Mukasey's Tortured Response on Wiretapping
By Anonymous Liberal Friday Oct 26, 2007 8:38am
In his confirmation hearing last week, the following exchange took place between Senator Leahy and Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey:
LEAHY: . . . where Congress has clearly legislated in an area, as we've done in the area of surveillance with the FISA law, something we've amended repeatedly at the request of various administrations, if somebody -- if it's been legislated and stated very clearly what must be done, if you operate outside of that, whether it's with a presidential authorization or anything else, wouldn't that be illegal?
MUKASEY: That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country.
Following the hearing, Leahy wrote to Mukasey asking him to clarify his answer to this clearly important question. Today, Leahy's office released Mukasey's tortured (if you'll pardon the pun) response:
As I tried to stress during the hearing, government works best, and with the greatest legitimacy, when the branches act cooperatively, each with respect for the other's constitutional prerogatives. I agreed more than once that consultation between the Committee and the Department often can prevent issues from evolving into controversies. FISA appears to be a model of such cooperation and mutual respect. Thus, foreign intelligence gathering is a field in which the executive branch is regulated but not preempted by Congress. This approach has served us well.
As you noted, Congress has amended FISA several times at the request of the executive branch. To the extent FISA may be (or become) inadequate to the task of responding to threats we confront, it is imperative that the branches work together to amend the statute. I am not of the view that the President's constitutional authority to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States and protect our national security is inevitably in tension with Congress's power to legislate in those same areas. To the contrary, if confirmed, I would be a strong advocate for a cooperative approach to Congress in this and other matters of national security. During the hearing, I mentioned the danger of heedlessly carrying a principle off a cliff. There is no reason to provoke a constitutional controversy over a process that works well most of the time, that can be fixed where it does not work, and that involves the security of the American people.
That is what we lawyers call a non-responsive answer. All Mukasey is saying here is that the question of whether the president has the authority to violate a duly enacted statute can be avoided if Congress gives the president all the authority he asks for. That's undoubtedly true, but completely unhelpful. What Leahy wants to know (and deserves to know) is whether Mukasey believes that the President has the authority disregard FISA. It's great that Mukasey thinks the President should "work with" Congress to amend the law when he determines it is no longer "adequate," but the question is: at the end of the day, is the President bound to follow the law, whether or not he gets the amendments he seeks? And that's the question Mukasey goes out of his way not to answer.
Moreover, it's worth remembering how this constitutional controversy arose in the first place. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration and Congress appeared to do exactly what Mukasey suggests is the ideal way of handling this issue. The Justice Department pointed to a number of aspects of FISA that it found to be inadequate and outdated and it asked for amendments. Congress obliged and passed the Patriot Act, which contained a number of key amendments to FISA. When he signed the Patriot Act into law on October 26, 2001, President Bush said:
We're dealing with terrorists who operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, some of which were not even available when our existing laws were written. The bill before me takes account of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before they strike. . . .
The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones. As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology.
Yet as we now know, over a month earlier, on September 25, 2001, John Yoo had completed a legal opinion authorizing the launch of a surveillance program that clearly violated FISA. Despite the fact that they were actively negotiating amendments to FISA at the time, the Bush administration never even proposed amending FISA in a way that would have allowed for this new program.
Indeed, after the Patriot Act was signed, the Bush administration, for years, gave every outward indication that it was happy with the state of the law. As Glenn Greenwald first reported, in 2002 the Bush administration actually opposed an amendment to FISA proposed by Senator Mike DeWine that would have lowered the standard needed to secure a warrant. Testifying on behalf of the administration, James A. Baker of the Justice Department stated that the amendments included in the Patriot Act were sufficient and that they had "enabled the government to become quicker, more flexible, and more focused in going 'up' on those suspected terrorists in the United States."
And in 2003, John Yoo himself noted, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, that "[n]o court has ever found FISA to be unconstitutional, and just last year a special panel of federal appeals court judges reviewed the Patriot Act's central modification of FISA and unanimously found it constitutional."
