Nobody for Attorney General

by Kagro X

Michael Mukasey is certainly qualified to be Attorney General of the United States, if Alberto Gonzales sets any precedent. And while that may be the least convincing recommendation anyone can ever be given for the job, consider that Mukasey yesterday gave perhaps the least convincing answer to one of the most important questions asked of him -- by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)-- in his confirmation hearing:

WHITEHOUSE: Is waterboarding constitutional?

MUKASEY: I don’t know what is involved in the technique. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.

WHITEHOUSE: "If waterboarding is constitutional" is a massive hedge.

MUKASEY: No, I said, "If it's torture." I'm sorry. I said, "If it's torture."

WHITEHOUSE: "If it's torture." That's a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn’t. Do you have an opinion on whether waterboarding, which is the practice of putting somebody in a reclining position, strapping them down, putting cloth over their faces, and pouring water over the cloth to simulate the feeling of drowning. Is that constitutional?

MUKASEY: If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.

WHITEHOUSE: I'm very disappointed in that answer — I think it is purely semantic.

MUKASEY: I’m sorry.

And Whitehouse is right, of course. To say torture is not constitutional is -- or should be, in a sane world -- to say nothing at all. That is the response one might expect from a junior high school civics student, not a nominee for Attorney General.

But Mukasey, and his putative boss, George W. Bush, have a much bigger problem than being able to get away with massive hedges. The problem is that Bush's policies have made it impossible for any nominee for Attorney General who hopes to retain any amount of faith with this "administration" to answer these threshold questions with any amount of honesty.

It is simply bedrock truth that no one can answer the torture questions honestly without exposing the fact that the "administration" hinges its entire detainee policy on semantics.

It is similarly unfathomable -- or once was unfathomable in America -- that a nominee for Attorney General of the United States would ever have to say anything other than "no" to the question of "Is waterboarding constitutional?"

George W. Bush's detainee policies have, quite simply, rendered honest and conscientious service as an Attorney General impossible. One simply cannot serve both this president and the law faithfully. It is a paradox and an impossibility, because this president does not serve the law faithfully. And what it means, at bottom, is that George W. Bush's "administration" is an enemy of the rule of law, and has so diminished our capacity to live by it that no honest Senator should permit him the charade of attending to it with the window dressing of confirming an Attorney General.

Anyone who would hold that job in this "administration" will by definition be reduced to serving as a placeholder only -- a mere figurehead to whom everyone will, out of pure habit only, refer to as the "Attorney General," but who will at the end of the day be prevented from administering the law he will have sworn to uphold.

Comments

[phred]

I'm with you Kagro, we'd be better off with no AG than with one who is agnostic about torture. What are the odds this nomination could be stopped? Would a hold do the trick, or has everyone been too busy falling over themselves in describing his easy confirmation to put up a proper fight now?

[freepatriot]

what's the "alice in wonderland quote ???

"It would be, if it wasn't so, but it aint, so it is so"

Please excuse me

in all my studies of political science, references to a fictional fantasy childrens' story has never been necessary until now

I wasn't around when mccarthy was making our country a fucking joke

[MrX]

How about an answer like this?

I would not authorize waterboarding, although I know it has been a practice approved by others in this administration. I hope that if I assume the office of AG, that I can bring my opinions to the table, and influence those whose interpretations of the law regarding torture are looser than mine. I know these people well enough to believe that I will be listened to, although we disagree on some matters. I have experience enough with the law to know that it is not always clearcut how a law should be interpreted. But international law, the Geneva Convention, is reasonably clear that waterboarding is a form of torture.

That Mukasey has not attempted to stake out his own ground on this in a manner such as my previous paragraph is troubling. I agree with Whitehouse.

I believe, though, that if Mukasey is the best you can hope for from this administration, don't dump him if the next one on offer will be worse.

[hardheaded liberal]

The change in tone in Mukasey's answers from Wednesday to Thursday has proved that Mukasey has already abandoned the brave and emphatic statements about independence that he made on Wednesday.

The changes make clear that some of the "loyal Bushies" got hold of Mukasey after his testimony on Wednesday and explained to him that Dubya would have to withdraw his nomination if Mukasey really meant what he said about being independent in evaluating the conduct that the President and Vice-President wanted to have approved.

Leahy and the rest of the Senate Judiciary Committee should be urged to refuse to report his nomination out of Committee - Whitehouse and Feingold should put a "hold" on the nomination, if DiFi votes to report the nomination out, and Shumer should tender abject apologies to the Democratic caucus for overestimating the integrity of Mukasey.

