  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Don’t Give Mukasey a PassPosted on Oct 24, 2007By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—This is the era of it-could-be-worse. That is what Democratic control of Congress has given us: a nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, who is likely to be confirmed even though he appears to endorse some of the most dangerous expansions of executive power that the Bush-Cheney crowd has concocted. And even though he cannot bring himself to declare that waterboarding—an infamous interrogation technique that the United States has used on terrorism suspects—is torture. But after all, we could do worse. We could still have as attorney general Alberto Gonzales, a shamelessly partisan presidential crony who turned the Justice Department into a coven for “loyal Bushies.” They believed their mission was to implement White House wishes. There is accumulating evidence that they used the department as a posse to hunt down Democratic officeholders and activists and prosecute them, even as they punished those U.S. attorneys—appointed by the president—who targeted corrupt Republicans. Or, some Democrats argue, we could have had a fiercely partisan nominee such as former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, whose selection was vetoed in advance because of his role in the Florida voting imbroglio of 2000. So Mukasey is what we’ve got, and it seems as though Democrats will settle for him. Compare Mukasey to Gonzales and you at least see someone who has federal judicial experience and a reputation for fairness in court. He certainly gives the impression that he won’t go along with the ruthlessly partisan shenanigans that tainted and demoralized the Justice Department under Gonzales. Still, you have a nominee who will not say that waterboarding—the practice of covering a prisoner’s head then cascading water upon him to simulate drowning—is torture. It is a technique that was used by the Nazis and Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge. It has been applied by the United States to terrorism suspects who haven’t been charged with any offense. Mukasey, at his confirmation hearing, said he doesn’t know “what is involved” in the technique. Perhaps he has been held in isolation as the American use of the practice has been exposed and debated worldwide. Or perhaps he is lying. Mukasey will have a chance to “clarify” his torture comments when senators on the Judiciary Committee submit written questions to him. But what of his view that there are some ways in which a president can operate outside of the law? This is the heart of the Bush-Cheney doctrine of the presidency. It goes beyond historians’ concept of an “imperial presidency.” It is more like autocracy. The president issues secret executive orders to bestow upon himself powers he does not have under the law as written. This is what George W. Bush did when he set up a system to eavesdrop on Americans without first obtaining warrants. Mukasey, when asked at his confirmation hearing about this practice, strongly implied that the president was acting within his powers under the Constitution—despite a statute explicitly barring the surveillance without an order from a secret national security court. On many of the most significant affronts to constitutional liberties and international law that the administration has carried out in the name of fighting terrorism, Mukasey was in sync with Bush. He is, in this sense, a company man without the taint of cronyism that sullied Gonzales. But yes men are dangerous, even when they come with a pedigree that appeals to senators desirous of moving on and determined to avoid a political showdown. The scenario is familiar because it has played out so many times—and led to such great calamities—throughout Bush’s presidency. It is, in a way, precisely the thinking that gave Bush a lopsided vote in favor of invading Iraq: Democrats in 2002 were keen to get the war vote over with, so they could turn voters’ attention to the economy in the midterm election campaigns. Cynicism must not prevail this time. The reasons we’ve fallen so far in world esteem aren’t only that we launched the destabilizing adventure in Iraq or botched the effort to eradicate the Taliban and al-Qaida. It is partly because we have abandoned the very concepts on which the United States was founded—principles of law and justice we say we want others to emulate. The Justice Department is supposed to uphold these principles and not allow any president to trash them. Mukasey should demonstrate his own fidelity to them or his nomination must be voted down. Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Moral Minority Next item: Hillary's Firewall Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Palling Around With Meteorologists
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By Dominick J., October 29, 2007 at 8:29 pm #
jbart try this:
Report thishttp://www.speaker.gov/contact/
By jbart, October 29, 2007 at 4:15 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I need your help. I really want to communicate with “Miss Nancy” of the “GREAT” (& psychotic State of CA.). I’ve tried websites, personal & official. I’ve only received “constituancy” questions. Not as “Speaker”, but as representative crap. I live & vote in CT. and haven’t been able to communicate with her. Can someone here, on TD, “show me the way”? I’d greatly appreciate the provision of an effective vehicle to reach this, obviously, “out-of-touch” wench. Any help in this regard will be greatly appreciated. I promise to vicserate her, to the best of my abilities, if I can find an effective way to communicate the dissatisfaction with her “leadership”.