Yet when the existence of the NSA warrantless surveillance program was first reported in December of 2005, the Bush administration insisted that it was forced to bypass FISA because the law was outdated and inadequate, an obsolete relic from the era of rotary telephones. And folks like John Yoo went out and argued that to the extent FISA purports to limit the President's authority, it is and has always been unconstitutional.
This is the administration that Mukasey will be joining, if confirmed. He writes that "FISA appears to be a model of . . . cooperation and mutual respect" and that "[t]his approach has served us well." Perhaps that's true in some parallel universe, but in this one, the Bush administration demonstrated zero respect for Congress and the rule of law for the better part of six years. Not only was there no cooperation, there was outright deception.
I'm glad that Mukasey believes in working cooperatively with Congress, but there are many within the Bush administration who don't, and what we really need to know is whether Mukasey is prepared to authorize activity that goes beyond the authority Congress has provided.
Login or Register to post comments.
No kidding. The US military and the Bush administration. Sophisticated Terrorists to be sure.
There's an old English word for what this hairbrain thinks the president gets to do in "defending" the country. The word is "king," and there's no place in the constitution defining the rights of an American king. Therefore, I submit that this baboon is no more fit to be attorney general than the last antidemocratic bozo who held the office.
This man should in NO WAY be confirmed if he cannot denounce torture, including waterboarding, in all its forms, period. I will be beyond furious if Dems don't take a stand on this. I get so fed up with their caving in.
I'm honestly amazed that it took the US less than 8 years to completely revert back to a feudal monarchy. These guys don't get that do they?
every single US AMERICAN and yes I am from South Carolina ( haha) should be horrified that this man is educated without a doubt for many many years and what he learned was to say absolutely nothing using maximal page space and words......
I hope they refuse to confirm him but whatever~
I'm seriously considering moving away from Canada. It's just too damn close to the US.
The question is whether anyone who has influence over these decisions is any longer even feigning to try to put people who wish to uphold the law into such offices. I have heard so little controversy concerning the nomination of this candidate of questionable priorities, that I have begun to suspect that nobody cares any longer, that even the Democrats will gladly go along with torture and violation of American citizens' right to privacy simply because it is the easiest course and they prefer not to be bothered.
I, for one, will not be voting, next time. None of the candidates from the two parties, or rather, the One Party will even pretend to represent me. The Democrats are beginning to appear to be silent accomplices to Republican crimes, though a few of them still occasionally do some grandstanding, for appearances' sake.
When you read his response, does "defense attorney" immediately come to mind? Maybe I've been watching too much TV. But the labels: "judge", "prosecutor", "decider" didn't work. It's been since my son was a Freshman in High School that I've read something as wordy but without content as his reply. My son's "papers" always would start with a through recitation of what he was going to write about, ie. "the assignment" and end shortly thereafter, his words always making it to the top of the second (or on longer papers, the third) page.
NEXT!
Next!
While Mukasy says:
He doesn't say how he views the president's authori-tay to violate said prohibitions.... which was what was asked of him!!!
It's no different than saying that it IS illegal to run a red light. Of course, leaving the door open to allow emergency vehicles and police to do so.
My guess.... Leahy will display anger... (he's very good at it) ..... but, he'll cave.
Please Dems.... do not confirm Mukasey.
Bill Moyers had two guests last night, and among the subjects was discussion about when and how the Preisdent can circumvent the Constitution.
Mr. Fried describes some dvious ways, wheras Mr. Schwartz sticks closely to the Constitution.
Worth watching
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10262007/watch2.html
He doesn't really say even that - cooperation, like bipartisan action, is a one-way street. "The president and congress should cooperate" means congress should cooperate with the president.
