SJC Mukasey Hearing

I haven’t liveblogged in a while, so what the heck. Watch along here or here.

Leahy

Leahy starts by highlighting civil liberties violations, naming Bradbury.

We join together to press for accountability and that led to a change in leadership. Today we continue our efforts to restore DOJ.

[Leahy mentions the torture tapes, but focuses on the CIA’s unwillingness to tell the 9/11 Commission.]

Today we will get some kind of indication whether the AG will restore checks and balances. It is not enough to say that waterboarding is not currently authorized. Torture has no place in America. Tragically, this Administration has so twisted our values that top officers are instructed by the WH not to say that torture is illegal.

[Lists the people we’ve prosecuted for waterboarding.]

That is not America.

Arlen "Scottish Haggis" Specter [incidentally, the first person I ran into when I walked into Congress on Monday was Specter, just coming off the floor having voted against cloture. I contemplated thanking him for his no vote. But then I doubted that "Scottish Haggis, I appreciate that you finally voted your conscience" would go over very well.]

Scottish Haggis agrees that Bush has pushed Article II. Discussion torture, still focusing on Article II powers.

Leahy swears Mukasey in.

Mukasey’s statement. Suggests Bush’s stonewalling just a sign of how well the Constitution works. [Remind me to tell you about Schumer’s comment on Mukasey, an attempt to justify his picking him.]

"Committed to review CIA interrogation program. Carefully reviewed limited set of methods authorized, concluded they are lawful. Aware that you address specifically address waterboarding. I have been authorized to say waterboarding is not among techniques currently used. Passing on its legality is not among the scope of what I promised to review."

ARGH!!

CIA Director would have to ask to use waterboarding, would have to outline its use, the issue would have to go the President.

Leahy: First question, brings up Ridge’s and McConnell’s comments that waterboarding is torture. Mukasey dodges, says he can’t say anything because he’s AG.

MM: I know that if I address a complex legal question without having concrete circumstances before me, yadda yadda yadda.

Leahy: I think the failure to say something puts some of our people in more danger.

Mukasey: Our military won’t be affect by what I say. They’re legal soldiers.

[Mukasey’s logic here is that we’re allowed to torture people who are illegal combatants.]

Leahy: I’m afraid this would put them in more danger.

Leahy: The telecoms cut off their FISA wiretaps when we don’t pay the bill. You and the Admin talk about how critical FISA is to national security. So why are we not paying our bill and having this get cut off?

Leahy: What payments were made in the five years prior to it coming under FISA?

MM: If that is not classified I can get it. But whether or not a telecom participated is classified.

Leahy: CIA torture tapes. Are you looking into question of destruction or conduct shown?

MM: That investigation is going to go fact by fact, witness to witness. If it leads to showing motive, I’m sure it’ll lead to showing motive.

Leahy: You were in line to receive monitoring contract. Some of these contracts concern me. Chris Christie directed a multi-million dollar one to Ashcroft. I’m waiting for an answer to the letter I’ve got. How did you come to be considered?

MM: I was proposed by the company. [Interesting, that. When did they offer.] Deferred prosecution agreements have become more prevalent so corporations can break the law but not be punished for it. [He didn’t say that, exactly.] So far as it being a no-bid contract, we’re not talking about public money.

Arlen "Scottish Haggis": Oops, I missed a bit–but he tried to get MM to admit that Bush had violated the law with his warrantless wiretap program. MM got into some parsing about "electronic communications." I do hope they come back to this.

Haggis: Torture tapes. You told us we would be interfering with political issues. Do you intend to comply with Kennedy’s request on the torture tapes.

MM: Considerations underlying declination to provide Congress with information based on fact that …

Haggis: You say it’s not never, it’s certainly not now. Pitches his immunity "compromise" again. Courts provide a balance to review executive overstep.

MM: It would continue to make conduct of companies front and center.

[Well, goddamned it, why not let us punish Dick, then??]

Haggis: Why shouldn’t it be front and center. Why should the courts be foreclosed?

Haggis still pissed Cheney went behind his back.

MM: It puts means and methods in the courts. It casts in doubt the question of whether they acted in good faith. They had every reason to believe they acted in good faith.

[No, they ignored the fact that for some reason Gonzales signed the authorization rather than Comey or Ashcroft.]

Haggis: There’s a much greater danger in having Congress bail out the companies.

Teddy: I want to thank you for a number of positive steps. [Always start with a positive…] These steps show sensitivity to appearance of conflicts, I’m troubled that you didn’t make Durham an independent counsel. Waterboarding, Civil Rights Division and voting.
Waterboarding has become worldwide symbol of America’s torture. Even though you claim to be opposed to torture, you refuse to say anything about what constitutes torture. It’s like saying you’re opposed to stealing but not sure whether bank robbery would qualify. [Nice framing, Teddy.] You once again refuse to state the obvious. You refused to discuss that the Administration did use waterboarding and no one is being held accountable. CIA continues to use stress positions, every bit as abusive as waterboarding, illegal and ineffective. Would waterboarding be torture if it were done to you?

