The New York Times has an excellent article this morning that draws in sharp relief what passed for "law enforcement" under the Bush Administration, and what federal law enforcement used to be, and could be again, under the Obama administration.
More to follow...
First, you need to understand a few things about the Department of Justice and the United States Attorneys offices that are scattered around the country. The United States Attorneys head their respective offices, and are political appointees. The staffs of attorneys that serve in the offices are, for the most part, career prosecutors who have civil service status. The United States Attorneys who have served under the Bush Administration have no options left - as a matter of course, they submit their resignations. Anyone who is any good is already gone - the handwriting has been on the wall for at least a year. Some go onto the federal bench; some go to well-paying jobs in the private sector (and please note that I said that only includes the "good" lawyers, which is why Alberto Gonzalez is still unemployed). When they leave, a career prosecutor becomes the "acting" United States Attorney until the new United States Attorney is appointed and confirmed by Congress.
The Times article focuses on the problems relating to "immigration crimes", and the consequences of focusing federal efforts on our domestic "war on terror" and the age old "war on drugs". What happens when you combine these "wars" under the Bush Administration? You get this:
Federal prosecutions of immigration crimes nearly doubled in the last fiscal year, reaching more than 70,000 immigration cases in the 2008 fiscal year, according to federal data compiled by a Syracuse University research group. The emphasis, many federal judges and prosecutors say, has siphoned resources from other crimes, eroded morale among federal lawyers and overloaded the federal court system. Many of those other crimes, including gun trafficking, organized crime and the increasingly violent drug trade, are now routinely referred to state and county officials, who say they often lack the finances or authority to prosecute them effectively.
I can tell you from experience as a lawyer who used to defend people in federal court that a trial in federal court can often be viewed as a long, slow guilty plea. Unlike state court (I practice in New York- and I am only familiar with New York), the law is stacked against you. So it is hard to demoralize a criminal defense attorney who works in federal court. If I had continued to practice under the Bush regime, like Rachel Maddow, people would have had to "talk me down" on a daily basis.
It also demoralized federal law enforcement. Look at this:
Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who is a frequent critic of Justice Department priorities, said that federal agents also complained often to her about delays in wiretap requests, a hallmark of the kind of complex investigations that used to be a mainstay of federal cases.
"They’ve pulled so many U.S. attorneys off drug crimes and organized crime caseloads that federal agents are trying to get help from local district attorneys because they can’t wait six weeks for a wiretap order," Ms. Lofgren said. "By then it’s too late to catch the bad guys."
Federal agents requested 457 wiretaps in 2007, a 14-year low. Meanwhile, state and local prosecutors requested 1,751 wiretaps, more than triple the number in 1993.
As you know, wiretaps aren't used solely in drug and organized crime cases. They are routine in while-collar prosecution cases (think Enron) and government corruption cases. Wiretaps are the lifeblood of complex investigation. It is absolutely astounding to see less than 500 requests for wiretaps in the entire United States in 2007 by the Feds.
As a former criminal defense lawyer, with 20 years of experience before I stopped (for health reasons), I vigorously defended my clients in federal and state court. When I teach, I tell law students that if you are thinking of doing criminal defense, be ready to put your body before your client's; make the government have to go through you in order to get to your client (I was once called on that by US Marshals, who informed me that there had been death threats made against my client during trial, and it was their job to protect him, not me). Just as there are a lot of good defense lawyers out there, there are also many excellent career prosecutors in the Department of Justice and the offices of the United States' Attorneys. I know more than a few, and I respect them, as they respect me. And I believe that a great many of them are "waiting to exhale" as they read this article this morning, over their coffee:
Prosecutorial priorities are expected to change after President-elect Barack Obama takes office, said Mark Agrast, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research and policy institute that is closely associated with the transition team. "There will be a reassessment of whether aggressive targeting of criminal aliens through the use of federal criminal statues is an effective use of scarce law enforcement resources," Mr. Agrast said.
You don't have to be religious to be devoutly praying that a lot changes with the new administration. I know a lot of people who will be thrilled just to get out of the wilderness. They have nowhere to go but up. I hope.