US AG: Breaking the Law Is Not a Crime

But I wouldn't advise you put that to the test for yourself. In fact, you may not even have to break the law to commit a crime.

[ Attorney General Michael ] told delegates to the American Bar Association annual meeting, "Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws.

[...]

"No criminal prosecutions are planned for former Justice Department officials accused of allowing politics to influence the hiring of prosecutors, immigration judges and other career government lawyers, […] Mukasey said Tuesday.

  Yahoo

Oooh. Giant surprise there. But, really…breaking the law is not a crime? This from our country’s Attorney General.

I hope I wake up soon.

Gonzo II

The vice chair of the prominent 9/11 Commission is denying Attorney General Michael Mukasey's claim that the US received a warning before the attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, Salon reports.

[...]

Given Hamilton's statement, Greenwald says "one of two things is true" about Mukasey's alleged call from an "Afghan safe house": either the White House concealed it from the 9/11 Commission, or Mukasey fabricated it "to scare and manipulate Americans into believing that FISA and other surveillance safeguards caused the 9/11 attacks..."

  Raw Story

Or, three: the White House concealed it, and now Mukasey is using it to scare and manipulate Americans.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Justice

”Longstanding principles of law hold that an American corporation is entitled to rely on assurances of legality from officials responsible for government activities. The public officials in question might be right or wrong about the advisability or legality of what they are doing, but it is their responsibility, not the company’s, to deal with the consequences if they are wrong.”

  NY Times

That’s from John Ashcroft. So, I am sure that when in the final course of determining that waterboarding is indeed torture by legal definition, Misters Ashcroft, Gonzales and Mukasey (et al.), being the responsible parties who told CIA agents and soldiers that waterboarding is legal, will be dealt with accordingly. Right?

Small problem: [Ashcroft is] wrong on the law. Companies that deal with the government in fact are not entitled to rely on promises made by government officials, and it is common for companies to lose major legal cases despite the fact that they relied on what they believed to be valid advice from government officials.

What Ashcroft wrote probably sounds like a reasonable rule to the average person: it’s not fair for a company to be penalized for doing something the government told it to do. The real rule, at least as reasonable as Ashcroft’s, is exactly the opposite.

[...]

A mistaken or corrupt government official does not have the power to make an illegal act legal.

[...]

[It] is very common for the citizen who relies on an erroneous representation by a government official to get to get the shaft, high and hard.

  Bad Attitudes

D’oh! Oh, yeah, John…I think it’s something like: “ignorance of the law is no defense.” And therefore, jail time all round – torturers and toture pushers alike.

[A]ctions aren’t made lawful by the president’s saying they are lawful; actions are lawful if they are within the law.

Somebody should tell George.

One corollary to this legal rule: anyone who is shafted by relying on the mistaken legal interpretation of a government official usually cannot sue the government for relief because the sovereign is immune from suit, but such an injured citizen may have a legal recourse: a suit against the personal assets of the government official who made the mistake.

And by the way, this not only applies to the waterboarding question, it applies as well to the telecom immunity B.S.

We need to change that sovereign immunity rule.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

What Torture?

We don't torture. Because torture is illegal.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey has performed the central task for which he was chosen by the President and leading congressional leaders — he is refusing to allow a criminal investigation into water-boarding.

[...]

Mukasey’s reasoning is bizarre: because Bush lawyers said it was okay, it was. The moment of truth came under questioning from House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers who asked Mukasey whether he was starting a criminal investigation since CIA director Michael Hayden and other have confirmed the use of waterboarding: “No, I am not, for this reason: Whatever was done as part of a CIA program at the time that it was done was the subject of a Department of Justice opinion through the Office of Legal Counsel and was found to be permissible under the law as it existed then.”

  Jonathan Turley

In which case, Mike, why not try the attorneys who came up with that opinion? Hm?

So here is how the law works for General Mukasey. Bush appoints extremists who believe that he can order acts defined as war crimes by U.S. and international courts. They then say torture is permissible. When the crimes are revealed, the Attorney General says that since lawyers said it was legal, it was not criminal. That would mean that any crime could be magically transformed into a non-crime by simply hiring clueless counsel.

