Why Forgiving the Crimes at Just-Us is Not Just Wrong, but Dangerous

When it comes to nailing the essential obscenity of the Smirky/Darth maldministration, no one does it better than the Rude Pundit. On the leniency given to criminals at the Department of Justice, he doesn't disappoint. (Warning: content at link is X-rated.)

Michael Mukasey Doesn't Care About the Security of Americans:
Here's what Mukasey said yesterday: not only is he not going to pursue charges against Monica Goodling et al for giving a political litmus test to candidates for ostensibly non-political jobs, but he thinks they've been punished enough ...

(SNIP)

See, as Mukasey explained, they didn't violate criminal laws, but civil service law, and he's right that that doesn't end up in criminal prosecution. But you know what is actionable in criminal law? Ordering people to violate civil service law. Conspiracy and all that shit.

(SNIP)

Yep, a systemic failure, one where others might be implicated, would seem to warrant action. But, see, that might require further investigation. And that might lead directly to Alberto Gonzales. And if people start to roll over, well, that way madness lies.

(More after the jump.)

Even more (c**t)ish was what was left out of Mukasey's remarks. He did say that those who were hired won't be fired because "it would be harmful to the Department and to the country." You remember back in the day when everything was related to security? When to support the extension of civil service benefits to workers at the Department of Homeland Security meant that you wanted Osama bin Laden to force America's sons to fellate his goats? When if a Democrat happened to mention that some action of the administration was a violation of civil rights, it meant that the Democrats were ready to hand the keys to the White House to Islamonazis or whatever the word was? Wait, wasn't that like last week or so? Anyway...

In that bullshit, overwrought context, what Mukasey left out was that the actions of Monica Goodling et al in Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department placed all of us in greater danger. If you're more concerned with whether or not Johnny or Jenny Civil Servant would take a bullet for aborted fetuses than if they have the skills to do the goddamn jobs at the goddamn Department of goddamn Justice, then you are saying that you don't give a happy monkey fuck about the security of the country.

(SNIP)

Mukasey's right that to fire people because the interview process was fucked is unfair, especially since the Rude Pundit would like to think that more than one of them stared for a moment when, in an interview for a job dealing with immigration, Goodling might ask them what they think about the homosexuals and their desire for marriage before answering in a lie that'd get them the job. (If the Rude Pundit had been asked, as Goodling did, "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" he'd have answered, "He smells like lime and coca leaves.")

(SNIP)

No, Mr. Former Judge Attorney General Mukasey, as you say, "Two wrongs don't make a right." But you lead the fuckin' Justice Department. You know that to right a wrong means you might have to actually pursue justice. Or don't you give a damn about the safety of the United States?

George Bush, Dick Cheney, all their loyal minions, and wingnut freakazoid repugs in general: Always wrong, always harming the country, all the time.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Why Forgiving the Crimes at Just-Us is Not Just Wrong, but Dangerous" >>

BushCo hates bloggers in the name of national security

The Bush Administration strenuously opposes Sen. Arlen Specter’s media shield law. Why?

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the bill would erect roadblocks to gathering information “from anyone who can claim to be a journalist, including bloggers.”

The legislation gives an overly broad definition of journalists that “can include those linked to terrorists and criminals,” wrote Attorney General Michael Mukasey and National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the nation would be more vulnerable to “adversaries’ counterintelligence efforts to recruit” those shielded by the bill.

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit.

We know the real reason they’re saying this is the same reason Mukasey took top blog Talking Points Memo off the AG’s daily e-mail news summary mailing.

They hate bloggers.

Why?

TPM got former AG Alberto Gonzales canned over partisan firings of district attorneys.

Bloggers got House Democrats to stiffen up and pass a FISA bill without telco immunity.

Bloggers took Bush, Uncle Fester Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al to task on Iraq long before the mainstream media had a clue.

George W. Bush, for the remaining nine and a half months of his term (not starring Mickey Rourke as Bush) wants to spy on bloggers.

It’s that simple.

There's more: "BushCo hates bloggers in the name of national security" >>

Attorney General Admits Bush Allowed 9/11 to Happen

In San Francisco this week, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey got so desperate to prove that we have to let Smirky/Darth break every law and stomp on every civil right, he actually admitted that this maladministration let Al Qaeda attack on 9/11.

Officials "shouldn't need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."

As Glenn Greenwald makes clear, this is both a lie and an admission of culpability.

Even under the "old" FISA, no warrants are required where the targeted person is outside the U.S. (Afghanistan) and calls into the U.S. Thus, if it's really true, as Mukasey now claims, that the Bush administration knew about a Terrorist in an Afghan safe house making Terrorist-planning calls into the U.S., then they could have -- and should have -- eavesdropped on that call and didn't need a warrant to do so. So why didn't they? Mukasey's new claim that FISA's warrant requirements prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks and caused the deaths of 3,000 Americans is disgusting and reckless, because it's all based on the lie that FISA required a warrant for targeting the "Afghan safe house." It just didn't.