DiFi, incidentally, had some tough questions for Mukasey on a clear case of "blaming the victim" in a civil case brought by a former female police officer against various defendants on the force who made her life miserable after she reported that she was raped by a male officer, and the male officer was not promptly fired and prosecuted. (Toleration of such sexual assaults against female officers is, unfortunately, not that uncommon, since I have been personally approached about representing the rape victims in such cases.) Mukasey apparently thought it was dandy for the police command staff to tolerate a little Peyton Place in the department and then treat sexual assaults as a male officer just getting too carried away in the process of adding to his conquests. The Second Circuit had to reverse him twice.

Mukasey's pusillanimous behavior in his testimony on Thursday completely disqualifies him from confirmation. The Senate Judiciary Committee should reject his nomination and Senator Leahy should meet with John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to let him know that the only thing Dubya and Cheney will understand is impeachment!

The only way to restore integrity to the Justice Department is to have President Pelosi (or some caretaker Republicsn appointed vice-president after Cheney resigns and just before Bush resigns - same sequence as when Agnew resigned, Nixon appointed Ford, then Nixon resigned) appoint the new Attorney General.

[cboldt]

I'd add that Congress is complicit in this game of rhetorical charades. It passed the Military Commissions Act, which effectively "legalized" waterboarding. At least took it out of the realm of being a war crime as torture or as cruel and inhuman treatment.

It doesn't matter who the nominee is. The conundrum sits there, waiting for any and all of them.

Leahy ought to be aware (hell, he is aware) of the relationship between Mukasey's answer and the substance of the interrogation practices law that Leahy watched pass through Congress a few months ago. False outrage, that's what it is.

[bmaz]

well, you know, I agree. I think. Here is the conundrum; no AG means we have Keisler as AG for 210 days and, to the best of my understanding, that 210 day period is reset if a nomination fails. I hope the last part is wrong. I have thought from the second they nominated Mukasey that the Administration didn't really care if he was confirmed or not because Keisler is perfect for what they want to accomplish in terms of keeping everything secret, remaining aggressively in bed with the telcos, and generally screwing the country and Constitution. In fact, I opined that there was a decent chance that the Administration itself would have the Mukasey nomination torpedoed if it really looked likely. Even if Mukasey is confirmed, they will simply keep him out of the loop and work around him on anything he won't underwrite. Their seed pods are already in place you know....

[Kagro X]

MrX, that's a fine answer. What it does, I think, is what I suspect is the only thing an honest answer can do, and that is expose the fact that the "administration" is run by people who are busy playing semantic games over some of the most basic questions in government, and indeed in western civilization.

That would be a satisfactory answer.

What I think can't possibly be done is to answer the question honestly and not make that clear.

[cboldt]

How about an answer like this:

Congress recently passed the Military Commissions Act, and under that act, unless a treatment results in permanent loss of lung function, waterboarding can not be prosecuted as a war crime. Not as torture and not as cruel and inhuman treatment. If Congress objects to the use of waterboarding for interrogation purposes, Congress can pass a law forbidding it.

[freepatriot]

did any of these stupid fuckers ever study the french revolution

fire up the fucking guillotine

we got a shitload of robespierres to deal with

[pinson]

It looks to me that Mukasey is in an untenable position. If he gives a definitive "yes" that waterboarding is torture, then he's implicitly agreeing that the administration engaged in criminal acts. And, anyone involved in sanctioning and carrying out these acts is culpable. Which, of course, means that Yoo, Gonazlez, Addington and the whole sorry crew would be on the hook. Mukasey would be on the record that it’s a crime. There’s pretty clear evidence that waterboarding has been happening – press accounts, anyway. So he’d be subject to political and public pressure to pursue it. Notwithstanding the “loyalty to the administration” angle, which also is at play here (of course), Mukasey would be putting himself in a very uncomfortable spot of taking over a Justice Department which he just implicitly admitted had engaged in criminal acts. Think about it, if he agrees with Whitehouse, then the next time AG Mukasey appears before the Justice Committee, there’s going to be a barrage of questions about: why aren’t you prosecuting Yoo? Why aren’t you tracking down the torturers?

[bmaz]

OK; this is a bit out there, but is incredibly important, and I want everyone possible to know about this. Pass the word and grow the outrage. Please.

The two owners of the local alternative progressive newspaper, the Phoenix New Times, have">http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1019newtimes1019.html">have been arrested by the local Sheriff and County Attorney.

The charges stem from a story published under their byline in the Thursday edition of New Times, in which they describe a subpoena the paper reportedly received from a grand jury convened by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.