Or complicit counsel. I’m pretty sure that’s what His Slowliness the Dope has been saying all along.

There is no debate over waterboarding outside of this Administration. U.S. courts and international courts have long defined waterboarding to be torture — and a war crime.

[...]

Of course, the fix was in some time ago with Democrats who repeatedly acted to prevent any serious investigation or confrontation on the issue — due in no small part to the disclosure of their own knowledge of the torture program.

The Right and Left wings of the Corporate War Party.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Disappointed

Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Gonzo v.2 (AG Mukasey) asking for answers about the Justice Department's knowledge of the destruction of CIA interrogation videos, and Gv.2 sent a letter back saying nyah-nyahny-nyah-nyah. Chairman Patrick Leahy said he was "disappointed".

Like they thought Mukasey would be cooperative when they confirmed his nomination to the office, when during confirmation hearings he refused to comment on waterboarding.

Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker says, "It is at least a contrast to Alberto Gonzales, who would ignore Congressional letters and requests for months before refusing to provide information."

Yeah, great. I wouldn't call that a contrast. I'd simply call that the tough-guy version of Gonzales' wimpy-guy "No". And, on top of that, Mukasey instructed the CIA not to cooperate.

....but hey, call it what you want....you will anyway.

Begging for Information

It's the Congressional passtime.

[Congressman Henry Waxman] is asking for Mukasey's help in obtaining records of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's interviews with Bush, Cheney and other senior administration officials regarding the unmasking of former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.

  Raw Story

Yeah, good luck with that. This is a guy who’s covering the administration’s ass so well, he won’t even admit that torture is torture.

Waxman charged that the White House is blocking Fitzgerald from handing over copies of interview reports dealing with certain White House officials, especially Bush and Cheney, although he has handed over copies of reports on other administration officials, including CIA officers and State Department employees.

[...]

"I recognize that President Bush and his counsel may not want this information provided to Congress. But the role of the Attorney General is to administer the laws with impartiality," Waxman wrote Monday in a letter to Mukasey. "The Justice Department provided the exact same information to Congress during the Clinton Administration. There is no special standard for President Bush that exempts him and his senior advisors from responsible congressional oversight."

I think it’s called divine right of kings.

All Politics All the Time

According to sources inside and outside the Democratic leadership, Harry Reid allowed a vote on Mukasey because in exchange the Republican leadership agreed to allow a vote on the big Defense Appropriations Bill, which contains $459 billion in military spending but doesn't fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Reid had wanted to get this bill passed before the end of this week, and in fact, the defense bill did come up for a vote late last night and was passed after the Mukasey vote.

One key reason Dem leaders wanted this defense approps bill passed, sources tell me, is that they wanted to be able to argue that they had sent a bill to the President funding the military, if not the war itself. The idea was that doing this would allow them to protect themselves in the days ahead when the battle over Iraq funding heats up and Republicans inevitably charge that Dems are refusing to fund the troops.

  TPM Election Central

So, in return for letting the Democrats avoid being accused of not supporting the troops – something they’ve been dealing with since before the invasion – we are saddled with an Attorney General who will not admit that a form of torture is illegal. Name-calling, patriotism challenging accusations versus upholding the Consitution and human rights. Yeah, I can see their point.

Gonzo v.2

There should be a new sign on the Statue of Liberty: All hope abandon ye who enter here.

The man who won't say waterboarding is torture, and further says, according to the Seattle Times, "it would be irresponsible to discuss the issue, since doing so could make interrogators and other government officials vulnerable to lawsuits," has been confirmed by the Senate as our Attorney General.

California's Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein says, "We have no other choice." Bullshit. Along with Feinstein, the following Democrats voted to confirm Michael Mukasey: Charles Schumer of New York, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Thomas Carper of Delaware, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Mukasey was confirmed by a vote of 50-43. Seven senators were too chicken to vote: John Cornyn, Lamar Alexander, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John McCain.

Update 11/10: Josh Marshall says the Democrat senators didn't have time to get back to vote, because Harry Reid rushed the vote through at midnight. See why And even if it's true they didn't have time to get back, I doubt they were trying. As Bill Richardson points out, they hadn't spoken out against the nomination.