Greenwald exposes many other despicable Mukasey lies, but don't let the cascade of lies obscure the truth that slipped out:

We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went.

Hard to imagine a more blatant failure to keep the nation safe, a more blatant provision of aid and comfort to an enemy, a more blatant example of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Attorney General Admits Bush Allowed 9/11 to Happen" >>

Arbour, unlike Mukasey, knows torture when she hears about it

And, she says, something can be done

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour has no problem calling waterboarding torture. Once again, our moral standing in the world falls like a dropped soufflé.

Arbour made her comment in response to a question about whether U.S. officials could be tried for the use of waterboarding that referred to CIA director Michael Hayden telling Congress on Tuesday his agency had used waterboarding on three detainees captured after the September 11 attacks.

Violators of the U.N. Convention against Torture should be prosecuted under the principle of “universal jurisdiction” which allows countries to try accused war criminals from other nations, Arbour said.

“There are several precedents worldwide of states exercising their universal jurisdiction ... to enforce the torture convention and we can only hope that we will see more and more of these avenues of redress,” Arbour said.

Are there specific precedents for this? Hell, yes:

Arbour referred to an arrest warrant issued in 1998 by a Spanish judge for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who died in 2006, on charges of torture, murder and kidnapping in the years that followed his 1973 coup.

Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s were known to use waterboarding on political prisoners.

I’d pay damn good money to see an international judge issue arrest warrants for John Yoo, David Addington, Richard B. “Dick” Cheney and George W. Bush.

There's more: "Arbour, unlike Mukasey, knows torture when she hears about it" >>

Charles Schumer, official dickhead on Mukasey

)Seconded by Harry Reid, though.)

First, Frank Rich rips him a new one, then the NYT editorial board piles on.

First, the editorial, which begins by taking a shot at Harry Reid, without naming him:

Democrats offer excuses for their sorry record, starting with their razor-thin majority. But it is often said that any vote in the Senate requires more than 60 votes — enough to overcome a filibuster. So why did Mr. Mukasey get by with only 53 votes? Given the success the Republicans have had in blocking action when the Democrats cannot muster 60 votes, the main culprit appears to be the Democratic leadership, which seems uninterested in or incapable of standing up to Mr. Bush.

Then, it focuses on Schumer:

The claim that Mr. Mukasey will depoliticize the Justice Department loses its allure when you consider that he would not commit himself to enforcing Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal.

Then, it finishes by shooting at all the Democrats on this one:

All of this leaves us wondering whether Mr. Schumer and other Democratic leaders were more focused on the 2008 elections than on doing their constitutional duty. Certainly, being made to look weak on terrorism might make it harder for them to expand their majority.

And, here’s a thought from Rich:

What makes the Democrats’ Mukasey cave-in so depressing is that it shows how far even exemplary sticklers for the law like Senators Feinstein and Schumer have lowered democracy’s bar. When they argued that Mr. Mukasey should be confirmed because he’s not as horrifying as Mr. Gonzales or as the acting attorney general who might get the job otherwise, they sounded whipped. After all these years of Bush-Cheney torture, they’ll say things they know are false just to move on.

Don’t worry, though: Schumer is out saving hedge funds from additional taxation as we speak.

There's more: "Charles Schumer, official dickhead on Mukasey" >>

Part of the DoD pork Mukasey bought: Israeli arms

Just peachy-dandy that the nomination of Mike Mukasay as AG, who can now wring his Hamlet-like hands in wonder about just what waterboarding is or is not, was swapped for $700 mil in Israeli arms as part of the Department of Defense appropriations budget.

Gee, Israel wouldn’t have any reason to want us to fight further in Iraq, or attack Iran, now, would it?

Nice to see the military-industrial complex isn’t just limited to the U.S. of A.

There's more: "Part of the DoD pork Mukasey bought: Israeli arms" >>

Mukasey confirmed

The Senate roll call vote confirming Michael B. Mukasey of New York as Attorney General:
* 53 yeas (including surrender toadies Bayh, Carper, Feinstein, Landrieu, Nelson of NE, and Schumer)
* 40 nays (all Dems)
* 7 not voting (Alexander, Biden, Clinton, Cornyn, Dodd, McCain, and Obama).

Worms for the betrayal toads who sanctioned torture of detainees and our citizens, pissed on our international treaties, shit on the U.S. Constitution, blessed warrantless wiretapping, ignored the politicization of the DOJ, and appeased whatever the dictator preznut wants.

Only in Fear'merica. Humanity be damned.

UPDATE: In Comments from Gadfly's earlier post on the Mukasey confirmation, some speculation over what the hell happened... Gadfly also posted a link regarding Bill Richardson's response. Full statement (also available from the Richardson website) is below the fold...

