Today the New York Times reports on the continuing failure of the Michael Mukasey as Attorney General experiment. Back in November we at the Courage Campaign didn’t much like the notion of an Attorney General Mukasey, but Senator Dianne Feinstein strongly disagreed. She got a lot of pushback and defended her case in an LA Times OpEd that she might want back at this point given the way reality has actually played out. Let’s play point/counterpoint between Feinstein’s argument in November and the New York Times today:
Feinstein:
During a long career in public service and private practice, Michael B. Mukasey has forged an independent path as a lawyer and federal judge.
Sen. Arlen Specter:
“I don’t want to use the word ‘disappointed,’ but he hasn’t provided the balance that I had hoped for”
Feinstein:
Judge Mukasey is not Alberto R. Gonzales. In our confirmation hearings (and subsequently, in writing), Judge Mukasey’s answers to hundreds of questions were crisp and to the point, and reflected an independent mind.
…
The Justice Department is in desperate need of effective leadership. It is leaderless, and 10 of its top positions are vacant. Morale among U.S. attorneys needs to be restored, priorities reassessed and a new dynamic of independence from the White House established.
Sen. Patrick Leahy:
But Mr. Mukasey is “letting the worst excesses of the Gonzales era stand,” he continued, “and that disappoints me. It’s like saying, ‘I’m going to be a place holder,’ and this is a man who certainly has the ability to be something more than a place holder. He doesn’t want to rock the boat.”
Feinstein:
In the hearing, Judge Mukasey clearly expressed his personal repugnance regarding torture. And in a letter dated Oct. 30, he reiterated his personal views and described in detail the analysis he would undertake if confirmed.
NY Times (emphasis mine):
From fending off calls to investigate accusations of torture to resisting a nationwide strategy against mortgage fraud, Mr. Mukasey has taken a go-slow approach that has surprised even some admirers, who see him as unwilling to break from past policies and leave his own imprint in the closing months of the Bush administration.
Feinstein:
I do not believe a president can be above the law, and neither does Judge Mukasey. In addition, Judge Mukasey explained that his view on executive power is based on an analysis of the Supreme Court’s 1952 decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. vs. Sawyer. Justice Robert Jackson wrote in that decision that the president’s power is greatest when he is backed by statutory authority from Congress, and at its lowest ebb when his actions are in conflict with a statute.
NY Times (emphasis mine):
But perhaps his biggest accomplishment has been the expansion of the government’s wiretapping powers under a bill signed into law by President Bush this month. Mr. Mukasey had little active role in the day-to-day negotiations with Congress, Congressional officials said. But he and Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, sent a series of sharply worded letters to lawmakers, keeping the pressure on them to update the surveillance law and provide legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in the eavesdropping program approved by Mr. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
After a months-long impasse over the surveillance measure, administration officials hailed its passage. But critics saw it as a continuation of the status quo under Mr. Mukasey. “I think he was determined to sustain the administration’s position,” Mr. Specter said, rather than work to scale back the White House’s claims to executive power after the controversy caused by the domestic wiretapping program.
Essentially, Senator Feinstein’s entire argument has been refuted by Mukasey’s actual performance on the job. While she wasn’t the only one involved, her proactive work to confirm Mukasey has done a major disservice to the rule of law and health of the Constitution in this country. But if we needed any further evidence that Mukasey is actually nefarious as opposed to lazy or incompetent, look no further than the week he’s delivering to us right now. Mukasey has embarked upon a campaign to compel Congress to pass a law altering the Constitutional right of habeas corpus, overruling the courts and the intentions of the founding fathers while also conveniently covering up the abuses delivered by the Bush Administration at Guantanamo Bay. He isn’t just failing to fix the problem, he’s now neck deep in trying to cover it up. The Attorney General is the lawyer for the government, but the law itself is supposed to still come first. Mukasey is actively seeking to subvert the rule of law, and we have, in part, Senator Feinstein to thank.