Report thisBy cyrena, October 28, 2007 at 11:23 pm #
#110118 by William Ries
...."I get weary of the media calling this nomination acceptable. Just say no! The Dems need to get a set of cajones and quit rolling over by standing up for what Democrats used to believe in- truth, rule of law, morality.
Why is that so impossible on the hill these days? Political patronage and $$$?"…
My sentiments exactly!!! (Of course I was told that I was dreaming if I thought the dems would do this...JUST SAY NO! And, I admit, they haven’t yet.
BUT, they NEED to.
And no, Schumer doesn’t get a ‘pass’ either. They’re ALL replacable. How hard would it be to come up with a new batch of 535 Americans to fill these jobs? I think we could work it out in less than a month.
Report thisBy Dominick J., October 28, 2007 at 8:32 pm #
Dem. Sen. Charles Schumer be given a pass?
Report thisHell NO. We don’t need or want Rethuglican Democrats!!!
By mark, October 28, 2007 at 2:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Should Mukasey’s sponsor, Dem. Sen. Charles Schumer be given a pass?
Report thisBy William Ries, October 28, 2007 at 1:46 pm #
I get weary of the media calling this nomination acceptable. Just say no! The Dems need to get a set of cajones and quit rolling over by standing up for what Democrats used to believe in- truth, rule of law, morality.
Report thisWhy is that so impossible on the hill these days? Political patronage and $$$?
By Dominick J., October 27, 2007 at 5:43 pm #
You’re right John, we need more Progressive Democrats instead of Rethuglican Democrats. Feinstein comes to mind and she’s from California. Most of the time splitting the vote for her Conservative base and Boxers Moderate/liberal base. I’m tired of it.
Report thisAnd it looks like, according to the power the “new” Demos in office have seem to be more conservative than Progressive. Any way that’s how I see it with the ENDA bill going through with out Tammy Baldwins amendment.
Ya’ll correct me if I’m off base hear?
But back to Mukaskey for a sec. I can see the Dems giving in if they can get him to say, what ever it is they need him to say to get the confirmation and then it’s more Power to the “decider.”
By thomas billis, October 27, 2007 at 4:38 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
If they legalized full embryonic stem cell research tomorrow it would take years for the democrats in congress to grow a spine.The logic here is that Mussolini is better than Hitler.That is what it has come down to in America not good less bad.When a candidate for Attorney General intimates that a President can make something legal simply by doing it we are again on a slippery slope.I have heard analogies that Bush is doing no more or no less what Lincoln and FDR did in wartime.Well I have read about Lincoln and FDR and Mr Bush you are no Lincoln or FDR.
Report thisBy Revere, October 27, 2007 at 4:59 am #
It is amazing how few people participate in voicing their disgust at the loss of liberty. There must be a collective consciousness at work, like lemmings, that induces us to herd together in a wave and commit collective suicide. This includes the Democrats in Congress, the corporate media, and the folks who covet that new Lexus or pray for their team to make it to the Super Bowl. Our value system is the cause of the phenomenon of actually debating whether torture is justified. I never in my life thought we would have fallen to this. Of course it was unrealistic to assume that we are not capable of falling for the same tactics that nurtured the rise of Nazi Germany. Human nature is not really different now than it was in the 1930s. It is our turn to become embroiled in a struggle to defend liberty or fall to despotism.
Report thisBy cyrena, October 27, 2007 at 1:08 am #
Sheila, You’ve definitely got a point about the dems never saying no. They haven’t done it yet, and they may not this time. So, I could have been dreaming a bit, and I’m willing to acknowledge that.
But, it would appear that he’s not going to get a quick ‘pass’ either. At least not by what is coming over the wires now. So, check it out.
Mukasey’s Nomination Runs Into Trouble
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/102607J.shtml
This isn’t to say that they won’t eventually approve him, or that he won’t say whatever they want him to say, to get the confirmation, and then do whatever the hell he was gonna do to begin with. But, maybe it shows that at least we’re watching now. (a little bit).