Richardson: "We witnessed a devastating failure of leadership"

Says failure of Senators to vote is a failure to lead; reiterates that torture is unacceptable in any form, promises to prosecute anyone responsible for its use as President

SANTA FE, NM — New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson today issued the following statement in condemnation of the Senate's confirmation of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General of the United States:

"It is shocking that four U.S. Senators running for the Democratic Presidential nomination failed to show up and vote against Judge Mukasey or speak against him during the debate to persuade their fellow Senators that torture is a no-compromise issue.

"Judge Mukasey disqualified himself by refusing to acknowledge what the world has known for centuries: that waterboarding is torture and torture of any kind violates U.S. and international law. Alarmingly, Judge Mukasey already has shown a startling willingness to allow politics to influence his opinion regarding one of the most basic American principles -- human rights.

"The Attorney General is responsible for steadfastly defending the Constitution and implementing the laws of the land, without exception or equivocation. What should have been an easy question to answer-- waterboarding is torture, and torture is illegal-- was not easy for Judge Mukasey, who chose instead to dodge. His actions speak volumes. His answer was unacceptable, and he is unacceptable as the Attorney General of the United States. The Senate could have rejected this nomination with a filibuster. By showing up and speaking out, Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Obama might well have stopped his confirmation. Instead, they chose to sit on the sidelines and watch history pass them by.

"Last night, we witnessed a devastating failure of leadership in the fight to take back America, enforce the Constitution, and restore the principles on which this nation was founded.

"This is not what our country needs in its next President

"Let me be clear: As President, I will ensure that any form of torture, including waterboarding, will never be used. Furthermore, I will direct the Department of Justice to vigorously investigate and prosecute any individual responsible for the use of torture. No one is above the law. No one."

Sounding mighty presidential to me. We already know Dennis Kucinich is no chickenshit when it comes to facing off with Bush or Cheney (ITMFA!). Will Edwards pile on frontrunners Clinton and Obama for ducking the Mukasey debate and vote? Opportunity knocks.

There's more: "Mukasey confirmed" >>

Five chickenshits on Mukasey?

The four Democratic senatorial presidential candidates — Clinton, Obama, Biden and Dodd — all say they opposed Michael Mukasey’s nomination as attorney general. Yet, none of them could actually be present in the Senate to officially vote no?

That’s pretty much ditto for McCain on the Republican side, who weaseled out of having to vote either for or against Mukasey despite saying he believes waterboarding is torture.

There's more: "Five chickenshits on Mukasey?" >>

It's the Rule of Law, Stupid

Yeah, it’s nice to have an Attorney General who understands that forcible drowning is, you know, torture.

But it’s absolutely critical that the Attorney General understands that the president cannot just refuse to obey any laws he doesn’t like.

When the president is above the law, the U.S. Constitution is dead.

Russ Feingold gets it, and says it perfectly. And TPM catches it.

Feingold to Oppose Mukasey

Statement just released (11/4/07, 10:30 a.m.)

"I will vote against the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General. This was a difficult decision, as Judge Mukasey has many impressive qualities. He is intelligent and experienced and appears to understand the need to depoliticize the Department of Justice and restore its credibility and reputation.

At this point in our history, however, the country also needs an Attorney General who will tell the President that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress.

Unfortunately, Judge Mukasey was unwilling to reject the extreme and dangerous theories of executive power that this administration has put forward.

The nation's top law enforcement officer must be able to stand up to a chief executive who thinks he is above the law. The rule of law is too important to our country's history and to its future to compromise on that bedrock principle."

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "It's the Rule of Law, Stupid" >>

New AG, Same as the Old AG

You thought Gonzales was bad.

Our soon-to-be-confirmed new Attorney General has told the United States Congress, under oath, live on the tee-vee, essentially the following:

- Torture is perfectly fine and hunky-dory, as long as we don't repeat the "mistake" of writing down in memos how cool it is to play Jack Bauer. And as long as Smirky keeps lying to the world by saying we never torture.

- Habeas Corpus, the 900-year-old foundation of Democracy that you can't just lock people up for no reason, is a silly luxury we can't afford any more.

- Smirky is perfectly entitled to declare any U.S. citizen an enemy combatant and send them away to Guantanamo to be anally raped and waterboarded, for no reason whatsoever. As long as you are a Smirky-fellating, sky-wizard worshipping, loyal republican lemming, you have nothing to worry about.

- The Rule of Law - the only thing standing between us and utter chaos - is for wimps.

- The U.S. Constitution - the founding document of principles that gives Congress precedence over both the presidency and the courts - is stupid.

Although the Washington Post, like a good little lapdog, is suggesting that Mukasey made clear his opposition to torture, Glenn Greenwald in Salon live-blogged the hearings and proves otherwise.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "New AG, Same as the Old AG" >>