MM: I would feel that it was. You’re assuming that waterboarding is torture. I point out that this is an issue on which people of equal intelligence and equal good faith have differed. I should not go into bc of the office I have the detailed way in which department would apply general language to particular situation.

[I’m going to nickname this the Michael Mukasey Good Faith show. Note, he dodged the "how do we hold people responsible" issue.]

Teddy: Under what facts and circumstances would it be lawful.

MM: I said I should do this.

Teddy: Are there any interrogation techniques that you would find to me fundamentally illegal.

MM: We may not rape.

[Then why haven’t the guys who were filmed raping Iraqi boys and women prosecuted?]

Teddy: Naturalization backlog. Potential US citizens hoping to vote in upcoming elections. Basic fairness dictates that these applications are processed to allow these individuals to vote. Fees have been increased. Lines growing longer. Hundreds of thousands qualified to vote that will note vote.

MM: That’s Michael Chertoff’s deal. We’ll do everything we can to make sure those authorized to vote will vote.

Teddy: What is the department doing to give a sense of urgency to move ahead on this?

MM: I will find out what contacts have been and I will work with you.

Grassley: [This is about whistleblowers] Unanimous consent, opening statement be part of statement. During confirmation hearing you assured me you’d assist my oversight efforts. Prior to this hearing dept provided requests going back to March 2007, got them on Friday, 4 days to digest 250 pages of answers. Buried in the responses, response to Qs 64-83, answers will be provided separately. They were not. I’m troubled that I get responses stating one thing. When can I expect this response from FBI that I’ve been waiting for since March 2007. Can I expect them before a full year has passed.

MM: I don’t know what the questions are. Will talk to Director.

Grassley: Whistleblowers from FBI, ought to be encouraged to come forward and ought to be protected. Most difficult with Nat Security security clearances. Can report wrong-doing to supervisors, or can sit silent.

Grassley: Why not report to Congress on whistleblowing.

MM: Partly security clearance, but that cuts off the President.

[He’s basically saying the President can prevent whisteblowers to report to Congress on issues that might reflect on Bush’s behavior.]

Grassley: if they’ve got security clearance, they’ve got security clearance.

MM: Maintaining Executive’s right to supervise employees up to and including President.

Grassley: You’ve got a problem reconciling chain of command that wants to hide wrong-doing in the first place, you’re talking going all the way up to the President, you’ve got plenty of people that don’t want Congress to know if something has gone wrong, because they’ve got egg on their face.

Biden: You’re speaking of torture as if its relative.

MM: Only partly. Heinousness, cruelty balanced against the value.

Biden: Value of what?

MM: The information you get.

Biden: Shocking of conscience relates to purpose. Waterboarding to save humanity v. waterboarding to find out the leader. I don’t think shocking the conscience had to do with basic societal values. You’re the first person I’ve ever heard saying what you just said. I’ve never heard that discussion.

Biden went off on violent crime. I was trying to catch up on my email.

Biden: As Ronald Reagan said, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. You guys broke it. [wrt violent crime.]

Jeff "Mututal Protection Racket" Sessions: The military never waterboarded, correct? And the CIA only waterboarded a few select people, right?

MM: I can’t say that. Abu Ghraib was not torture, it was prison abuse. And they were prosecuted.

[News to me, aside from the bad apples implementing orders.]

MM: DOJ has prosecuted one contractor for prisoner abuse.

"Mutual Protection Racket": Widescale abuse is not true. [This is our new measure, whether we torture a lot or just a little.]

"Mutual Protection Racket": Illegal entry is a crime. Zero tolerance on illegal immigration. And it works.

Zero tolerance zero tolerance zero tolerance zero tolerance zero tolerance.

[LOL! Mutual Protection Racket is complaining that we’re spending more money prosecuting corporate bribery than illegal entry. I wonder why he’d prefer prosecution of illegal entry than bribery…??]

MM: The border difficulties are different at different parts of the border.

[MM basically says, "Carol Lam was right."]

"Mutual Protection Racket" interrupts, to stop MM from saying Lam was right: Will you commit to expanding this?

MM: Yes.

Leahy: Letter from a bunch of top JAGs into the record. They all say waterboarding is torture. And a letter sent to you from three of our colleagues, McCain, Graham, Warner, saying they consider it torture.

Kohl: Local law enforcement programs.

MM: Funding of targeted programs is certainly a priority.