The alternative weekly newspaper, in its cover story, said the subpoena was part of an investigation orchestrated to get back at its reporters and the critical stories they wrote of County Attorney Andrew Thomas' political ally Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

The scope of the subpoena is unusually broad: It not only demands information from the reporters but also information about all the online readers of the publication since Jan. 1, 2004, including their Internet domain names and browsers and what other Web sites they visited before reading New Times.

I know many of the folks at The New Times, several are friends. These are good people who do the only hard hitting investigative journalism done in Arizona anymore. Remember how Congressman Rick Renzi was recently taken out of commission over corruption? Well, it was the New Times that started the process back in 2003 with this">http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2003-09-18/news/river-gamble/full">this article.

Our local Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, is a publicity seeking buffoon and the County Attorney, Andrew Thomas, is a young, extreme right wing, Dick Cheney loving (seriously), right to life, militant conservative, politically manipulative and ladder climbing jackbooted jerk. Their abuse of the grand jury and criminal process is shameful, unethical and outrageous to the extreme. This same County Attorney, Andrew Thomas, has also egregiously">http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1003thomas1003.html">egregiously tried to silence and chill criminal judges here in Maricopa County by similarly outrageous attacks on the Assistant Presiding Criminal Judge.

Folks, everything we talk about here in terms of the national situation has just hit home in a big analogous way right here on the state and county level. When I, EW, Kagro X and all the others fine frequenters of this wonderful place talk about the need to have accountability, to have an impeachment investigation display what has gone on, and to once and for all put a stop to the totalitarian creep we have been witnessing; this is exactly why. By the way, did you all get that portion I bolded for you? If that isn't chilling, I don't know what is. This is the ethos of activity that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are currently ratifying and condoning through their coddling of the Bush Administration and refusal to permit legitimate investigation and prosecution.

[orionATL]

oh, hell,

what a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals.

waterboarding ought to remain constitutional at least long enough to apply it to cheney and bush and gonzales and rove and mehlman and snow and several more of their fellow travelers

after the republicans are kicked out of the white house in 2008.

that way we will be able to acquire transcriptss of these serial public liars confessing their lies

on domestic

and on foreign policy matters.

big lie

by big lie

by big lie.

[P J Evans]

information about all the online readers of the publication since Jan. 1, 2004, including their Internet domain names and browsers and what other Web sites they visited before reading New Times

bmaz, I can't see how that information has any bearing whatsoever on the stories. WTF?? Why would any judge allow it?

[Kagro X]

That's it exactly, pinson. It's untenable, and it became so because of Bush's detainee policies (and a number of other, related factors).

Like the old joke about not joining any club that'd have me as a member, there is no person whose honesty and integrity would allow them to serve both the rule of law as Attorney General, and the president (as a real president would deserve to be served) as a member of his cabinet. Anyone who had the integrity it took to serve as Attorney General would have to immediately resign rather than carry out this president's policies. So in that sense, it's just not worth anyone's time to confirm any nominee.

[orionATL]

bmaz-

i saw an item on larkey and lacy earlier today at tpm (david kurtz).

i was outraged, too.

this is yet another example of the american right-wing's

abuse of the law and use of the law

to punish political opponents

which i commented on earlier in e'wheel's post on feiger.

it really is a form of terrorism - frightening and silencing folk with the threat of police and legal action,

with their attendant expense, damage to reputation, and incarceration.

although i'm not certain if i understood the whole thing,

it seemed to me that the crux of the matter was that the gov't had issued a subpoena to the newspaper to provide the names and email addresses of commenters/subscribers.

an obvious effort to extent the initial harassment of a grand jury investigation.

and now the two newsmen experience a third act of harassment when they go public in opposition to those prior efforts to mistreat and intimidate them.

this story, and that of the vietnamese woman tam tran which think progress noted,

represent the use/abuse of the law as an instrument of intimidation against political opponents.

kind of like what happened recently in zimbabwe when his opponents challenged robert mugabe and he had them beaten up and jailed.

the american right-wing and robert mugabe

brothers under the skin.