Bring in the Master Equivocator to replace the Generalisimo. This man would have had no problem with Nixon, Iran-Contra etc. There may yet come a time in this country when those in power find the streets of DC shut down by mass protest. There may also come a time when the powers that be find themselves facing national strikes. It used to happen folks and it can happen again if we want. If I and my fellow truckers stay home for 2 weeks it all comes crashing down like a house of cards. Empty stores, silent factories and people will wonder how come. Read "Sweatshops on Wheels" and you'll get an idea. It is rapidly approaching folks. The recession is here. Maybe while having their fine wine and crepes they will think about people not being able to afford a doctor and not being qualified for meager government programs. This "educated" class needs to re-read the history of the French and Russian revolutions.
Leahy is going to have to decide what is more important---our constitutional rights and the Geneva Convention, or the unfettered extension of Presidential power to compromise both of these at will. It appears that he favors the former but we'll see how far he is really willing to go. He'd better be prepared to go all the way for the betterment of our country.
make it stop.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3101949.ece
I would love it if the Mukasey nomination went up into a big ball of flame. We'll see.
Hey did you hear that Hillary Clinton is going to join Dodd's hold on the FISA bill until the retroactive immunity is taken out?
Me either.
I guess that once Hillary has been bribed with hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover for criminals, she stays bribed. Screw America and the Constitution.
Rockefeller has taken their filthy bribe money too. He's all for lawbreakers getting off scott free.
All right, here is the problem. Mukasey doesn't seem to get that he is not an advocate for the president. He would be the attorney general. That makes him the State's advocate. He offers here a response in which he is offering the types of excuses for breach of the law that would normally be offered by the White House's chief counsel. Mukasey is there to do one thing: support the legislative branch's positions as found in their making of the law. He is NOT there to offer interpretations of why the White House might be excused from obeying the law. The White House already has a guy for that.
deck of cards folding, cookie crumbling, beaten like a rug, such are the dems.
What a load of prevaricating horse shit!
Bounce this guy out and get the next applicant in =already.
Apparently this guy would jump through flaming hoops to justify and explain why bush can break the law whenever he so chooses. mucusy will be as dangerous to our country as was gonzo, and does not deserve to be AG of this country.
He only deserves to be a judge on "Dancing with the Stars".
That's one giant loophole they are jumping through. If the pResident thinks he has to do whatever to "protect the country" thats giving him a free pass. Why should we believe he would only do illegal stuff in the name of protecting us? When has he been right? Wasn't he protecting us when he invaded Iraq? We see how well that turned out and we found out that "what he thought" was a LIE. Since every f**king thing is secret or confidential or concerns National Security nobody is allowed to see the evidence. He can, and I'm sure he does, make up whatever the hell reason he wants.
pResident bush recently showed the telecom docs to ONLY people that already said they would give immunity.
Mukasey is already just repeating bush talking points. He is already saying bush can do whatever he wants, without oversight, if he thinks he is protecting the country. That sounds well and good if you had a competent and honest pResident. We don't.
He'll be confirmed - it's pretty obvious that most of the Dems are already bought and paid for. If they were really an "oppostion" party working for the citizens who elected them, impeachment would not only be on the table, but would be on the way.
I suggested in another post that we should require lie detector tests of all "public servants" when they are candidates, and if they should stray form Constitutional principles after in office, they should be waterboarded until they prove they can follow the law. Afterall, it's not torture!
Gonzales wasn't worth a sh*t, Mukasey looks like he might not make it, I guess they'll have to go to their fall-back guy, John Yoo.
He oughta put the country back on the right path..
The dogs wagging the tail, before the tail is even attached. Mukasey must not be confirmed, nothing will change. For the better anyway.
foolme1ns @ 15:
like ive allways said if hillerys elected you wont even know bush left!!!!!!kucinich 08
Sorry, wrong answer. Try again:
The. President. May. Not. Break. The. Law. Even. To. Defend. The. Country.
Next, please?