Kohl: On Gitmo. Are you ready to add your name to the list of those who want to close Gitmo.

MM: The President wants to close Gitmo if we can do it responsibly. Whether there is some alternative to Habeas that would be sufficient.

Kohl: Court secrecy. Secret settlements in courts. Judges continue to provide court-endorsed secrecy, in many cases has led to injuries that could have been prevented. Should courts be required to take a look at protective orders on public health and safety?

MM: Courts should always take a look at protective order when it involves public safety. I don’t know of any case where court sweeping public safety under the rug, I would not want a court to do that.

[MM: how can you say that, answering a hypothetical, when you want do the same with torture?]

Kohl: Should we require judges to consider public safety.

MM: A judge should consider public safety.

Brownback: Gitmo. People are talking about moving Gitmo detainees to Leavenworth, and as a Kansan, we’re not ready for them to move. I don’t think it’s prepared for the detainees coming from Gitmo. [Brownback, consider it your version of Yucca Mountain] Beyond that, top military leaders go very closely to Leavenworth.

MM: Practical considerations. No representative from any state would say his state is ready to accept Gitmo detainees. Then there’s the legal effect of bringing them state-side.

[Pretending that the lawsuits are about releasing people rather than just getting them a review.]

MM: Before we move Gitmo to Leavenworth, I will come visit Leavenworth.

Brownback: Govt considering in intervening in PLO case. Let US citizens receive their awards from PLO. [interesting, does that mean BushCO are going to do the same thing they’ve done for Iraq for the PLO, in yet another attempt to prop up the PLO against Hamas??]

Brownback: Human trafficking.

[You know, MM is parsing the Republicans as much as he is the Democrats. He won’t commit to do what Brownback and "Mutual Protection Racket" want either]

MM: trying to explain the DC handgun case. Would allow us to continue to enforce federal firearm laws.

Brownback: FISA, substitute ["some people want to substitute"–Is Browback saying this at Dick’s behest as well??] I want to thank you for stepping into this job at a hard time. If these are uncomfortable topics, we all look at and rather not deal with it.

MM: Susbtitution, the conduct of the companies will be subject of dispute, would open up their conduct to scrutiny, they can’t cooperate without a court order. The overarching point, this is limited immunity, doesn’t apply to companies that didn’t participate, and only those that did so after a request to President.

image_print
149 replies
  1. RevDeb says:

    Mukasey is nothing but a grandfatherly looking Abu Gonzo. Very little seems to have changed at the DoJ at least viewed from the outside.

  2. Diane says:

    Snarlin Arlen, if you tell us how you really feel about waterboarding, there are prosecutions at stake, so OK to keep it to yourself, we all know it is torture.

  3. jayt says:

    I just wanna go on record thanking Arlen for *not* wearing that yellow(?) suit he had on the other day…

  4. Helen says:

    Mukasey – “given that waterboarding is not part of the current program I don’t feel as though I can comment on it.” OK – there’s his out.

    Dude, it used to be part of the program. How about that?

    • Ann in AZ says:

      Mukasey – “given that waterboarding is not part of the current program I don’t feel as though I can comment on it.” OK – there’s his out.

      Could he be clouding the issue, that is really more, “I can’t say because, since waterboarding was previously used on the President’s authority, I may yet be called upon to make certain determinations in regard to prosecution, and if I make a declaration now, I may have to recuse myself when the President most needs me.”

      • perris says:

        Mukasey – “given that waterboarding is not part of the current program I don’t feel as though I can comment on it.” OK – there’s his out.

        circular

        when it was part of the program he couldn’t comment on it siting state secrets

        he is nothing more then a smarter gonzales

  5. BoxTurtle says:

    He should be nervious. He can’t tell the full truth, heck he can’t even admit that waterboarding is torture.

    But I consider it unlikely that he will be called on any of his wordsmithing. If he was going to be pushed on it, it would have happened before.

    Boxturtle (Is it torture? depends on what you mean by “is”)

  6. jayt says:

    Mukasey – “Waterboarding? – irrelevant – not happening, we’re not using it, so how’s about we just not talk about it, ok?”

  7. radiofreewill says:

    Murky is using the “Reverse Hypothetical” Dodge on Waterboarding – “Waterboarding is not Currently used by the CIA today, and I feel it would be inappropriate for me to comment on its possible past use.”

  8. cboldt says:

    Mukasey’s honeymoon was short, predicably so.

    He’s a better coverup guy than Gonzalez, and he doesn’t have the baggage of past admissions/lies that was dogging General Gonzalez.

  9. cboldt says:

    I have been authorized to say waterboarding is not among techniques currently used.

    Parsometer – check your clock. “Currently” means “at this moment.”

