Mukasey is jewish, of course ...
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rense.com/general82/defy.htm
Mukasey To Congress: Defy The Rule Of Law
By Stephen Lendman
7-23-8
Along with other past and present administration officials, Attorney
General
Michael Mukasey sup****ts lawlessness and police state justice. Weeks after
the
Supreme Court's landmark (June 12) Boumediene ruling, he addressed the
conservative, pro-war American Enterprise Institute (on July 21) and asked
Congress to overrule the High Court - for the third time. His proposal:
-- subvert constitutional and international law; -- authorize indefinite
detentions of Guantanamo and other "war on terror" prisoners (including US
citizens designated "enemy combatants"); and
-- deny them habeas rights, due process, and any hope for judicial
fairness.
Since June 2004, the (conservative) High Court made three landmark
rulings.
Twice Congress intervened, and Mukasey wants a third time. In Rasul v.
Bush
(June 2004), the Court granted Guantanamo detainees habeas rights to
challenge
their detentions in civil court. Congress responded with the Detainee
Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005 subverting the ruling.
In June 2006, the Supreme Court reacted. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it held
that
federal courts retain jurisdiction over habeas cases and that Guantanamo
Bay
military commissions lack "the power to proceed because (their) structures
and
procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four
Geneva Conventions (of) 1949."
In October 2006, Congress responded a second time. It enacted the Military
Commissions Act (MCA) - subverting the High Court ruling in more extreme
form.
In its menu of illegal provisions, it grants the administration
extraordinary
unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate, torture and prosecute
alleged
terrorist suspects, enemy combatants, or anyone claimed to sup****t them.
It
lets the President designate anyone anywhere in the world (including US
citizens) an "unlawful enemy combatant" and empowers him to arrest and
detain
them indefinitely in military prisons. The law states: "no (civil) court,
justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or
cause for action whatsoever....relating to the prosecution, trial or
judgment
of....military commission(s)....including challenges to (their)
lawfulness...."
On June 12, 2008, the High Court again disagreed. In Boumediene v. Bush,
it
held that Guantanamo detainees retain habeas rights. MCA
unconstitutionally
subverts them, and the administration has no legal authority to deny them
due
process in civil courts or act as accuser, trial judge and executioner
with no
right of appeal or chance for judicial fairness.
On July 21, Mukasey responded, and immediately the ACLU reacted in a same
day
press release headlined: "Attorney General Wants New Declaration of War
Allowing Indefinite Detention and Concealment of Torture." It called
Mukasey's
speech "an enormous executive branch power grab....authoriz(ing)
indefinite
detention(s) through a new declaration of armed conflict." He asked
Congress
to redefine habeas through legislation "that will hide the Bush
administration's past wrongdoing - an action that would undermine the
constitutional guarantee of due process and conceal systematic (lawless)
torture and abuse of detainees."
Like his two predecessors, Mukasey mocks the rule of law and sup****ts
harsh
police state justice. He wants Congress to "expand and extend the 'war on
terror' forever" and let the president detain anyone indefinitely without
charge or trial. ACLU's Wa****ngton Legislative Director, Caroline
Fredrickson,
called this "the last gasp of an administration desperate to rationalize
what
is a failed legal scheme" - that the Supreme Court thunderously rejected
three
times.
Mukasey proposes lawlessness and cover-up, "but there is no reason to
think
that Congress will assist him." It "won't fall for this latest (scheme) to
(suppress) its wrongdoing." Besides, the House Judiciary Committee is now
investigating whether high-level administration officials authorized
torture
and abuse. Mukasey wants to hide it and is asking Congress to "bury the
evidence."
The ACLU is righteously outraged by this latest attempted power grab. It
rejects Mukasey's lawlessness and states there is "no need to invent yet
another set of legal rules to govern the detention and trial of prisoners
held
on national security grounds, and the rules that (Mukasey) is proposing
are
fundamentally inconsistent with" constitutional and international law.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) Responds
After Mukasey's September 17, 2007 nomination for Attorney General, CCR
issued
the following November 1, 2007 statement:
"Michael Mukasey is not fit to be Attorney General because he sup****ts
torture, illegal spying on Americans, and limitless powers for the
Executive
Branch." As the "country's highest law enforcement official," he's
obligated
"to enforce the law" - not make excuses for the government when it's in
violation. CCR stands "firmly against Mukasey's nomination....Our country
cannot afford to make compromises to our laws, our morals, and our
humanity
any longer." The Senate must reject Attorney General candidates who'll
"undermine American justice and shred the Constitution."
CCR expressed equal outrage on July 21. Its Executive Director, Vincent
Warren, denounced Mukasey's proposal in the following excerpted statement:
"What Mukasey is doing is a shocking attempt to drag us into years of
further
legal challenges and delays. The Supreme Court has definitively spoken" in
Boumediene v. Bush and its two prior rulings. "For six and a half years,"
the
administration and Congress "have done their best to (deny due process)
and
prevent the courts from reviewing the legality of the detention of the men
in
Guantanamo. Congress should be a part of the solution this time by letting
the
courts do their job."
For the past six years, CCR litigated for Guantanamo detainee rights and
continues to do it. It organized and coordinated over 500 pro bono lawyers
for
everyone held there illegally. Most recently, it represented plaintiffs in
the
landmark Boumediene v. Bush case - argued on December 5, 2007 and ruled on
June 12, 2008.
The Wall Street Journal Re****ts and Editorializes
Its July 22 article states: "Mukasey Seeks Law on Detainees - Congress Is
Urged to Limit Rights of Terror Suspects....in light of a rebuke by the
Supreme Court." It quotes Mukasey wanting:
-- legislative "principles" for "practical" limits on the right of
detainees
to challenge their incarceration;
-- Congress to give the administration freedom to detain combatants "for
the
duration of the ('war on terror') conflict;"
-- a "reaffirmation of something that was enacted in legislation after
September 11, 2001" (a menu of harsh repressive laws);
-- no "enemy combatants" released in (or brought to) the US (even to
appear in
civil court);
-- no intelligence (or harsh interrogation) methods revealed (so evidence
of
torture and abuse is suppressed), and
-- military officers (and intelligence officials) to be excused from
testifying (because what they know is damning).
On its editorial page, the Journal is sup****tive. It called Mukasey's
proposal
"modest" on a "difficult" issue over which "different judges even on the
same
court will disagree." Mukasey wants congressional "guidance" because
there's
risk of "inconsistent rulings and considerable uncertainty."
According to the Journal, Mukasey "was right in stepping forward to say
that
someone has to take responsibility for the consequences of the Supreme
Court's
5 - 4" Boumediene ruling. It wants "Congress (to) give one court
jurisdiction
over (all detainee) cases" and not let the process "bog down into a Babel
of
conflicting procedural and legal rulings." Mukasey is "right" to ask
Congress
to settle the issue, (regardless of three landmark High Court rulings). In
other words:
-- constitutional and international laws don't apply; -- judicial fairness
is
a dead letter;
-- presidential power is supreme; and -- Congress must sup****t the
executive
and overrule the highest court in the land....A "modest (police state)
proposal" according to the Journal and one it clearly sup****ts.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on
Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
