James Tierney, of Lisbon Falls, is a lecturer in law and director of the National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School. He served as the attorney general of Maine from 1980 to 1990 and is a consultant to attorneys general and others regarding state regulatory structures and multistate initiatives.

Tierney spoke to The Philadelphia Inquirer about the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, which takes effect Sept. 17.

Inquirer: You have said that Gonzales’ tenure has been very disruptive to state law enforcement officials, and that the lack of trust has complicated numerous cases, both civil and criminal. What, exactly, became more difficult during Gonzales’ tenure?

James Tierney: Gonzales viewed himself as the president’s lawyer, not as a law enforcement officer. As such, he did not listen to or consider the views or concerns of state and local law enforcement officials, and that has led to policy drift and budget cuts that have had a devastating impact on the safety and security of Americans. I’m not talking about the politics of it. I believe the U.S. attorney general should reflect the philosophy of the president.

That’s part of our democratic system and always has been. But Gonzales’ tenure was marked by confusion and a lack of clear purpose. Men and women who are career assistant U.S. attorneys have been left perplexed. After reading the story of former attorney general John Ashcroft in his hospital room, being pressured to sign an extension for warrantless domestic eavesdropping on Americans, think about the message that sent to assistant U.S. attorneys general. The message was loud and clear. It was very difficult to be motivated to work very hard in an atmosphere like that.

Inquirer: Why did the cases slow down or disappear? Was it unwitting incompetence or devious planned chaos? Or something else?

Tierney: I don’t know, and no one else knows. Of course, that answers the question by itself. Certainly part of the problem was how ideologues allowed their personal views to disrupt the handling of cases, but we can’t assume incompetence is wholly by accident. If you combine ideologues with personnel who aren’t very good, law enforcement will suffer. And of course, there are thankfully very few senior political appointees at the Department of Justice. If the attorney general insists on a political review on cases, everything obviously gets held up.

Inquirer: How did the firings of the eight U.S. federal prosecutors play into the confusion and lack of trust?

Tierney: I believe that the firings – not just the firings, but also the way they were handled – took the problems that were festering in main Justice and spread them into the field. The firings were done very strategically and were aimed at specific individuals for specific reasons. You can explain any one of them away, but as a group, you can’t explain them away. They further undermined the trust that should exist between the U.S. attorney general’s office and the rest of our justice system.

Inquirer: How long will the impact last?

Tierney: The Department of Justice is a terrific institution, and all you need here is a leader who will get rid of the ideologues and who says, “From here on, we’ll do our job right, and pursue cases on their merits.” Just saying that in a prominent forum will have a huge symbolic impact. However, there has been a tremendous loss of senior career prosecutors and it will take a good while to hire new people and convince the current senior career staff that they can indeed act without fear of retribution.

Inquirer: What was at the heart of Gonzales’ failure?

Tierney: The attorney general never did his job – which was to enforce the law on behalf of the American people. He did not understand that one can be a loyal follower of the president and nonetheless an independent decision-maker. He did not understand that it was not his job to serve the president’s agenda.

He became a mailbox for the White House – and the White House is not a law-enforcement agency. He didn’t understand that part of the job of any attorney general is to stand up to the executive. Former U.S. attorney general Janet Reno did that all the time. State attorneys general do it all the time. Dick Thornburgh and John Ashcroft did it all the time. Attorney General Gonzales was so close to the president, to Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and the Texas team, that he was never able to separate himself from the executive branch.

I’m not saying he got up every morning and said to himself, “OK, what do I do today to help the Republicans?” It wasn’t like that. He simply didn’t understand he had a job that was separate from being the personal lawyer and friend of the president. I admit that it can take some time to understand that role.

But a U.S. attorney general shouldn’t be getting on-the-job training.