 |
AG to US: FU |
 |
Attorney General Michael Mukasey was on Capitol Hill yesterday, welcoming the House Judiciary Committeeâ€â€and all of us Americansâ€â€to the era of recourse-free government.
In what can’t possibly be over-reported (but, alas, will be noticed by very fewâ€â€it is not on the front page of the New York Times, for instance, and their short story about the hearing, buried deep inside, only mentions the AG’s face off with Congress over cocaine sentencing guidelines), Mukasey made several startling declarations:
“How can that be?†say so many (Democratic) members of the HJC.
“Because we’re just not going to,†says the imperious AG.
“But aren’t you sworn to uphold the law?†the perplexed HJC members ask.
“We are the law,†blurts Mukasey.
No, that’s not an exact verbatimâ€â€but you might be shocked to find just how close it is. The transcripts are quite lengthy, so let me borrow Paul Kiel’s quick summary of an exchange with New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler over appointing a special counsel to look at the warrantless wiretaps (you can find the complete transcript below that post):
The question came after Mukasey had baldly asserted that it was not a “practical view” that the president could order someone to act outside the law. Nadler wanted to know if the president hadn’t done just that with his warrantless wiretapping program, which had ignored the constraints of FISA.
Well, Mukasey said, the President had ordered that on the advice of the Justice Department that it was lawful. So, just as he will not initiate an investigation of waterboarding since the DoJ had given its OK, he will also not investigate whether the warrantless wiretapping was lawful, since it was legal, because the DoJ said it was (”there are views on both sides of that” he acknowledged).
You’ve got your Nuremburg Defense, you’ve got your executive privilege, and you’ve got a bucket-full of L’État c’est moiâ€â€and it all adds up to the most arrogant, bald-faced, and shameless defense of the unitary executive “theory†ever uttered by this administration (and, yes, I know, that is saying a lot).
What AG Mukasey is claimingâ€â€and what he is establishing unless Congress does something quickly to contradict himâ€â€is that there is effectively only one branch of government, and that is the Executive Branch. The AG’s statements do not allow for congressional oversight, and they do not allow for judicial oversight. It does not even allow for the rule of law, since the law is whatever the President instructs his Office of Legal Counsel and Attorney General to say it is. How can we know what he instructed? We can’tâ€â€that’s a state secret or subject to executive privilege. What if a member of Congress, or a judge, or any US citizen has a problem with that? Tough luckâ€â€you have no effective recourse beyond the whims or benevolence of the President/Emperor.
This doesn’t just trample on the United States Constitutionâ€â€it abrogates the Magna Carta.
Perhaps it is easy to chalk this up to business as usual for a corrupt administration that is less than a year from out the door, but that would be letting Mukasey and his bosses off easy, and it would be letting the country down. While it is unbelievable that the establishment media won’t cover this power grab, it will be unforgivable if Congress doesn’t correct it.
- - - - -
(cross-posted on capitoilette and Daily Kos)
And wasn’t Mukasey supposed to be some sort of moderate. They just fall for it every time, don’t they.
Fuckin hell. At least he’s honest about it.
The Bush Administration is to Hannity as mainstream Democrats in Congress are to Colmes. Just as Colmes willingly participates in a charade that gives credibility to Hannity, the Democrats participate in a charade that gives political power to the Bush administration.
I think we all knew we had a problem when Bush threatened to simply not have an Attorney General if Mukasey wasn’t approved.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_Mukasey_for_Attorney_General_or_110 1.html
No, what he’s arguing is not that there is only one branch of government - he’s arguing that the justice department will not investigate people for doing things that the justice department told them were legal in the first place. This should be considered unsurprising.
Congress still has the power to oversee. It can subpoena records, and if it doesn’t get them, it can jail the people responsible for providing them until the records are provided. It can hold its own hearings, it can hold its own trial, and it can throw the creeps in a cell. They’re just not bothering to exercise their authority.
Perhaps you could explain to me exactly HOW Congress has any oversight authority when Administration officials may lie to Congress with impunity - or, if lying is too much trouble - they just don’t show up when subpoenaed? How can Congress jail people if the Justice department won’t prosecute them ? There is the power of inherent contempt - but that only allows Congress to hold people in the capitol until the end of the Congressional session - and they would have to have those people under the control of the Sergeant-at-arms of the respective body. What happens if the Sergeant-at-arms is thwarted in apprehending an administration official by the Secret Service or FBI ? No - it seems to me that the only option left to the Congress is impeachment - and we’re still left with the conundrum of what happens if the AG or President is impeached and they refuse to step down. I would like to see Congress attempt to exercise their power of inherent contempt if only to indicate for the historical record that there were those opposed to this power grab. However, I’m not holding my breath waiting for this Congress to evolve into a vertebrate species.
