Mukasey: Bush's powers might be above the law

[rodeodance]

Source: SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER



SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/336088_congress19.html

Mukasey: Bush's powers might be above the law

Attorney general nominee's responses to anti-terrorism questions draw criticism

Last updated October 18, 2007 9:54 p.m. PT

By PHILIP SHENON
THE NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, declined Thursday to say if he considered harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, which simulates drowning, to constitute torture or to be illegal if used on terrorism suspects.

On the second day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mukasey went further than he had the day before in arguing that the White House had constitutional authority to act beyond the limits of laws passed by Congress, especially when it came to questions of national defense.

He suggested that the administration's so-called warrantless eavesdropping program and its use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects, including waterboarding, may be acceptable under the Constitution even if they go beyond what the law technically allows. Mukasey said the president's authority as commander in chief may allow him to supersede laws written by Congress.
........

In the case of the eavesdropping program, Mukasey suggested that the president may have acted appropriately under his constitutional powers in ordering the warrantless surveillance without court approval even if federal law would appear to require a warrant.

"The president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law," said Mukasey, who seemed uncomfortable with the harsh tone, occasionally stumbling in his responses. "The president doesn't stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution."


Read more: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/336088_congress19.html

---

my gawd. I can't believe this!

[rodeodance]

1. my gawd----this guy is a lipstick clone of Conzo.

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. of course he is--and there is likely another waiting in the wings.

[Kagemusha]

3. You know, those pesky laws were signed by the President.

Maybe not this particular President, but the President of the United States signed those bills into law. This parade of lawyers wants us to believe that the Constitution permits the President to ignore the law he signs in favor of complete lawlessness, following only the bare Constitution. So much for faithfully executing the laws of the United States, huh?

[acmavm]

4. Oh for fuck sakes. What the hell next? Why can't they find anyone

that ever passed an American Government class?

Dirtiest word in the Americanized English language? I nominate 'republican'.

[0007]

5. From what I gathered at the hearings yesterday and the day before,

is that Michael Mukasey is one tap dancing fucking fool, he did the old razzle dazzle and a new twist of the Charleston while the committee had that South Park frizzled look and could hardly keep up the slick slow motion dazzler moves this guy produces.

[msongs]

6. no compliance with subpoenas, NO Attorney general confirmations nt

[rodeodance]

7. Topic subject LEAHY Accuses WH Of Pressuring Mulkasey

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject LEAHY Accuses WH Of Pressuring Mulkasey
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2086010#2086010
2086010, LEAHY Accuses WH Of Pressuring Mulkasey
Posted by kpete on Fri Oct-19-07 08:33 AM

Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture

...............

Among the Democrats, Mr. Leahy was especially critical of Mr. Mukasey, wondering aloud whether he had been pressured overnight by the White House to defend the administration’s view of its expanded powers in dealing with terrorist threats.

“In your answers yesterday, there was a very bright line on questions of torture and the ability of an executive, or inability of an executive, to ignore the law,” Mr. Leahy said. “That seems nowhere near as bright a line today, and maybe I just don’t understand.”

“I don’t know whether you received some criticism from anybody in the administration last night after your testimony,” he said, “but I sensed a difference, and a number of people here, Republican and Democratic alike, have sensed a difference.”

Mr. Mukasey insisted there had been no pressure from the White House on Wednesday, saying, “I received no criticism.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/washington/19mukasey.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1192799782-j%20IK3alO6Yf5LAfL3gt8Wg

[rodeodance]

8. WH Spy Docs Show Surveillance Was Illegal, Senator Feingold Charges

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject White House Spy Docs Show Surveillance Was Illegal, Senator Feingold Charges
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2085819#2085819
2085819, White House Spy Docs Show Surveillance Was Illegal, Senator Feingold Charges
Posted by kpete on Fri Oct-19-07 07:54 AM

White House Spy Docs Show Surveillance Was Illegal, Senator Feingold Charges

By Ryan Singel October 18, 2007
Senator Russell Feingold, (D-Wisconsin), who cast the only Senate vote against the Patriot Act and now sits on the Select Intelligence committee, seems to have looked at secret spying documents given by the White House to that committee and found that they do not exonerate the government's secret spying programs or the phone and internet companies that secretly aided them.

The White House seemingly provided the documents in exchange for legislation that would free its telecom partners from being sued by Americans for violating their privacy. The Senate Intelligence Committee is holding a closed meeting on the bill today.

According to a press release:

When the Committee considers this legislation today, I will also fight to reject immunity for anyone alleged to have cooperated with the Administration’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. The documents made available by the White House for the first time this week only further demonstrate that the program was illegal and that there is no basis for granting retroactive immunity to those who allegedly cooperated. The one silver lining of the flawed FISA bill passed in August was that it had a 6-month expiration date. It would be shameful to miss this opportunity to fix the law.


A spokeswoman for Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, who unsuccessfully tried to subpoena documents about the secret spying programs, says that the White House has not yet promised to share the documents with his committee, but has not yet said no, either.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/white-house-spy.html

[rodeodance]

9. ,,,,,,,, and it seems to me that you are extraordinarily well suited for this position,

While Mukasey still seemed almost certain to win Senate confirmation, a vote in the Judiciary Committee could be delayed until Mukasey provides written answers to questions raised Thursday by Leahy. The senator said he did not intend to hold the vote until after the responses were received and reviewed.

The committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said that while he shared some of Democrats' concerns about Mukasey's views on the limits of presidential authority, "I think you are virtually certain to be confirmed, and we're glad to see the appointment and glad to see somebody who is strong, with a strong record, take over this department."

Other Republicans joined in the praise of Mukasey.

"I've listened to your testimony here, and it seems to me that you are extraordinarily well suited for this position, pretty much as well as anybody who hasn't served in the position before could be," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

© 1998-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/336088_congress19.html

[Javaman]

10. aka "if the president does it, it's not illegal"

now where have I heard that before?

[Acadia Blue]

12. Like a dictatorship or monarchy???? Yea.

[Heywood J]

11. Who wants to step up and put a hold on this one?

Lest we get him rammed down our throats before he satisfactorily answers this. I keep waiting for him to utter the magic words: "I don't recall."

[triguy46]

13. So, how much money can be saved since it seems we no longer need a Congress?

What a dick.

[mvd]

14. This sounds no better than Gonzales

I'm glad we found this out before they could pull a fast one.

[librechik]

15. He's got to consult his lawyers, and whatever they say that is the definition.

No, wait--that's what Chimpy said.

Huh?

Guess who got a visit from Cheney and his lawyer yesterday...

[BrotherBuzz]

16. Is this ass, Mukasey, channeling John Yoo?

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government

by Jon Carroll

Monday, January 2, 2006

Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

[0rganism]

17. Whoa! Jon Carroll knocked that one out of the freakin' park

I must have missed it the first time around, thanks for posting.

[cyr330]

18. And this is the guy the Dems are going to approve????