    • FrankProbst says:

      I have been authorized to say waterboarding is not among techniques currently used.

      Parsometer – check your clock. “Currently” means “at this moment.”

      Yup. It doesn’t include “earlier this morning” or “later this afternoon”.

  10. jayt says:

    Mukasey – “Not gonna speculate, without having done the research, on a question I was asked to research several months ago”.

    (note to EW – I tend to paraphrase…)

  11. Helen says:

    Leahy: Is waterboarding an American citizen in other parts of the world illegal?

    M: Blah Blah Blah

    Leahy – Aw come on answer the questions

    M: If I address this difficult question, people who hate us will know….

    Leahy: Yeah, K, answer the question. Your failure to answer will put some of our people in more harm

    M. Nuh Uh; the military is entitled to Geneva Conventions, What I say has no bearing

    • skdadl says:

      M. Nuh Uh; the military is entitled to Geneva Conventions, What I say has no bearing

      That was the most amazing answer. The U.S. military are entitled to be treated according to the conventions because they behave well and honorably. Other people don’t, so they don’t qualify. Ok: he didn’t quite say that, but that was the clear implication.

  12. siri says:

    Bush nominated him. What did anyone, could anyone expect? I knew this the first time his name was uttered by DimBulb. Nothing here will surprise me today. It’s “nice” of Leahy to ASK, tho.
    *sigh*

  13. Helen says:

    Leahy wants to know what we paid the telecoms for wiretapping. Mukasey says he doesn’t know and is not sure if the info is calssified. Leahy is smirking. I love me some Leahy.

  14. RevDeb says:

    He’ll look at a lot of stuff. Then what. He can say he looked at it. period. That doesn’t mean he intends to do anything about what he looked at.

    Sheesh.

  15. GregB says:

    Mucousy is Gonzales with a pedigree. Another stonewalling war criminal that should be thrown in the dock for future trial.

    Mr. Magoo indeed. He’s willfully blind.

    -G

  16. nomolos says:

    Muckus: If I give you an answer to that it will be an answer and therefor I cannot answer. Makes sense to me but then I am only 1 year old.

    • nomolos says:

      What does he mean “torture is now unlawful under American law”?

      It wasn’t against the law when bush did it illegally. I guess

  17. FrankProbst says:

    “Mukasey: Our military won’t be affected by what I say.”

    Excuse me? When one of us speaks up, it’s treason. It’s betraying the troops. It’s supporting the enemy. And when the Attorney General of the United States speaks, it has no effect?

  18. jayt says:

    public service announcement:

    Orrin Hatch is present. Should you become ill, there should be a bag located in the back of the seat in front of you. If you find no such bag, please examine your remote control now and locate the “Mute” button.

    Thank you for flying Air Disingenuous.

  19. Neil says:

    Specter is hot on the trail of Bush’s lawbreaking justified with Article II powers. Mukasey clams up, makes inadequate arguments, Specter backs off.

    Mukasey thinks he’s Bush’s personal lawyer.

  20. radiofreewill says:

    Arlen: Does the President have the Article II power to engage in Torture?

    M: Torture is Not Lawful under American Law. I can’t imagine a circumstance where the President would want to do that.

    (Mukasey looks very sheepish this morning – he knows he Lying for BushCo.)b

    • jdmckay says:

      Shorter Mukasey: “Sometimes bank robbery is illegal and sometimes it is not.”

      Yes… lots of those this morning.

      What does it take for someone to say he’s just not believable.

  21. FrankProbst says:

    “M: Torture is Not Lawful under American Law. I can’t imagine a circumstance where the President would want to do that.”

    Okay, Michael, here you go: There’s a ticking nuclear bomb set to go off in New York City in 20 minutes. You have a man in custody who says he knows where it is, but he won’t tell you. And Jesus Christ is standing there with a handgun and a puppy, and he says he’s going to shoot Fluffy if you don’t torture the man. And Dick Cheney is on the phone saying, “Just torture the fucker. I’m not interrupting the President’s bike ride over some liberal mecca!”

    Is is okay to torture the guy?

    • perris says:

      I happen to disagree with most progressives on this point

      I believe in jury nulification, I believe in extenuating circumstanes and I believe I would have to try something to get this information and if I have to go to jail for it I would

      sorry

        • perris says:

          the real problem is we won’t know if we’ve been given the righ information or any informaiton

          we might actually be causeing the problem since we are gonna have to act on the very first thing they say and that will almost definately be a lie

          it is a terrible question to ask in the fist place

      • FrankProbst says:

        I happen to disagree with most progressives on this point

        I believe in jury nulification, I believe in extenuating circumstanes and I believe I would have to try something to get this information and if I have to go to jail for it I would

        sorry

        Okay, but since it’s my hypothetical situation, let me run it: It turns out that the “terrorist” you’re holding is really just someone’s senile old grandfather. And Jesus’s gun was loaded with blanks. (He’s such a kidder!) Dick Cheney is still an asshole–even in a fantasy world, you just can spin that away.