As bad a week as it’s been for John McCain, it’s been a TERRIBLE week for Dianne Feinstein. She watched in the Senate Judiciary Committee as Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who she voted to confirm, put on as bad a performance as Alberto Gonzales ever did, covering for the Administration’s criminal actions, from torture to politicization of the Justice Department. Then, of course, there was the FISA vote, where she bowed to President Bush and voted to participate in a coverup. Despite this public statement just two weeks before the vote:
I believe the court should not grant immunity without looking into the legality of the companies’ actions. So if there is an amendment that does support this, I would intend to vote for it.
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 5059 to H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)
Statement of Purpose: To limit retroactive immunity for providing assistance to the United States to instances in which a Federal court determines the assistance was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that was constitutional.
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
And of course, she voted against stripping immunity, for cloture, and for the final bill.
Then there’s this water bond which is more of a true compromise for DiFi, but still includes funds for building dams, and ignores unspent water funds from a 2006 bond issue. So the idea is to borrow on top of the borrowing.
Courage Campaign is considering whether or not to push censure, but CREDO Action isn’t waiting to voice their displeasure. From an email:
On July 9th, sixty-nine senators voted to gut the Bill of Rights. They voted to hand President Bush the power to spy on Americans without warrants, and to grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms who allegedly helped him break the law in the past.
No wonder the Associated Press headline following the bill’s passage read, “Senate bows to Bush.”
So why does a president with the lowest approval ratings since the advent of polling have the power to eviscerate the Constitution?
Because Sen. Feinstein gave it to him.
We can’t undo what our senators have done. But we can tell them that we can’t believe they’d rather protect President Bush and his law-breaking cronies than the civil liberties of all Americans.
Click here to tell Sen. Feinstein that you are watching, that you are disappointed, and that you won’t sit idly by while our Congress destroys our Constitution.
After you sign the petition, please be sure to tell a few friends.
It’s really the establishment mindset, afraid of being labeled weak and then bowing to the opposition party’s demands, and not recognizing the irony, that must be stopped. And there’s no greater symbol of that mindset than DiFi.
UPDATE: (Bob) With rumors swirling that a Federal Grand Jury is poised to indict Don Perata, this has also the week that Perata has been telling anyone who will listening that the FBI investigation is a political witch hunt. Which, if true, means DiFi’s infamous statement that he, “is not Alberto Gonzalez” in announcing her support for Mukasey’s confirmation looks all the more ridiculous. Perata defenders like Roger Salazar and Jason Kinney and Bob Mulholland can use the above link to cast their votes to hold Feinstein accountable. Interestingly, Mukasey’s confirmation blunder was cited specifically in the previous censure push when Art Torres put his credibility on the line defending her. And this week DiFi undermined that credibility with retroactive immunity caving at the same time CDP credibility was threatened with the Perata handout which rationalizers say was necessary because of Mukasey. Accountability matters.
Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has served as a Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and is in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006.
Here are five of many reasons why I believe Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President:
1. A Bright Vision for America
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded
This was originally posted on MyDD as part of its candidate series. I am not part of the Richardson campaign.
1. A Bright Vision for America
Richardson believes in using government to improve the lives of people and affect change in a positive way. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology. His vision for America is to be “a nation of opportunity and prosperity for all and guaranteeing real security for all our people.”
Earlier this year, in a speech to the Arab American Institute in April 2007, Richardson stated:
Here at home, we must adhere and protect the words, spirit and life of our Constitution for America is not just a country, it is a belief. A belief in a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. A belief that every man and woman has the right to elect their government and a belief in freedom, justice and equality. America is the land of opportunity, but we have much to do to ensure that America is the land of equality of opportunity.
To get an insight into Richardson the person, I suggest you watch the following videos. The first features the person who knows him best, Barbara Richardson, his wife of thirty-five years:
The second is a profile of Richardson by Charles Gibson of ABC News:
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
Rocky Anderson, human rights activist and the mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, has endorsed Richardson. In an essay in the Nation, Anderson states:
If ending the tragic, self-destructive occupation of Iraq is indeed a line-in-the-sand issue, only Bill Richardson stands out among the leading candidates as the choice for President.
While Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards refuse to pledge an end to the occupation, even by 2013, Bill Richardson commits clearly to pulling out all US troops. He recognizes that the occupation is widely despised, aiding in the recruitment of terrorists beyond Osama bin Laden’s wildest dreams.
Richardson’s consistent message on the necessity for a prompt and complete withdrawal from Iraq is resonating with Iowa voters. This week STAR*PAC (Stop the Arms Race Political Action Committee of Iowa) endorsed Richardson. Harold Wells, Chair of STAR*PAC, explained why:
Governor Richardson has consistently promised to get all the troops out of Iraq within one year and probably as soon as six months. He promises he will leave no residual troops behind. And his message is the same wherever he speaks — to a military audience in Georgetown, a New Hampshire town meeting, in a rural Iowa community or at STAR*PAC’s candidate forum with the Governor in August. Three generals — General Volney Warner, General William Odom and Lt. General Robert Gard — support Richardson’s plans to get the troops out of Iraq.
Richardson observes that a complete withdrawal gives us the leverage we now lack to get the warring factions to compromise, while our presence fuels the insurgency. In an Op Ed published in the Washington Post entitled “Why We Should Exit Iraq Now,” Richardson wrote:
So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.
The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq’s oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country.
To hear Richardson explain his plan for Iraq, the imperative for all of our troops to leave Iraq as well as discussing the approach the U.S. should take on Iran through seeking common ground, listen to the following interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer:
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
Being the sole Democratic candidate for President with executive branch experience, voters can evaluate Richardson from the unique stand point of an actual record of implementing policy on key issues, not merely the speeches he has given. Each year, the Conservation Voters of New Mexico releases a Legislative Scorecard breaking down the votes on key bills impacting the environment. The CVNM also rates the Governor. This year, the CVNM gave Richardson an “A”.
Richardson recognizes that the threats to our environment extend beyond our borders:
A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.
He has set forth a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war.
On the critical issue of climate change, Richardson has offered the most aggressive plan of any candidate, proposing to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050. In a book published this week, entitled In LEADING BY EXAMPLE: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, Richardson argues that the U.S. should start a ten-year program immediately to eliminate its dependence on overseas oil and address global warming.
Can you believe this? Bill Richardson has written a truly exciting book. This is the book we’ve been waiting for – the one that takes us from the stage of awareness that Al Gore produced two years ago to the society that takes control of destiny and begins to live in global wealth, health and security.
Richardson begins by describing the existing current lag in leadership. America needs to reposition its image in the spirit that it has long held. Sacrifice and inspiration are essential to that image. With the image and presence of a compassionate America, nations will succeed in lifting themselves from tyranny, depression, illness and tragedy. We cannot afford to confuse our image as a people – that image that produces inspiration through compassion – with one that will overrun other nations to satisfy an addiction for oil.
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
I written previously that Richardson will be Karl Rove’s worst nightmare. With Richardson at the head of the Democratic ticket, no longer would the fate of the Democratic candidate rise or fall on the outcome of one state.
We would start with the same states carried by Senator Kerry in 2004. Add in Richardson’s Latino heritage and Western values as well as economic policies and stance on 2nd Amendment issues, Richardson becomes the ideal Democratic candidate to convert Red states to Blue.
University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato recently made the same argument in an interview:
He is unbeatable. It is amazing the Democrats haven’t recognized that. Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson. He is perfectly positioned.
Now contrast Richardson’s appeal with the current front runner and most well known Democratic politician in America. Even though opinion polls show most Americans believe our country is headed in the wrong direction and prefer a Democrat to succeed Bush, when Clinton is matched up against Giuliani the race is a dead heat. Why? More people rate Clinton negative on the quality of honesty than positive. The Democrats will win in a landslide in 2008, if Richardson is at the top of the ticket.
