"Pyro" Brown still doesn't think rules apply to him

Rep. Henry Brown still seems to think he should get special treatment after setting the forest afire.

That's the long and short of an op-ed he wrote this week for a couple of newspapers, if you read between the lines. From The Post and Courier:

"I do not expect special treatment as a congressman. However, as a private citizen, I would hope to have the same rights as my constituents. This includes a right to dissent. Earlier this year, I was burning underbrush on my farm in Cordesville. I was burning with a permit from the S.C. Forestry Commission, as was the U.S. Forest Service on this same day. During the course of the afternoon, winds picked up and the fire jumped the breaks constructed to prevent such an occurrence. Approximately 20 acres of federal land were burned. In conducting this burn, I did not believe I broke a law, nor acted negligently. "

We bet Saddam Hussein probably believed he didn't break any laws in Iraq either.

Brown is still making excuses. Evidence that he hasn't learned his lesson is found in the fact that The State newspaper finally chimed in Sept. 24 in this editorial after it got tired of his nonsense:

"Henry Brown is not responsible.

That’s the message that the Lowcountry congressman has conveyed through several channels to the U.S. Forest Service, whose officers wanted to cite Rep. Brown for a planned fire that jumped from his tree farm into the Francis Marion National Forest this March. The fire’s spread, Rep. Brown maintained, was an “act of God,” and he should not be held liable.

But a fire does not have to be intentional to violate the law. If a private citizen allows a fire to get out of control on National Forest land, a fine is assessed, whether the violator is a wayward scout, a bunch of rowdy partiers — or a member of Congress....

What he cannot do, and must be scrupulous to avoid any hint of doing, is use his position to evade enforcement of the law. That certainly is not the impression the Forest Service got. Rep. Brown maintains that the law is unfairly written, and that he did nothing for himself that he would not do for any constituent. But he’s not a constituent. He’s debating his penalty with Forest Service officials in his congressional office — that is hardly “acting solely as a private citizen,” as Rep. Brown maintains. There’s a clear implication that he used his position to pursue a break from the law....

The whistle-blower complaint even alleges that Rep. Brown threatened to use his position on the key House Budget Committee against the agency, a charge the congressman denies.

For Rep. Brown, the best answer is simple. He should pay his $250 fine, a low amount that reflects the inadvertent nature of his violation. He should publicly declare an end to his feud with the Forest Service, including rejecting any inference that the agency will pay in Congress for enforcing the law. Finally, he needs to be more responsible in the future, as everyone should, while conducting controlled burns."