        So now you’ve got a senile old man with three missing fingers and half a dozen broken ribs. Were your actions justified? Do you feel any better about the situation because Dick Cheney told you it was okay?

        • perris says:

          no, they were not justified at all and of course you make a great point

          it is indeed a terrible question

          ESPECIALLY

          since we know as a fact this administration jailed everyone and anyone they wanted to with nothing more then a suggestion from anyone at all

          so your point is well taken indeed

          • FrankProbst says:

            I know I’m being a total wiseass here, but my point is that we can all imagine bizarre situations in which we would break the law. The founders imagined it, too. That one of the reasons we have pardons. And as we’ve recently seen, Congress can even consider retroactively immunizing people for breaking laws if it feels that national security needs were more important at the time.

            That isn’t the issue here. This issue is simply this: Is it legal to torture people? The answer is currently “No”, and in addition to US law, we have treaties to honor that say the same thing. We are breaking our own laws as well as our international treaties.

            • Leen says:

              Other issue is who did the torturing? Larry Johnson over at No Quarter has stated that he is “almost” sure that those who did the torturing were not CIA. So who did the torturing? And who were the CIA lawyers who gave the big o.k. for these “enhanced” techniques to be used.

              Just who is Mukasey protecting?

              • cboldt says:

                So who did the torturing?

                Almost certainly, contract employees who are in a legal no man’s land, see for example Blackwater operating in Iraq. Out of reach of all known legal remedial possibilities by dint of jurisdictional gaps

              • perris says:

                Other issue is who did the torturing? Larry Johnson over at No Quarter has stated that he is “almost” sure that those who did the torturing were not CIA. So who did the torturing? And who were the CIA lawyers who gave the big o.k. for these “enhanced” techniques to be used.

                it was “team b” set up by dick, he has done it before, when he doesn’t get the answers he wants he creates his own “cia b” which is not the cia at all

                • perris says:

                  more on team b

                  In 1972, President Richard Nixon returned from the Soviet Union with a treaty worked out by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the beginning of a process Kissinger called “détente.” On June 1, 1972, Nixon gave a speech in which he said:

                  “Last Friday, in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began in 1945. With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear—for our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world.”
                  But Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford’s Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated? And how could billions of dollars taken as taxes from average working people be transferred to the companies that Rumsfeld and Cheney – and their cronies – would soon work for and/or run?

                  Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort – first secretly and then openly – to undermine Nixon’s treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear.

                  They did it by claiming that the Soviets had a new secret weapon of mass destruction that the president didn’t know about, that the CIA didn’t know about, that nobody knew about but them. It was a nuclear submarine technology that was undetectable by current American technology. And, they said, because of this and related-undetectable-technology weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work or have businesses relationships with.

                  The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld’s position a “complete fiction” and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone.

                  it’s what cheney does, it’s what rumsfeld does, they couldn’t keep us involved in the ussr so they invented a threat, they couldn’t get teh cia to say Iraq was a threat so they invented team b, they are trying it again with Iran but we are finally innoculated

                • yellowsnapdragon says:

                  it was “team b” set up by dick, he has done it before, when he doesn’t get the answers he wants he creates his own “cia b” which is not the cia at all

                  The thought of that is frightening and very, very creepy.

                  • perris says:

                    The thought of that is frightening and very, very creepy.

                    it is a fact

                    and I am amazed he and rumsfeld were able to do it again in Iraq after we knew their track record

                    it is dumbfounding, please read that link start to finnish

                  • merkwurdiglieber says:

                    Torture, smorture… long history of perfecting aggressive interrogation
                    techniques, deep involvement in consulting with US development of same
                    genre. Some detainees have been renditioned to Israel for debriefing
                    as well, just not a subject for polite discussion in current climate.

                    • perris says:

                      the real cia has better methods then torture, they get better information, faster, more reliable, more actionable

                      torture not only gives us bad information, people die from that bad information

                      and it galvanizes more enemies against us

                      and it virutally insures our soldiers will be tortured as well

                    • merkwurdiglieber says:

                      Nothing in my comment should be read to condone any of the techniques
                      these people have developed for the reason you cite, sorry for the
                      obscure language, you are right.

  22. jayt says:

    Mukasey saying that the telecoms’ conduct “has already been found” to have been reasonable and in good faith.

    I must have missed that finding somehow… Ow I’m wondering who made that “finding”.