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded
Before the campaign commenced, Richardson called for comprehensive immigration reform that strengthens our borders while also providing a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Last year, Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama caved into the anti-immigrant pressure groups in voting for a massive, 700-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. Richardson has repeatedly called the fence ineffective and a terrible symbol for America. In his view, it also creates a disincentive for Mexico to cooperate with the U.S. – which is essential for stopping illegal immigration.
On the current hot issue of the day – drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants – Dodd and Edwards are now talking like Republicans. Edwards flip on this issue is especially revealing. Here is a candidate that time and time again has proclaimed, “We are past the time for cautious, poll-driven politics.” Yet, Edwards has seen the polls and changed his position to that which serves his short term political advantage.
Richardson doesn’t play the anti-immigrant card. He signed legislation in New Mexico that gave licenses to all persons without proof of citizenship. When this topic was raised in a recent interview, Richardson commented:
MATTHEWS: Governor, what would you have said to that same question? Were you on base with regard to whether we should give, at the state level, driver’s licenses to the people in the country illegally?
RICHARDSON: I would have said yes. You know, four years ago, my legislature sent me a bill to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. I signed it, because my law enforcement people asked me to do it. They said it was a matter of public safety, that we want safe drivers on the roads. Insurance-uninsured drivers has gone down in New Mexico, from 33 percent to 11 percent, since I signed that bill. It’s a matter of being safe on the highways and also knowing where they are. I think Senator Clinton should have just said yes. It sounded like she agreed with the governor. She did fumble that.
To hear Richardson discuss his plan on immigration, listen to the above video clip, the interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer.
————
Finally, I’d like to comment on the issue of the day – the confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey. The vote on Mukasey was a vote the Dems in the Senate could have won if they showed a spine. Mukasey needed 51 votes to be confirmed. Biden, Dodd, Clinton and Obama were all missing in action.
Richardson spoke out first against Mukasey. On October 19th, prior to any statements by the other Presidential candidates, Richardson stepped forward and criticized Mukasey for refusing to say whether waterboarding is torture:
“Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
“Torture does not work. Mistreatment backfires and destroys our international leadership, as we saw with Abu Ghraib. Torture also endangers our own troops. The standards we adopt may well be what our own troops are subjected to.
“Anytime one makes a person think he or she is being executed, the very nature of waterboarding, it obviously is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and basic human decency. . .
“If another nation engaged in waterboarding against American citizens, we would denounce that country and call the practice barbaric, and rightly so.
“We must stand against torture without equivocation, without compromise, and without exception. Torture is a violation of everything we stand for as Americans and as human beings.”
Shame on the Democrats that voted for Mukasey and those that didn’t show up at all. This was not a vote on one person. It was a vote on whether the U.S. government or agents acting for our government may commit torture in the name of national security.
Persons without a moral compass should not hold political power. And no surprise here – people under torture say what they believe their interrogators want them to say. The result is we get false and misleading information when we practice torture.
The results can be devastating. We went to war with Iraq in part because of intelligence based on the torture. I suggest everyone read Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes. It is a fascinating history of the CIA. At page 487, he states:
[CIA Director George] Tenet provided his own grim warnings in a secret hearing before the Senate intelligence committee on September 17: ‘Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training – combat, bomb-making, and chemical, biological, radiological and nucler.’ He based that statement on the confessions of a single source – Ibn al-Shakh al-Libi, a fringe player who had been beaten stuffed in a two-foot-square box for seventeen hours, and threatened with prolonged torture. The prisoner had recanted after the threat of torture receded. Tenet did not correct the record.
For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they “strongly disapprove” of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.
Make no mistake, at this point, a vote for Judge Mukasey is a vote for torture.
WASHINGTON (AP) – Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California say the will support Michael Mukasey’s nomination to be attorney general. Both are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
They did the old Friday-afternoon get-out-of-Dodge news dump on it, too. Guess DiFi learned a lot on that Air Force One ride with George.
Michael Mukasey has refused to explain whether waterboarding is torture. Allowing him to be the nation’s highest law enforcement official means sanctioning that opinion at the highest levels. Worse, Mukasey’s views on executive power – believing that the President has unenumerated powers in wartime – sanction official lawbreaking at the highest levels, and emasculate Congress in their attempts to do anything about it. DiFi just eliminated her need to show up at the office.
