Politics and Policy   Sometimes you start reading a run-of-the-mill newspaper story, and suddenly you begin to see how deep the paranoia is in the White House, and how things just keep getting weirder and weirder. This dispute started out small enough. Herbert and Shirley-Ann C, elderly residenets of Blaine, Washington, decide to build a concrete retaining wall on their back yard, which is a common feature in this part of the country. The trouble is, their backyard property line is the U.S./Canadian border. The International Boundary Commission intervened, saying the wall must come down, as it violates the U.S./Canada treaties of 1908 and 1925 requiring that a 10-foot buffer be maintained on each side of the border. The International Boundary Commission is an independent international organization created by the 1908 treaty between the U.S. and Canada. One commissioner is appointed by each country, the U.S. commissioner is appointed by the President and reports to the Secretary of State. A commissioner can be removed only by death, resignation, or “other disability”. The commission has only a very small paid staff. The Leu’s were incensed that the government could tell them what to do on their own property, and retained Pacific Legal, which states on its web site that it is “dedicated to limited government, property rights and individual liberty”. In short, it is a right wing/libertarian organization opposed to just about any government regulation of private property. The PLF filed a lawsuit against the IBC on behalf of the Leus, seeking an injunction preventing the IBC from removing the wall. The IBC had never been sued before. Dennis Schornack, the IBC’s U.S. Commissioner, tried to get help from the State Department, but was rebuffed because the State Department said it could not get involved in a lawsuit against an independent international entity. Schornack then turned to the Justice Dept., who’s responsibilities include representing the U.S. agencies in civil court cases. The Justice Dept. offered to assist the IBC, but said it had to hire its own independent counsel, and that it couldn’t offer advice regarding international laws and treaties. So Schornack initially enlists the help of his personal attorney, Elliot Feldman, who communicates with the attorney general’s office in the Western District of Washington, which is at first very cooperative. But then the A.G.’s office in Washington D.C. reverses course. It puts strong pressure on Schornack to “settle the case”. But Schornack resists. He feels the law is clear, and it leaves him little discretion in the matter. He also feels that his responsibilities include preserving the integrity of the border to protect the security of the U.S. He points out that if construction is permitted to intrude into the buffer zone, it will facilitate the construction of tunnels and other means to by-pass the customs and immigration checkpoints. Just such a tunnel was discovered and closed down nearby in Blaine, Washington only two years ago. So then Schornack, on behalf of the IBC, hires an experienced attorney to represent the I.B.C. in the civil suite. a confirmed Republican and former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington. Less than a week thereafter, President Bush informs Schornack that he (Schornack) is fired for his “handling of the matter”! Schornack responds that he can’t be fired, he is part of an independent international agency, and doesn’t recognize the President’s authority to fire him. Now, just to make sure you have the player’s straight: Dennis Schornack was appointed by President Bush to his position in 2001 (he assumed office in 2002), and previously headed the Strategic Inititives office of Michigan Governor John Engler, a conservative Republican. Dennis Schornack is therefore probably a Republican. The Leu’s are probably Republicans, as indicated by their outrage that any law, regulation, or treaty can tell them what they can or can’t do with their own property. The Pacific Legal Foundation, the organization filing suite on behalf of the Leu's, appears to represent the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party. The Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales is now about as thoroughly Republican as it can get. So why would President Bush, who already has more troubles than he has time to put on a list, suddenly add to his troubles the attempted firing of an independent international commissioner over which he has no authority? Possibly because the lawyer hired by Schornack was John McKay, who was one of the U.S. Federal Prosecutors forced to resign by the White House this past year????!!!!!! This just keeps getting weirder and weirder. As Dennis Schornack said today, "I'm ashamed of my government...." The back story: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003785546_border12m.html (Posted by Rick in Seattle, July 12, 2007) Update & Correction (revised July 25, 2007): After this story was picked up by the Daily Kos, it was pointed out that the lawyer hired by Schornack was not John McKay, but his brother, Mike McKay. Perhaps I was distracted by the reference in the story to the "former U.S. Attorney". But it seems that Mike McKay was also a U.S. Attorney. "As U.S. Attorney under the first President Bush, McKay earned a national reputation for prosecuting cross burners, flag burners, violators of the Clean Water Act, and a Sudafed-tampering murderer." Source: http://www.ejm.lsc.gov/EJMIssue5/meetmckay.htm As indicated in a post by the poster Duffman on "Blatherwatch" back in March 2007, Mike McKay (John's brother) held (honorary) co-chairman positions in the state campaigns for Bush for President in both 2000 and 2004, and was allied with the likes of Jennifer Dunn and Slade Gorton. But his law office also made political contributions to Washington-State Democrates such as Christine Gregoire, Ron Sims, and Mark Sidran. Of course, people in business often make contributions to both sides in the hopes of securing access to whoever wins, and Mike McKay's law firm apparantly did receive a state contract at some point after making their contributions. But perhaps that is no longer tolerated within the more radicalized Washington State Republican Party - the same ones who sought the removal of John McKay because he dind't cooperate in the public relations strategy tied to Republican challenge of Grequire's election to governor. Source:http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2007/03/the_heart_of_a_.html So, that brings us back to the original question: Why did Bush fire the U.S. International Boundary Commissioner? Herein are some of the possiblities: (a) The Bush administration has been largly silent on the issue, except for some vague references to the allegation that Schornack "mishandled" the Leu case. If so, I think that will be the first time a Bush appointee, other than "Brownie", was fired for mishandling anything. The guys that totally screwed up the occupation of Iraq got a Medal of Freedom. Chertoff, the guy in charge of Homeland Security, never had to take the fall for Brownie and Katrina. Rumsfield was protected for years for his obvious mis-understanding of the basics of the situation in Iraq, and only resigned after the Republican's disasterous showing in the 2006 Congressional elections. Alberto Gonzales is still in office despite either committing perjury to Congress or being totally unconscious of anything that went on in his own department or the White House for the past year. It doesn't wash. (b) Perhaps Bush & Co. were bowing to the radical right-wing "property rights" advocates, who resist any attempt by the government to have any say over private property, even if violates a long-standing U.S./Canadian treaty? If so, its a chilling picture which is presented of the power of those right-wing groups to make the Bush administration do their bidding. A few calls complaining that U.S. Attorney Generals aren't being sufficiently cooperative, and resignations are demanded. A call regarding an obscure case over a border retaining wall, and an International Border Commissioner is fired. (c) As suggested on Daily Kos, is it possible that the Bush administration made the same mistake I did (confusing John McKay and Mike McKay)? Or were they exercising a little mafia-style revenge (not only do we off you, professionally, but also your entire family, and your little dog Toto too!). Or perhaps the entire family wasn't considered sufficiently and consistently loyal to the White House's brand of "Republicanism", and therefore to be considered as worse than their enemies? The upshot seems to be that with Bush & Co. in the White House, there is little accountability for mistakes, even if it results in the deaths of hundreds (Katrina) or thousands (Iraq Occupation). The only thing which gets you fired is not being blindly loyal to the extreme right-wing base of the Republican party.   Check out the other “Politics and Policy” Articles (click the link below): Politics and Policy Articles   Sponsors College Rowing Scholarships Title IX has made hundreds of college rowing scholarships available for women rowers, and recently some colleges have even begun to offer scholarships to a select few of their men's rowers, also. Who gets these scholarships, and how do those rowers get noticed by the college coaches, whereas others do not? What type of athelete is the college coach looking for? Can non-rowers really have a chance at a rowing scholarship? What NCAA regulations impact a high school student hoping to row in college? This page is devoted to resources which help answer those questions.              Copyright 2006-2007 - Brookridge Associates Inc. All rights reserved.