      • jayt says:

        thanks, I think. Could you maybe help me out and direct me to that “finding” – appears to be a long document, and I *could* wade all the way through it, but if possible, rather than wading all the way through it, I’d kinda like to keep watching this hearing…

  23. siri says:

    Did you guys see the article yesterday about Kucinich withdrawing his bill to impeach Bush? It was said, or alluded to in the article, that the SJC was going to actually open a full investigation of the yellow cake, Saddam’s having or seeking WMD, lied us into a war issue (which was the main premise of Kucinich’s impeachment bill is that Bush misAdministration lied us into a war). I WISH! And I too loves me some Leahy.

    • JamesJoyce says:

      60 minutes FBI agent who interacted with Saddam……….

      “no wmd” Guess this is just overlooked????????????

  24. Arnie says:

    This thing testifying is an utter disgrace to the concept of law, and is given recognition by title of honor. The judicial system is a joke.

  25. CasualObserver says:

    If Leahy is so flipping concerned about checks and balances, why did he roll over on the SJC FISA bill, in favor of the SIC bill. And where is the action on the subpeonas? Where does theater end, and some form–ANY FORM–of meaningful congressional action begin?

  26. radiofreewill says:

    Kennedy: Would Waterboarding be Torture if it was used on you?

    M: I’d feel that way, but I can’t go into the Department’s policy for making these sorts of decisions, because there are many factors involved in such a decision.

  27. capecoral says:

    Kennedy looks like his head will explode. He should suggest they waterboard the AG right there on camera.

  28. cboldt says:

    The extension of immunity in section 202 reflects the [SSCI] Committee’s determination that electronic communication service providers acted on a good faith belief that the President’s program, and their assistance, was lawful. The Committee’s decision to include liability relief for providers was based in significant part on its examination of the written communications from U.S. Government officials to certain providers. The Committee also considered the testimony of relevant participants in the program. …

    The Committee has reviewed all of the relevant correspondence. The letters were provided to electronic communication service providers at regular intervals. All of the letters stated that the activities had been authorized by the President. All of the letters also stated that the activities had been determined to be lawful by the Attorney General, except for one letter that covered a period of less than sixty days. That letter, which like all the others stated that the activities had been authorized by the President, stated that the activities had been determined to be lawful by the Counsel to the President.

    I don’t think there is much more to support the assertion, than that blockquote summary from the SSCI Committee report. The report recapitulates each of those points in slightly longer prose, but with no further information.

    Pretty stunning admission of acting outside of the structure of FISA. No AG certification, but the president’s lawyer said it was okay.

    • cboldt says:

      Even Grassley is pissd.

      Without action, or reaction by Congress, it’s all just real life drama. Reality teevee, with none of the consequences.

  29. cboldt says:

    Here’s another important conclusion from the SSCI report. I know the full report is pretty long, but sometimes one has to wade in, in order to be informed. I’m cherry picking what suits my fancy, and that tends to create a biased impression.

    Section 202 makes no assessment about the legality of the President’s program. It simply recognizes that, in the specific historical circumstances here, if the private sector relied on written representations that high-level Government officials had assessed the program to be legal, they acted in good faith and should be entitled to protection from civil suit.

    • perris says:

      that’s not good enough though

      they have lawyers, the lawyers know there is no warrant, they know the law concerning warrants

      there is no good faith demonstrated there is depravity demonstrated, it’s very simple for the telecom to simply say;

      “show me the warrant”

        • perris says:

          here it is in a nut shell;

          the president claims that by his very request he is above the law and anyone that acts on his request is above the law

          that is what the claim is stating

          are we to agree with this assessment or call them out on it and say NO FRIGGIN WAY!

          • JamesJoyce says:

            Bush, a “corporate aristocrat” is attempting to re-introduce, the “divine right of kings,” thought to be negated by Cromwell!!!

            • perris says:

              Bush, a “corporate aristocrat” is attempting to re-introduce, the “divine right of kings,” thought to be negated by Cromwell!!!

              BINGO

              the very notion is reclaiming “the divine right of kings”, there it is front and center

      • jayt says:

        first – thanks, cboldt, for the relevant excerpts.

        and perris is obviously correct, and I doubt that there would be any serious argument, that a determination that conduct is, or is not reasonable, is not for the Legislative branch to make…

        • cboldt says:

          I doubt that there would be any serious argument, that a determination that conduct is, or is not reasonable, is not for the Legislative branch to make…

          Well, Bond, Rockefeller and a host of others are saying exactly that, and they are very serious in their position.

          I think they are dead wrong, but who the hell am I?

          • jayt says:

            I think they are dead wrong, but who the hell am I?

            I hereby proclaim you to be a “reasonable” person. heh.