Instead of not quoting Mukasey verbatim, why don’t you quote him verbatim. That way we all benefit from the real truth. I’m not saing you misrepresented him, but you have the time and space to quote him properly, so do it.
Bravo Ben!
You are right. The democrats and republicans are sticking it to all of you idiots. The US has confirmed that they waterboarded, no uproar by the democrats, ha ha ha. We commit international war crimes, and we don’t have the guts to impeach. Go ahead America, elect a democrat and see if things change. I can count on my hand how many times those Dem’s have stood up for you. Like the time when Barack (the guy for “change) voted YES on the PATRIOT ACT. Also, when Hillary voted YES to call a standing army a terrorist organization, which is a pre-text for what John McCain has said “there will be more wars”. Oh and the many times that Clinton and Obama had voted YES to continue to the funding for the war, despite 70% of Americans against the war. So Obama was against the war, before he was for it. (How do you votes YES for something if you are against it?) The founders and framers of the US Constitution gave the power of the purse to force the hand of the President when in wars the people did not approve of. Not to run around with the purse and do nothing!
Obama will be the next President. If you look at the vote totals thus far, 50% less republicans are showing up at the polls, this means that the “base” has shrunk. There is no way a republican could beat anyone. Here is what you future president has said about how he will wage his war in the middle east http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIum0o-_LZk
I thought he was for change?
Just because Mukasey doesn’t say president = king doesn’t mean it’s not what his actions reveal. Please, for Pete’s sake, RTFA, Tom. That third point, about the DOJ not honoring congressional contempt charges invalidates your argument completely. Let’s try to make this simple for you:
1. Congress has oversight power.
2. Congress requests depositions and documentation.
3. Administration officials refuse.
4. Congress holds said officials in contempt and orders their compliance.
5. DOJ says, “we’re not going to enforce that order.”
6. Congress has no actual oversight power.
Finally, if a corrupt DOJ issues opinions about the legality of torture that is clearly illegal and a US agent commits torture, that act is still illegal. It should be investigated and penalty should be applied both to the DOJ officials and the US agent according to their own guilt and complicity. This is very much in line with the obligation of a US soldier to disobey an unlawful order.
The fact that some my fellow citizens are so addled about the foundations of our own democracy, basic ethics, etc. makes me sick.
We need to hold congress accountable for not impeaching these fucktards
Hello. Don’t you people realize that the AG is a political appointee? I haven’t done the research to figure out how our founding fathers screwed this up, but the AG needs to be an elected official (and not on a party ticket). Same goes for our federal prosecutors. The politization of our law enforcement could have been anticipated and is royally screwing up our republic.
…?
Where’d my comments go?
The Seminal was switched over to a new server last night, to handle increased traffic. Unfortunately, we lost a few comments. I’m very sorry, Roy!
That’s cool. I guess the most worthwhile of my comments was this:
The telecoms are immune from prosecution because Bush said it was okay. Bush is immune from prosecution because the DOJ said it was okay. The DOJ was ignorant of the law in advising Bush that his actions would be constitutionally sound.
Which leads to the conclusion that ‘IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS A VALID EXCUSE.’
I had the idea last night of drafting and mailing a letter to as many of the local judges in my state as I could come by. Asking them to sign onto a kind-of petition expressing outrage against the DOJ’s unwillingness to investigate, let alone prosecute what the courts have now upheld as quite possibly the statistically broadest violation of citizen’s rights in US history.
The clincher is: I would also ask the local judges to now uphold, under this beaming federal precedent, good-faith ignorance of the law as a valid exemption from prosecution. Given no other recourse of justice, all that is left is to apply that which is good for the executive and the corporate (goose) as equally good for the common man.(gander) Let a couple thousand speeders and traffic violations off the hook, and perhaps we’ll see the trickle-up affect take hold.
I’d love to show these power-mongers what the law really looks like when they get their way, by applying their notions of it equally to all peoples.