Oh, wait, no, sorry, I meant you're totally confirmed and on behalf of the entire Democrat party we all apologize for even asking the question.
foolme1ns @ 15:
As usual, Hillary needs 98% public approval before she'll take a stand. Unlike Chris Dodd, taking a courageous stand for principles is risky business. Why, people might not like you anymore if you're wrong. Being bought off and compromised must be a lot safer.
Spicegal @ 3:
Democrats are not caving in, they are just going along with. :(
The dc dems like bush just as much as the pubes do. They will give him whatever, whomever, whenever.
Senator Leahy is a fake. He will bitch and moan, then vote to confirm, just like always...
Throw his fascist ass out. I hope Leahey actually lives up to the posturing that he is engaging in right now. THIS BETTER NOT JUST BE FOR SHOW LEAHEY. GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME OR GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE SENATE!
leheys our arlen spinkter!
Of course he'll be confirmed! I'll bet my next paycheck that he'll be confirmed. Anybody want to take me up on it?? That's not quite a rhetorical question.
All the shit going on now is theatre, aimed at disarming us on the "far left" who actually believe that the U.S. Constitution SHOUJLD BE UPHELD.
These pussie colluding democrats couldn't take a stand if someone shoved a plank up their asses.
This guy needs to be pinned down and an answer to questions should be precise and clear. Period. However, it is clear that the administration has not paid heed to the laws in the past, so why should we expect that now? I think one question I would like to see asked is "If you, as Attorney General, were to discover that a law or laws had been broken by a person or persons within the administration, would you prosecute?"
Mukasey has already told us that he will continue carrying water for B/C. If he doesn’t do this, he doesn’t get the nomination. It was decent of him to be honest enough to tell us that much.
The only answer is that he must be rejected and the position left vacant ‘til B/C are gone. Anyone they nominate will have to first agree to protect them and won’t be any better.
I hope the Dems aren’t so far gone that they cave, but I have little reason to believe that.
This is one of the best stories I've read on the torture issue. It really lays it out why this was totally the wrong thing to do. When they ordered torture to be done right after 9/11 it resulted in pretty much everything that has happened since.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/imagination...
Janet @ 34:
Wow now that's a good write up.
Of course torture doesn't get "the information." That's something you can read in any high school text book. You get good information from torture just like all of those people in Salem were witches.
These fuckers could care less about getting actual information. The torture was about intimidating our enemies (or anyone who doesn't agree with Imperial America).
From Bill Moyers:
"BILL MOYERS: Yeah, well, I was going to say Fritz, in your book I learned something I did not know. And I try to follow these things. I learned that much of the case that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice made for invading Iraq came from an al-Qaeda operative who had been rendered to Egypt where he was tortured--
FRITZ SCHWARZ: Right.
BILL MOYERS: --for information that came back to Washington. And that information which prompted Cheney, Bush, et al, to want to go to war and invasion was not credible.
FRITZ SCHWARZ: It was not. There's a man called al-Libi. He was a bad person. He was a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda. He was sent to Egypt for the purpose of being tortured. He was tortured.
In Egypt he said there was a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. That was one of the reasons that Cheney particularly but Powell and Rumsfeld and Bush relied on to go to war. But — they knew — they'd been told by the Defense Intelligence Agency before they relied on it, Rumsfeld called it bullet-proof evidence. They were told that the evidence was totally unreliable by the Defense Intelligence Agency."
"
In Iowa Wednesday, GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani followed Bush Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey in playing dumb on the subject of torture. It should come as no surprise that Giuliani would argue that whether waterboarding violates the Geneva Convention depends on what the definition of "torture" is. Even less surprising is that the same man who in May endorsed "every method they could think of" would now jokingly claim that he was a victim of torture himself.
For the details, see:
"Giuliani Flip-Flops on Waterboarding, Jokes About Torture."
Lord Balto @ 2:
Actually, a more accurate title is 'emperor'. As the US currently has troops in more than a hundred vasal states, controlling their resources and ensuring their continued allegiance.
Long live his most evangelical majesty, Emperor George I of Americaland!