  30. JamesJoyce says:

    checks and balances eviscerated by a “corporate aristocracy” seeking to undermine law to avoid accountability and maintain “cash cows!!!!”

    Our founding fathers must be going bleeping nuts right now!!!!

  31. MadDog says:

    Will Leahy ask Mukasey about Leahy’s request to get Junya’s and Deadeye’s non-grand jury testimony given to Patrick Fitzgerald?

    Will Mukasey remember ever receiving the letter?

    Will he remember to give an answer?

  32. Kathryn in MA says:

    Go Biden!!!! Shocks the Conscience’ related to means, not ends. “Unique you said that! Shocks my conscience! i remember cicero, too”

    YESSSSSSS!

  33. Crosstimbers says:

    I sure hope a Democratic Congress is able to ensure the Mukasey is unable to return to any lifetime judgeship. If he’s not ready to retire, he needs to depend on Federalist Society or other right wing welfare group.

  34. cboldt says:

    they have lawyers, the lawyers know there is no warrant, they know the law concerning warrants

    It’s worse than that even. They get AG-signed letters, those being outside of statutory law as to adequate representation, but AG-signed per the statute, at least. Then along comes a letter with NO AG signature, but WH counsel signature? You better believe they knew they were on thin ice — just the same, I appreciate that they may have been willing to break the law, since as a practical matter, there isn’t much choice. The companies would be branded unpatriotic, etc. These orders are coming from the very top, not from some dipwad in a local FBI office.

    But agreed, good-faith believe in law abiding? No way Jose. They figured the top dog would take the heat and/or get them out of the dock, if the truth started to leak out. And money is no object, when you are in fact a state-owned and operated enterprise, for all intents and purposes.

    • cboldt says:

      … in fact a state-owned and operated enterprise, for all intents and purposes. …

      Basically an industry that is operationally regulated as to “protecting” customer privacy while possessing a degree of snooping capability dictated and exercised solely by the government, financed in significant part by tax money (CALEA compliant hardware, payment for employees undertaking snoop activity); with a patina of corporate and shareholder activity layered on top, financed by fees paid by subscribers.

      It matters not the company name on the door, the operation/snooping protocol is outside of the control of all of ‘em. From a privacy operations point, they are “state owned.”

  35. GregB says:

    Well, it only took 7 years for the US to reduce our standards of acceptable conduct to not raping and not chopping off peoples’ heads.

    America has become the poster child for low expectations.

    -G

    • Leen says:

      Here in south eastern Ohio many of the soldiers that I have been able to talk with who have been home on leave from Iraq… have shared that the rape and indiscriminate killing that the MSM is reporting about is the tip of the iceberg. (even less reporting about what is taking place in Irag over the last year since the Presidential race started)

      Friend Peggy Gish (Christian Peace Maker Team CPT) who has been on the ground in Iraq close to five years (in northern Iraq now) accumulatively reports the Iraqi people are really really angry about the environment that the invasion created for chaos, death and destruction to take place. She said they compare it to methods used in Sabra and Shatilla

      • GregB says:

        Without a doubt. The level of aerial bombings has been amped up in the permanant escalation(I won’t use the surge framing anymore).

        The US appears to have adopted the worst tactics of the Israelis.

        As so many in the US see every terrorist act as one piece of the same so do many Arabs and Muslims see the US and Israeli conduct as on piece of th same.

        This is an ongoing warcrime and it keeps getting worse.

        -GSD

  36. Kathryn in MA says:

    Sessions wants money sent to guarding the SW border, not naturalizing new citizens so they can vote (re Kennedy)

    • Evolute says:

      Sessions, from Alabama, is squawking about illegal immigration. Big problem in Alabama is it?

      It was burden enough having to hate the blacks, throwing brown skinned into the mix is just overwhelming.

  37. cboldt says:

    I know I’m not the only one getting tired of these blowhard Senators. WTF are they gonna DO about their anger? Vent and then sigh of relief? Useless bunch of assholes, the whole lot of ‘em.

    • perris says:

      kennedy was real good, and I think if he thought of it he would have asked;

      “if we waterboarded you until you said waterboarding was torture, how long do you think it would take you to say it and would that testimony from you be of any value at all?”

      let him try to answer that

      • Neil says:

        great stuff perris, keep it up.

        “if we waterboarded you until you said waterboarding was torture, how long do you think it would take you to say it and would that testimony from you be of any value at all?”

      • cboldt says:

        kennedy was real good, and I think if he thought of it he would have asked …

        So what if good at asking questions. So what if he’s good at venting his spleen. WTF is he going to do, for action I mean. Drink another scotch and soda? More venting?

        These guys are all professional actors. All show and no go.

