement about potential terror ties).

This last part is going to be interesting, especially in light of the newest NYT revelation that the US is examining financial data to look for terrorist money laundering and money transfers. The program was instituted shortly after 9/11 as part of the Patriot Act. In other words, it wasn't a super secret program, but part of the changes made to federal law meant to improve law enforcement's capabilities to catch terrorists trying to secure or transfer funds within the US. Financial institutions were already required to flag certain kinds of transfers - such as those above certain dollar amounts and other suspicious activities. Macranger has more.

Meanwhile CNN is reporting that this latest plot was meant to conduct attacks on a scale greater than 9/11.

Here's a copy of the indictment. The seven defendants conspired, confederated with, and agreed to provide material support to al Qaeda. The plot included destroying FBI and other federal buildings in the continental US. The ringleader of this particular cell is Narseal Batiste, "who allegedly told a federal undercover agent who he thought was a member of al Qaeda that he was organizing a mission to build an Islamic army to wage a jihad in the United States."

The document says that Batiste "recruited and supervised individuals in order to organize and train for a mission to wage war against the United States government, which included a plot to destroy by explosives the Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois," the nation's tallest building.

Others noting the Miami terror bust: AJ Strata (who I hope gets his technical difficulties fixed soon - he's on my morning must read list) and James Joyner looks at the network tv coverage and finds some interesting priorities.

UPDATE:
As was expected, CAIR is trying to get ahead of the curve and has scheduled a press conference of its own.

CAIR National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed said: “The American Muslim community is extremely concerned about these disturbing reports. We stand with local and national law enforcement authorities in seeking to keep our nation safe and secure.”

Ahmed added that CAIR is urging police departments nationwide to step up patrols near mosques and other Islamic Institutions to help prevent any possible backlash resulting from these arrests.

Maybe if CAIR did more to out the jihadis in its midst we wouldn't have to worry so much about the possibility of a backlash. The fact is that quite a few mosques around the country are home to Islamists and jihadis who preach openly about causing mayhem and spreading Islam via jihad. Some talk of da'wa. Moderates who see and hear this have to choose congregations that aren't involved in such talk - and are reluctant to speak out for fear of harm to themselves from the violent elements.

The text of AG Gonzales' press remarks is here:

The seven men who were arrested – Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyblenson Lemorin and Rothschild Augustine – were named in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Miami. The indictment charges four counts:

conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, namely al Qaeda; conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists; conspiracy to maliciously damage and destroy buildings by means of an explosive device; and conspiracy to levy war against the Government of the United States.

These individuals wished to wage a, quote, “full ground war” against the United States. That quote is from the investigation of these individuals, who also allegedly stated the desire to, quote, “kill all the devils we can.” They hoped for their attacks to be, quote, “just as good or greater than 9/11.”

The defendants – five American citizens, one legal permanent resident and one Haitian national in the United States illegally – are expected to make appearances at U.S. District Court in Miami today.

As always, it is important to remind you that the defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law.

The indictment alleges that Batiste, the ringleader of this group, intended to recruit and supervise individuals to organize and train for a mission of war against the United States. Batiste and his co-conspirators allegedly attempted to obtain the support of al Qaeda to achieve their goals. They also took steps to carry out their plans for violent attacks on this nation. Those steps included seeking out uniforms and weapons, conducting reconnaissance, and taking bayat, the oath of allegiance to al Qaeda. We know this because an individual they thought was a member of al Qaeda was present at their meetings. In actuality he was working with the South Florida Joint Terrorism Task Force.

If convicted, the defendants in this case each face a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison on the charges of conspiracy to provide material support or resources. The defendants also face a maximum of 20 years in prison on each charge of conspiracy to destroy buildings by use of explosives and conspiracy to levy war against the United States.

I would assume that the illegal alien would be deported at the conclusion of the matter, regardless of the outcome. It will be interesting to see the kind of evidence that the government produces in support of this case.

UPDATE:
Hot Air has a good roundup.

QandO notes that there are lots of similarities between the Miami 7 and the Canada 17.

Malkin has a history of jihad in the US.