[freepatriot]

I been wondering when somebody was gonna mention the Phoenix New Times

the remedy in this case is simple

the "special prosecutor" has committed acts worthy of disbarrment, and he has no remorse about his actions

it's called Obstruction of justice, it's a federal crime, and this guy needs to talk to a Grand Jury about his conduct within the Judicial system

the Judge in the case has the notes, there were more than two people involved, and Conspiricy to Obstruct Justice is a serious crime

ask the stooges who contacted the judge if they're willing to endure disbarment and prision time to protect this "Special Prosecutor

ta da

we got ready made witnesses who should insure that Mr special prosecutor only appears in court as a defendant from now on

problem solved

[oldtree]

After what we have witnessed first hand, there is no nominee that could possibly be put forth that is not going to protect the person that is attempting to install them. Tis' the 14th warning sign of totalitarian behavior. There has never been any indication that the rule of law is important to anyone nominating, judging, contracting, .... well any act where the "ing" shows motion. With the exceptions where it concerns profiteering or racketeering. The verb has no function with noun any longer.
To continue the sham after Leahy's "apparent" cave in is hard to handle. For someone that has behaved as Mr. Leahy has in the past, one might be tempted to consider that he has been "altered". It is a striking transformation for someone that has always appeared to be trying to uncover potential "problems", to change and say this person is "okeydokey" is beyond reason for any of us not so transformed as to believe that a sudden shift causes blue to be red.
Has Leahy turned? He is making comments that sound as though he has been bought.

[oldtree]

and oh yeah to that story about the Phoenix New Times. truly incredible reporting on what is hard to believe as reality

[DeeLoralei in Memphis]

Bmaz, yea I read that at TPM too, and it both angered and frightened me.

I wonder if a little "civil disobedience" is called for. Would it confound the Atty and sheriff if say a few hundred or thousand extra of us went over to the New Times website and started commenting? I mean wouldn't that tie up them even more in investigating all of us, also? I'm willing to become persona non grata of the Mariacopa County Sheriff, if you think that'd help.

[freepatriot]

fuck civil disobedience

let's uphold the law here

what we have is a "Special Prosecutor" who contacted a judge thru an intermediary to alter the course of a Grand Jury Investigation

this is a CLEAR violation of the rules of the Bar, and a CLEAR violation of the laws of the State and the Nation

we don't need civil disobedience

we need to use the clear and legal remedy for this problem

disbar whomever acted as the intermediary, disbar the "Special Prosecutor", and enpanel a Special Grand Jury to hear charges of Tampering with the proceedings of a Grand Jury, Conspiricy to Obstruct Justice, and Obstruction Of Justice

The Judge who was contacted improperly has excellent notes of the conversation in question, including what reads as a confession and direct implication of the "Special Prosecutor"

there ain't gonna be any discussion about "If" these events occured. The "Special Prosecutor thinks he's done nothing wrong

let this putz tell his tale to a Grand Jury, and then start the clock on his conviction

wanna bet he sets a record ???

[MarkH]

Simply pathetic.

The man should not even be a judge, much less AG.

[BillE]

oldtree - Not bought, blackmailed. It's the math remember.

[sojourner]

bmaz, I agree wholeheartedly that Mukasey was a "substitute" nominee to basically cover for the t*rdbrain that Bush elevated to Acting AG. The thought crossed my mind when Keisler was suddenly substituted -- and I had to wonder if there was going to be a choice between living with the acting, or living with the nominee.

I have had the feeling that, regardless of what has been revealed, these idiots are continuing to try to pull off their plan. A subpoena such as was issued in the case of your local rag would have a very chilling effect on any attempts to report on issues. I hope that they are able to fight the subpoena and win.

There are always misdeeds, I guess, by elected officials, and there is always a bit of a nut element anywhere. It just troubles me that there are so many of them coming out of the woodwork at one time, like cockroaches. Sounds like you have a local infestation...

[katie Jensen]

What the hell do we do? Bmaz, that situation is right out of every media law class nightmare scenario I ever heard. In my journalism classes freedom of the press was the equivalent to "free".

I am feeling a bit insane. It seems I keep doing the same things over and over again. (blogging, passing it on, calling senators, having vigils, being part of move on.com, donating money to my causes. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same negative result.

What the hell do we do??? To do something different. To stop the complete and utter destruction of our constitution, our system of checks and balances, our democracy.

It reminds me so much of being married to an active alcoholic.

[phred]

sojourner -- you're right about them continuing to try to pull off their plan. After all, why wouldn't they? There have been no consequences, none, for their actions thus far. With impeachment resolutely off the table, we are now in legal free fall. No one but Congress can prosecute the administration. So why not arrest Tran or the local media or a guy carrying a sign at a state fair or appoint a pro-torture pro-UE git to be the next AG? Who will stop them? And meanwhile all those helpful stenographers are busy telling us all about Bush getting his way is a foregone conclusion, whether with his appointments or legislation. The administration and their jackbooted thugs can do as they damn well please. Thanks Nancy.