Uh, I think we have our answer, don't confirm him ... stand up to the president
FEMA is no longer an agency designed to assist victims of disasters; they are the point-men in the effort to use the disaster to create fundamental change in this country for the profit of certain corporations.
Please read this history of their efforts over the past 7 years.
“What has FEMA Become?”
The question comes up, whom do you torture? Who has information that helps us?
In Bill Moyers' last night the question in wiretapping became: "But, on Charles's main point where-- the one point where he says he makes a powerful point about, well, maybe if it's just amorphous listening, no one's individual rights are being affected. Maybe that's true. But I am certainly that they're not only doing amorphous listening."
So what will they do? Amorphous torture? Torture everybody a little bit until one of them gives you a hint he may know somethin?
bmw 528 @ 26:
I'm glad Dodd took a stand, but let's be realistic about the differing dynamics. Dodd has nothing to lose here. Taking a stand for him is his Hail Mary pass - it can only help him. His taking a stand is as much a calculated political move as is Hillary's and Obama's lying low on the issue.
If this shithead can't give an unequivocable denunciation of torture,without any legalistic evasions, it's all that is needed to demonstrate that he is morally unfit for any position ofinfluence, how much less one of power.
The Senate had better not cave. If they do, they may well as take off their American flag pins and replace them with swastika jewelery.
Hype-Jersey @ 42:
Good point. On the other hand, I think the sentiment for political courage is greatly underrated by our current candidates. I think the public would welcome a straight talker that was unencumbered by risk and compromise.
As far back as Shakespeare's time, at least, lawyers were known for their ability to talk and talk and say nothing of substance. Mukasey is a prime example of that obfuscation, along with Fred Fielding and other practitioners of the art in bushco.
From Romeo and Juliet, "First thing, let's kill all the lawyers." Now, I am not advocating that. It is just that it has been ever thus.
bmw 528 @ 44: Good point. On the other hand, I think the sentiment for political courage is greatly underrated by our current candidates. I think the public would welcome a straight talker that was unencumbered by risk and compromise.
Oh god, do I hear THAT! Two things would happen if one of these amoebas actually took a stand.
1) They woud likely win the support of 80% of the population and
2) Pigs sprout wings
;-)
"What Leahy wants to know (and deserves to know) is whether Mukasey believes that the President has the authority disregard FISA." I think Mukasey answered this pretty clearly in his non-answer. His answer is, yes he believes the President has the authority to disregard FISA.
Next!
I don't think it is too much to ask that these Senators should demand a straight answer to a question the first time they ask it. It's very telling that Mukasey brings up the defense of the country excuse in his initial answer.
Hype-Jersey @ 46:
Oh god, do I hear THAT! Two things would happen if one of these amoebas actually took a stand.
1) They woud likely win the support of 80% of the population and
2) Pigs sprout wings
;-)
Truly. The public has been so beaten down by political dimwits and cowards that anyone attempting to speak the plain truth would be regarded with skepticism.
What we lawyers call a non-responsive response.
The hell it was.
" a strong advocate for a cooperative approach to Congress in this and other matters of national security. During the hearing, I mentioned the danger of heedlessly carrying a principle off a cliff. There is no reason to provoke a constitutional controversy over a process that works well most of the time, that can be fixed where it does not work, and that involves the security of the American people.
Bush is going to push the line, and this man clearly would not present a "controversy" or ever "heedlessly" get in the way of an principle Bush/Cheney want to dumped of a cliff. Why get rid of Gonzales only to reappoint him again?
Michael Mukasey will do whatever Bush tells him to do, and Mukasey made it very clear. The only cooperative approach Mukasey gives Congress is simply to tell them "if Bush ask for it, I'll give to him - and congress has thus been duly warned".
Conserative behavior has become whatever Bush say it is, thus the GOP and every nominee, despite the confirmation hearing process holds that the American public is simple irrelvent, that Bush it the only relevent bootlick that an aging Mukasey, believes he must completely to be subservient too to wind up his retirement pension - so what Cheney laws says or lack thereof will the order of the day.