Report thisBy rodney, October 26, 2007 at 1:50 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Let’s water board Mculasky,Bush Cheney.Giulaini,Rice and any other person who doesn’t believe that water boarding isn’t torture. And for fun and amusement televise it, then we’ll see it the policy changes.
Report thisBy purplewolf, October 25, 2007 at 12:17 pm #
Mukasey,the first syllable of his name says it all: MUK (muck).As in morass or quagmire.He is nothing but an educated clone of the former Alberto Gonzales.And intellegience can be dangerous thing.Especially with this bunch of underhanded criminals.He is too intertwined with this group and has already dismissed the fact that Bush has gone outside of the law numerous times.He will also fail to uphold the Constitution and other laws this nation was founded on to excuse his buddy George. There is too much of the Spoils System at work in this group of criminals.
And as for claiming not to know about what waterboarding is,perhaps a live demonstration in which Mr. Mukasey is the volunteer victim of this form of torture would give him the first hand knowledge he so sorely needs to understand technique used on “suspects” who have NOT been charged with any offense.
Yep, the writings on the wall,more of the same B.S. over and over again.It never changes, just names of the current corrupt appointees.
Report thisBy rowdy, October 25, 2007 at 10:09 am #
it’s great that TD has added mark fiore’s cartoons. spineocrats is one of his best.
Report thisBy John C. Bonser, October 25, 2007 at 5:46 am #
What the US needs is a Democratic Party that has courage. Instead ever since 2001 congress is filled with “roll over” Democrats who cringe every time Dubya shouts “BOO!”
Report thisBy sheila, October 25, 2007 at 1:38 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
As to “just say no” dream on. Have they , the dems, done that ever? I am impressed with your commentary about this torturer. The dems will approve him. I think the pigs have joined the pigs running the farm.
Report thisBy cyrena, October 25, 2007 at 12:27 am #
Mukasey played key role in 9/11 legal battles in terrorism
.Mukasey may have made enemies, but he also made powerful friends.
He and his son, Marc Mukasey, are justice advisers to Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign. Marc Mukasey also works at Giuliani’s law firm.
Michael Mukasey was the judge who swore in Mayor-elect Giuliani in 1994 and 1998.
He also has boosters among some of Bush’s toughest Democratic critics. New York Sen. Charles Schumer had previously recommended Mukasey for the Supreme Court.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/09/17/news/nation /18_07_289_16_07.txt
Judge in Terror Trial Bars Several Defense Witnesses
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEED 6173FF930A25754C0A963958260&sec;=&spon;=&pagewanted=all
There is another post-9/11 case, (the above is before 9/11 July 1996 so that tells us how long the judge has been generally siding with the prosecution on terror cases) and I cant remember now, who posted the link to it, or even the name of the defendant, or his attorney. I remember that Mukasey was a real dog in this particular case though. He wouldnt allow the defense to hire a local attorney, as co-counsel, who would have been more familiar with the whole thing, and it was a real obvious departure from what is claimed to be his fairness.
So, if anybody can remember the case Im talking about, (I think the defendant was from San Diego) can you post it again. It seems to me that Robert had posted this info back when Mukasey was first nominated, but I cant remember which thread.
Anyway, I said all of that to say that Im not sure he could better than Gonzo. His Guiliani connections concern me greatly, not to mention all of the torture and unitary executive stuff. I think hes just another one of the Cabal, and has been for a long time. He approved the roundup of tons of people after 9/11, and he has approved the trying of these defendants on secret evidence, not allowing the defense access to any of it. This has been all during his tenure as a Terror Trial judge.
It smells really bad, in the same way that the pre-2000 Coup warned of the Bush-Cheney duo. It was often repeated that george was dangerous because he was so stupid, and cheney was dangerous because he was NOT. This sounds the same to me...Gonzo was dangerous because he was totally and obviously partisan, but he didn’t know anything about the law. (never tried a case in his entire life) So, he was just dangerous in a Mafia operative sort of way.
Mukasey actually DOES have extensive experience, and a lot of it is in trying alleged Arab “terrorists”.
I think this would be a very bad thing. Why does Congress think we just HAVE to find a new AG? Hell, nearly have of the positions in the government now are filled with “acting” people, or what they call ‘interim’ people. So, I don’t see why they have to rush.
They should just say no.
Report this