In announcing her support for Mukasey, Feinstein, D-Calif., said “first and foremost, Michael Mukasey is not Alberto Gonzales,” referring to the former attorney general who resigned in September after months of questions about his honesty.
Inspiring!
Wow, the standards of government have gone completely into the toilet.
Water-boarding is term that describes strapping an individual to a board, with a towel pulled tightly across his face, and pouring water on him or her to cut off air and simulate drowning.
When asked directly last week whether he thought waterboarding is constitutional, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey was evasive. As noted by NPR, Mukasey “danced around the issue of whether waterboarding actually is torture and stopped short of saying that it is.” “If it amounts to torture,” Mukasey said carefully, “then it is not constitutional.”
Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
What about the Democrats in the U.S. Senate and other Democratic Presidential candidates? Will they oppose Mukasey unless he denounces the use of torture by our government?
John Hutson, former judge advocate general of the Navy said last week after Judge Mukasey’s confirmation hearing , “Waterboarding was devised in the Spanish Inquisition. Next to the rack and thumbscrews, it’s the most iconic example of torture.”
The Bush Administration seems to believe that when anyone else does it, it’s torture, but when the U.S. does it, waterboarding is acceptable. Rudy Giuliani holds the same view.
During his confirmation hearings, when asked about waterboarding, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote:
Michael Mukasey suddenly seemed to morph into his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales — beginning with a series of openly evasive answers that ultimately led to what appeared to be a lie. At first, he repeatedly stated that he does not support torture, which violates the U.S. Constitution. This is precisely the answer given so often by President Bush like a mantra. The problem is that Bush defines torture to exclude things like water-boarding. It is like saying you do not rob banks, but then defining bank robbery in such a way that it does not include walking in with a gun and demanding money from the cashier.
The senators pushed Mukasey to go beyond the Bush administration mantra. He refused and then said something that made many of us who were listening gasp: “I don’t know what is involved in the technique,” he said.
In an editorial published this week, the Los Angeles Times states:
Michael B. Mukasey, who once seemed headed to confirmation as attorney general by acclamation, may now be facing a narrower and more contentious vote. That’s the price the retired federal judge from New York will have to pay unless he reconsiders some evasive testimony about torture.
. . .As the 10 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee noted in a letter to the nominee, water-boarding “has been the subject of much public discussion.” What isn’t clear is whether the CIA reserves the right to resort to that appalling practice to elicit information, reliable or otherwise, from suspected terrorists.
. . .Mukasey owes the Senate, and the country, an unambiguous commitment to upholding the Geneva Convention’s ban on “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” The question to him is whether Americans — in any service, for any reason — should be allowed to engage in water-boarding. The only acceptable answer is no.
As noted by Professor Turley, there are only two explanations for Mukasey’s evasion: either Mukasey is the most ill-informed nominee in the history of this republic or, the more likely explanation: Mukasey is lying.
Where do our Senate Democrats and Presidential candidates stand on torture? That is what the vote on Mukasey has become.
The candidate I’m supporting for President, Bill Richardson, stated on October 19th:
“Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
“Torture does not work. Mistreatment backfires and destroys our international leadership, as we saw with Abu Ghraib. Torture also endangers our own troops. The standards we adopt may well be what our own troops are subjected to.
“Anytime one makes a person think he or she is being executed, the very nature of waterboarding, it obviously is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and basic human decency.
“ABC News has described waterboarding as follows: ‘The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face, and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in, and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.’
“If another nation engaged in waterboarding against American citizens, we would denounce that country and call the practice barbaric, and rightly so.
“We must stand against torture without equivocation, without compromise, and without exception. Torture is a violation of everything we stand for as Americans and as human beings.”
Supporters of Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden and other the candidates – where does your candidate stand on the confirmation of Mukasey?
Let’s rally together and call on all Democrats in the Senate to vote “no” on torture and Mukasey.