Others blogging: Assorted Babble, Sister Toldjah, Stuck on Stupid, Ed Morrissey, Dumb Ox,

Posted to: Mudville Gazette and Basil's Blog.

UPDATE:
KLo at the Corner makes a similar observation to mine about CAIR's response to the indictments:

Just heard part of the CAIR news conference on the Miami cell. An official instructed the media to "stop calling these individuals Muslims." If I were a CAIR official, I'd be more concerned with why one of the members of the cell indicated — I'm getting this from the indictment — he was building an "Islamic army."

UPDATE:
From the some folks just don't quite get it department, Mahablog thinks that this whole thing is overblown and that this somehow undermines the flypaper strategy. Maybe they'd know that while most flies eventually end up stuck in the flypaper, some flies do manage to evade the flypaper for a stretch of time. The terrorists that seek to do harm to this country are no different. Many of the jihadis went to Iraq and Afghanistan to try and fight the US - and most have died in the process. Some continue to try and get into position to attack the US here at home, but that doesn't mean that the flypaper strategy is wrong. The flypaper strategy is only part of a larger campaign against the jihadis. We'd be remiss not to make sure that terrorists don't try to do something here at home while we're eliminating them overseas.

Jose Padilla Indicted

- "Dirty Bomb" suspect Jose Padilla, held by the U.S. as an enemy combatant for more than three years, has been indicted on federal charges in Miami, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was expected to discuss the indictment at a news conference in Washington.

Padilla, a Brooklyn-born Muslim convert, has been held as an "enemy combatant" in Defense Department custody for more than three years. The Bush administration had resisted calls to charge and try him in civilian courts.

The indictment avoids a Supreme Court showdown. Padilla's lawyers had asked justices to review his case last month, and the Bush administration was facing a deadline next Monday for filing its legal arguments.

The Padilla case is interesting because Padilla was an American citizen who was captured as he was reentering the US from Pakistan. One of the thorny questions was whether he should continue to be treated as a US citizen, or as an enemy combatant.

Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in 2002 after returning from Pakistan. The federal government has said he was trained in weapons and explosives by members of al-Qaida.

Although the Justice Department has said that Padilla was readying attacks in the United States, the charges against him and four others allege they were part of a conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country and provide material support to terrorists abroad.

The charges are really what the prosecutors think may be the strongest case and what they can prove in court without revealing intelligence sources.

This is a developing story, and expect the usual suspects to be on top of the legal issues involved (Instapundit, Volokh Conspiracy, etc.)

UPDATE:
Here's a copy of the indictment, which includes interesting note that Padilla and his codefendants were followers and supporters of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who is currently serving life without parole after being convicted for crimes stemming from the 1993 WTC bombing and additional terror plots against targets in the New York metropolitan area. The indictments are for conspiracy to commit murder outside the US for the purpose of expanding violent jihad.

The terrorists that have struck at the US are part of a very small cadre of leaders who have dedicated their lives to inflicting mass casualties on the US. Their animus is directed by a select few - Osama bin Laden is one. Sheik Rahman was another. This article has more about those at the top.

UPDATE:
SCOTUSblog has more, as does Orin Kerr, who notes that the timing of this indictment is no coincidence; it comes only six days before the pending certiorari before the US Supreme Court. Kerr thinks that while the indictment was filed to make the writ moot, there is still a possibility that the Court will take up the issue, just as they did in the Hamdan petition.

UPDATE:
Some media outlets are looking at today's indictment and comparing them to earlier statements made by the Administration about Padilla's involvment in trying to detonate a dirty bomb in the US. Is this a major shift in the Administration's case against Padilla, a massive overstatement of the case, or based on new evidence that has been gathered in the past three years? Or, some combination of the above?

One of the things that people need to realize is that terrorism against the US didn't start on 9/11, or even in 1993. We've been dealing with Islamic terrorists for a long time, and that various groups are interrelated to each other. Many were inspired by the 1993 WTC bombers, including bin Laden.

Keep your eye on the linkages to Sheik Rahman. And on Padilla's co-defendants. See Michelle Malkin for more.