War and Torture

John McCain, a Vietnam war prisoner, argued Friday that his top rivals for the GOP nomination aren't qualified to deal with issues like torture — or to be president in wartime — because they never served in the military.

[...]

"There's a clear division between those who have a military background and experience in these issues and people like Giuliani, Romney and Thompson who don't — who chose to do other things when this nation was fighting its wars," McCain told reporters after touring a shipyard and taking questions from workers wearing hard hats and blue jeans.

  Yahoo

I wonder if nobody asked whether he might extrapolate to the current administration.

Frankly, there’s not necessarily a correlation between abilities necessary to be president and abilities necessary to be a soldier. What he should be promoting is his difference from those other three by virtue of his clear claim that waterboarding constitutes torture and is illegal. Giuliani thinks it “should not be used in every circumstance,” but that in “extraordinary circumstances, the president needs all options available,” which sounds to me like waterboarding would be only the beginning of his torture tactic arsenal.

And, speaking of torture, Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein are going to vote for Michael Gonzo v.2 Mukasey because they say he’s the best candidate they’re going to get offered to them. How do they know that? Diane Feinstein says Mukasey’s no Alberto Gonzales, but I’m guessing she didn’t think Alberto Gonzales was Alberto Gonzales when he was offered up, either. Boy those Democrats really shook things up when they took control of Congress, didn't they?

And who do you think said this…

Before the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee completely cave-in to Bush, at minimum they should demand that Judge Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate if war crimes have been committed. If Mukasey refuses he should be rejected. This, indeed, should be a pre-condition to anyone filling the post of Attorney General under Bush.

If the Democrats in the Senate refuse to demand any such requirement, it will be act that should send chills down the spine of every thinking American.

  TPM

That would be John Dean, former Nixon White House crook. I’m not sure how many thinking Americans there are left, but I’m pretty sure they’ve already had their spines thoroughly chilled by the acts of the Senate Democrats. This latest is only what's become expected of them, chilling as it is.

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress. --Mark Twain

Gonzo v.2

According to TPM, Chris Dodd is the first Democrat to claim he will vote against Mukasey for AG, because of Mukasey's assertion that the president can overrule Federal statute for national security reasons.

That should be a no-brainer, and there really shouldn't be any question in any Democrat's mind about voting against him. Add to that his hedging around the issue of waterboarding.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Gonzo v.2

Jonathan Turley explains (MSNBC video) why we don't want Michael Mukasey to be our next A.G.

Gonzo v.2

Our replacement Attorney General - Michael Mukasey:

According to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, "Mukasey defended many of President Bush's most controversial post-9/11 policies. He said the President has the right to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge. He refused to recommend the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo. And Mukasey said he does not believe prisoners at Guantanamo should be allowed the right of habeas corpus."

During his second day of confirmation hearings, Judge Michael Mukasey contended "the White House had constitutional authority to act beyond the limits of laws enacted by Congress, especially when it came to national defense," reported the New York Times.

He suggested that both the administration’s program of eavesdropping without warrants and its use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects, including waterboarding, might be acceptable under the Constitution even if they went beyond what the law technically allowed. Mr. Mukasey said the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress.

  ACS Blog

Most alarmingly, Judge Mukasey refused to say that the humane treatment provisions of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions apply to every prisoner in U.S. custody – including in the custody of the C.I.A.

[...]

In addition, despite repeated questioning, Judge Mukasey declined to acknowledge that waterboarding is a form of torture prohibited by law. Although he was asked by Senators Durbin, Leahy, and Whitehouse to elaborate on his views on waterboarding, Judge Mukasey only said, "If waterboarding is torture, then waterboarding is not constitutional."

  Human Rights First

You were expecting something else?

New AG

It looks like Bush has changed his mind about temporary acting AG, changing to a selection that is calculated to make Congress speedily confirm his choice for AG. Josh Marshall has all the dope.

My first reaction was that the spiteful juvenile in Bush chose an idealogue to be the acting AG in retaliation for having been forced to choose an AG more palatable to everyone. Double bonus if it forced them to push through the confirmation quickly.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.