        • perris says:

          cbolt, you are making good points and we all agree but we are not morons and you don’t ahve to keep saying it

          we ARE making progress even though it’s not as pervasive as you or I or most people would like

          we get it, ok, now let’s live blog and comment on these hearings and have the assesments later

      • jayt says:

        “if we waterboarded you until you said waterboarding was torture, how long do you think it would take you to say it and would that testimony from you be of any value at all?”

        Excellent.

    • merkwurdiglieber says:

      The Senate was designed to do just what we see, nothing… absorb the
      currents of political passion, speak for the record, go home. In rare
      circumstances it rouses to action, but only with leadership, which, we
      obviously do not produce in sufficient quantity.

      • cboldt says:

        The Senate was designed to do just what we see, nothing

        Exactly.

        It’s a show, and it’s function is to let off steam without doing anything.

  38. wavpeac says:

    Too much powerlessness being communicated. I am angry. I am pissed. I want to know “what’s the plan”, where the direction? Who’s willing to lead us to the solution?”

    Bruce Fein, was pretty clear, we have to take legal action, what are we waiting for “Bush to give us permission”?

  39. GregB says:

    Someone should whip out the ‘at long last have you no sense of decency’ line on this dodging, lying apparatchik.

    All apologies to Jonah Goldberg, this guy would have made a great Stalinist.

    -G

  40. TLinGA says:

    Brownback – If we close GitMo, Leavenworth is not a good place to keep them.

    Why not? Because its on American soil and then the American courts would have jurisdiction?

    • nomolos says:

      Brownback – If we close GitMo, Leavenworth is not a good place to keep them.

      There is a ranch in crawford texas……..

      • Leen says:

        Cheney’s land in Wyoming…scary. He loves “enhanced techniques”

        Ooh Feinstein “non governmental employee”

        contractors

  41. radiofreewill says:

    Mukasey is the New Improved Gonzo – where Gonzo was clumsy and dull enough to blunder into Admissions of Administration Wrongdoing.

    Mukasey is less clumsy – and sharp enough – to obfuscate issues of Wrongdoing for Bush.

    Mukasey is Clever-er than Gonzo.

  42. perris says:

    the progressives need to coin that phrase;

    “does the president claim the divine right of kings”

    OH BABY!!!

    let me see a democrat say that on the TEEvee, let them repeat it and repeat it

  43. Leen says:

    Senator Feinstein to Mukasey. “I am sure you will remember that I flipped and helped you get appointed and I am certain that you will not be investigating my families war profiteering”. Thank you very much!

  44. perris says:

    you know, it’s the end of January, the sun is shining out here in lawn guy land new York, I have a short sleeve shirt on and it’s a great day to be outside

    I am gonna go and enjoy me some global warming before the planet boils over

    see all later

  45. radiofreewill says:

    DiFi asking Murky if each step of the Enhanced Interrogation Process is Cabled from a Foreign Country back to the US and approved.

    Murky dodges.

    DiFi asks if the EIT’s are carried out by Contractors, or not?

    Murky says he doesn’t know.

  46. QuakerGirl says:

    The roots of an agency is the premise on which it operates. The CIA precursor admired, emulated and sought out SS agents and other secret police in Nazi Germany offering them immunity to help develop the US secret intelligence agencies. And so it reflects its roots today.

  47. earlofhuntingdon says:

    MM: I was proposed by the company. [Interesting, that. When did they offer.] Deferred prosecution agreements have become more prevalent so corporations can break the law but not be punished for it. [He didn’t say that, exactly.] So far as it being a no-bid contract, we’re not talking about public money.

    That is a formally correct but outrageous statement. Mukasey describes a government-controlled process whereby the DOJ agrees that it will not prosecute a corporation, which it believes broke the law, so long as the company mends its ways. The instance he describes is the no-bid, multi-million dollar “oversight” contract awarded to Ashcroft by the USA in New Jersey.

    In typical Bushista fashion, this program outsources an inherent governmental function – the administration of justice – to private companies and the wrongdoers. They pay for the “oversight”, which gives them considerable informal leverage in how the program works.

    The company develops “an action plan”, agrees it with the USA, and pays an external, private party to “oversee” its implementation. All on the QT and very hush-hush. It may speed “justice”, but who can tell? It’s secret. It certainly minimizes consequences for wrongdoing for senior managers and board members, and hides essential information from shareholders, lenders, customers and suppliers. Just another example of Mr. Bush’s “voluntary self-regulation”.

    Because it functions in secret – it hides the wrongful conduct, whether the mandated changes are implemented or work, and what it all costs – the program is inherently subject to abuse. It should, therefore, be subject to stringent review. Mukasey’s response? Can’t comment and it’s not public money. Says all we need to know.

Comments are closed.