Mukasey nomination has been a complete waste of time. What did we expect from Bush when the problem of Gonzales was not really Gonzales but a problem with Bush and Cheney, and their need to an old ,has been like Mukasey, just lookly for a one year appointment to finish out Gonzale's role. MuKasey isn't going to make waves nor does he want too. A twin Gonzales stand in for Gonzales.
If Senator Leahy really gaves a damn, and I'm sure he doesn't since he seems to think the whole Gonzale issue was nothing but a bother to his cushy time in office, than Leahy would tell Bush not to send another Gonzale his way, because congress has it's own veto and Mukasey is just another Gonzales packaged in same old "yes-man" wrapping.
If it was too much of an effort to give tell Cheney FU right back, the time Cheney told exactly that to Sen. Leahy, well than why would Senator Leahy bother to excuse Mukasey for good, after giving a spit on claification like the one Mukasey just gave Senator Leahy?
Sen. Leahy has no respect for himself, nor his voters.
these cons think Arabs are subhuman so it's okay to violate their human rights
Mukasey’s Tortured Response on Wiretapping---I get it. That's a play on the current events involving our government. Very funny. Geesh.
Apparently, in his short tenure as a nominee, Mukasey has attended a crash course on obfuscation at Abu "Dirty Sanchez" Gonzales School of Prevarication. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, etc., all believe themselves to be the smartest persons in the world; more powerful than a locomotive; faster to war than a speeding bullet; able to fool huge masses of people in a single speech. Lincoln was right ... you CAN'T fool all of the people all of the time -- you can just fool all of the DEMOCRATS all of the time! Come on Dems, get your heads out of your flippin' arses and stand up to these loquacious buffoons!
First, we must elininate the torturers of the English language.
Then, with all the lawyers gone, we can work on establishing justice and law, and reason in government.
Thanks for putting on Keith and Rachel, as I wouldn't watch BillO talking about it.
So he's preaching intolerance for gays, is he? I say Larry Craig ought to be publicly castrated, on FOX noise, then. I mean, isn't that kinda what he's saying: hate and punish gays; they're subhuman?
"We need one set of laws for heterosexual Americans and another set for homosexual Americans." Is that it BillO???
[I never cared for Dennis Miller. As an actor, I thought he was full of himself, and an asshole. I didn't even know his name, I'd see him in movies and go, "Oh, this guy. I'm not watching." To find out he went to Fux news seems only fitting. At least he's not 100% bad as he seems not to be a 100% BillO zombie. Just wanted to get that off my chest. Thanks. ]
Edwin @ 55:
Oops. Wrong thread. Humble apologies all.
Looks like there is no one or way to "watch the watcher". It appears that the vaunted constitution of the US needs to be made President proof with provisions for immediate loss of office. And that "commander in chief" hat, coat and boots might have to be worn by multiple parties. "Hail To The Chiefs" or is that "Seig Heil".
The most obvious evidence of the all the useless and futile hammering by the Dems is written in that smarmy arrogant self-indulgent smile in the picture. Just look at it! Look at Mukasey's face. He's saying 'What a bunch of pathetic little pansies! ALL of you know you're going to confirm me because your President says you'd better or else! I actually find this waste of time amusing since I get to enjoy watching all of you huff and puff and threaten to blow my house down. The only thing any of you will ever blow is my meatstick, heheh! Go ahead. Pose and preen......and squirm! And when its all over just cast your vote as you're told to do and confirm me as your superior AG. Then, turn around, STFU and do as you're told!' Any doubt?
three letters dipshit. Y.E.S.
If it is outside the statute, then by definition it is not within the authority of the president, right? Unless he has some exemption from obeying the law that I haven't heard about?
The president's job is not to protect the country. It's to protect the Constitution. Check the oath of office.
Login or Register to post comments.