Linda Thomsen: Scapegoat

A scapegoat in Leviticus was the goat released on the day of atonement.  Although itself innocent, the scapegoat bore the responsibility of the sins of others and was sent out into the wilderness to perish. 

The WSJ reports that Linda Thomsen, the current director of the Division of Enforcement will resign this week. Thomsen has essentially become the scapegoat for the problems confronted by the Enforcement Division in recent months.  It is a true example of a scapegoat.  Thomsen has generally been a rigorous head of Enforcement.  To the extent there have been problems, they largely emanated from the philosophy that came from the Republican dominated Commission.  In short, her hands were tied but now is being forced to bear the sins of others.

She will be replaced by Robert Khuzami, currently with Deutsche Bank and formerly the chief of the securities fraud unit at the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan.  Schapiro apparently wants someone "tough" to take over the Division.  Khuzami is a Republican who spoke in favor of George Bush at the 2004 convention and contributed to the McCain campaign.  A copy of the speech made to the Republican Convention is below.  In it, Khuzami vigorously defended the Patriot Act.

Khuzami may be "tough," but perhaps it wasn't too much to ask for someone with more neutral political credentials.

I am here today as a proud citizen of this great country and as a former federal prosecutor of terrorist crimes.

In response to 9/11, President Bush had the courage and the wisdom to seek passage of the Patriot Act, a critical tool in the effort to prevent future terrorist acts.  The Patriot Act has helped our homeland security team dismantle terror cells from New York to Oregon, disrupt efforts to obtain weapons, and cut off sources of terrorist funding.  Now, in this election year, we're hearing criticism that the Patriot Act is a threat to our liberties. Let me give you two examples of that criticism. You decide for yourself.

Some claim that agents can now search your home without ever telling you a thing about it. They are mistaken.  The fact is, agents still need a court order to search a person's home, just like they always have.  What the Patriot Act does is permit agents in terrorism investigations to ask a judge to let them reasonably delay notice of the search.

This makes sense. You don't want a suspect to learn that he is under investigation until that investigation is over.  Other critics argue that the Patriot Act allows agents to snoop into library reading lists. The fact is, agents and prosecutors care nothing about what you read.

But what they must have, and what we all need them to have, is the authority to determine if a suspect has in his possession documents or records, such as bomb-making formula, that reflect terrorist activities. 
The Patriot Act simply lets agents gather these writings in the right circumstances, but again, only with a judges permission.

In the end, the Patriot Act is an effective tool for protecting Americans. It extends time-honored, legal principles and practices to the new challenges posed by the global terrorist networks.  Some Patriot Act protections will expire next year. Some politicians have waffled over their commitment to safeguarding America. We will have a leadership that will continue to protect both our lives and our liberties by re-electing President George W. Bush.

Thank you