Comments on Mukasey’s Call for an Election-Season Showdown

Just as a follow-up to this post, a couple of official comments.

From DC District Court Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, who has already set into motion an expedited process for the detainees:

I am pleased that Attorney General Mukasey said that our ‘court should be commended for the preliminary steps it has taken thus far to provide for the fair, efficient, and prompt adjudication of these cases.’ Guidance from Congress on these difficult subjects is, of course, always welcome. Because we are on a fast track, however, such guidance sooner, rather than later, would certainly be most helpful.

From Harry Reid:

As a result of its repeated efforts to circumvent the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution, the Bush administration has yet to bring to justice the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of September 11. If legislation is needed, it is important that Congress proceed in a deliberate and thoughtful way to write rules that will not be thrown out by the courts yet again. Congress must hold public hearings, consult with national security and legal experts, and take the time to get this right. It is hard to imagine that Congress can give this complex issue the attention it deserves in the closing weeks of this legislative session.

The courts are well equipped to handle this situation, and there is no danger that any detainee will be released in the meantime.

From Patrick Leahy:

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Boumediene v. Bush last month reaffirmed our core American values by concluding that detainees at Guantanamo have the right to bring habeas corpus claims in federal court. I applauded that decision because I have maintained from the beginning that the provisions of the Military Commission Act that purported to strip away those rights were unconstitutional and un-American.

The Judiciary Committee has held a wide range of hearings on issues of detainee rights and procedures. Attorney General Mukasey’s call today for Congress to create new rules for these habeas proceedings is the first I have heard from the Administration on this issue. Given the Judiciary Committee’s long interest in this subject, it is regrettable that the Attorney General neither consulted with nor informed the Committee about this request before his speech.

The Courts have a long history of considering habeas petitions and of handling national security matters, including classified information. I have great confidence in our system of justice and its ability to handle these issues. The Administration made this mess by seeking to avoid judicial review at all costs, causing years of delay and profound uncertainty. It has been rebuked four times by the Supreme Court. Habeas Corpus is the ultimate guarantee of fairness and a check on executive excess. The Congress must not rush to pass yet another piece of ill conceived legislation. The Judiciary Committee will continue to address issues related to detainees and will review and consider any proposal from the Administration on these matters. With so little time left in this legislative session and the complexity of these issues, it may be an issue more responsibly addressed in the next Congress with a new President.

And the only one without a trace of snark, from Center for Constitutional Rights Executive Director Vincent Warren (CCR is representing a number of the detainees awaiting habeas hearings):

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, and there is no need for congressional intervention. The Supreme Court explicitly said in Boumediene that the two prior attempts by Congress to intervene to prevent detainees from having access to the courts were unconstitutional.

For six and a half years, Congress and the Bush Administration have done their level best to 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.

The strength of this country rests on our willingness to embrace a system of justice, to allow courts to consider the facts and interpret the law. As the most senior lawyer in the government, the Attorney General should allow justice at long last to proceed.

Well, let’s hope that settles that.

Update: Russ Feingold piles on:

The Attorney General’s comments today appeared to be an attempt to create an election-year security issue where there isn’t one. Our federal courts are capable of handling these cases, and no dangerous detainees held at Guantanamo will be released anytime soon. By repeatedly mishandling these cases, the administration has delayed justice from being served. If congressional action is needed to clean up the mess the administration created at Guantanamo, it should be taken alongside a new administration that doesn’t have such contempt for the rule of law.

Golly, I seem to detect some message discipline from the Democrats, huh?

image_print
  1. AZ Matt says:

    Mukasey – It’s not fair that Bush can’t do whatever he wants!

    Poor Baby, boo-hoo! Mukasey wanted to be George’s AG, well F him, he is getting what he deserves and now is trying to get rid of George’s hot potato. F him I say.

  2. looseheadprop says:

    The Judiciary Committee has held a wide range of hearings on issues of detainee rights and procedures. Attorney General Mukasey’s call today for Congress to create new rules for these habeas proceedings is the first I have heard from the Administration on this issue. Given the Judiciary Committee’s long interest in this subject, it is regrettable that the Attorney General neither consulted with nor informed the Committee about this request before his speech.

    Could I have been wrong? Did Mukasey go out ona limb and make this speech w/o some reason to believe the fix was in?

    Then why in hell would he do it?

    Unless Bushco now believes that the ole rubber stamps will cave in anyway?

    • emptywheel says:

      WEll, he knows he has Lieberman and I think Specter. But he forgot, apparently, that Lieberman doesn’t even give him a majority where he needs it–on the SJC.

    • scribe says:

      No, you were right. The fix is in. It’s just that, like with FISA, Leahy’s been left out of the loop. Just another example of “Go f*ck yourself”.

      I’m telling you, it’ll be like “REAL ID”, slipped into an appropriations bill or a continuing resolution, probably on a motion to recommit supported by Steny and his Blue Dogs and the Rethugs, in numbers sufficient to get a majority.

      If that fails, then in conference committee.

      • AZ Matt says:

        I don’t know if Steny wants to get pounded on by his own party’s base again. This would have to go to Conyers I would think.

        • scribe says:

          Not if you do it on a motion to recommit.

          That’s the one where you put a motion to have the bill sent back to committee and as much language as you want changed, changed. And then the changed bill is the one which is coughed up.

          And I think Steny likes getting “pounded” by the base. It gets him puff pieces about what a statesman he is and, if nothing else, he likes getting his analingus.

          • AZ Matt says:

            Is there a bill at this point? I am unaware of one, so it would have to be a new one? If that is the case then it seems as if it would have to go to committee.

            • scribe says:

              He wouldn’t be making his speech if the Admin didn’t have a bill ready for Feeney to introduce.

              Probably with some Blue Dog co-sponsor.

              It’s probably being couriered over now, all 372 pages of it.

              Wait until tomorrow.

          • emptywheel says:

            There’s no bill. Either John Conyers or Pat Leahy is going to have to put this on their Committee’s calendar for it to get to the floor. It can’t go through SSCI, so Jello Jay isn’t going to do Mukasey too much good in teh short term.

          • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

            I think you’ve got a point.
            The more Steny gets pounded, the more ‘independent’ and ’statesmanlike’ he looks. Or that he thinks he looks.

    • phred says:

      EW hasn’t yet quoted Steny or Jello Jay, DiFi or Chuckie Schumer. I’m not ready to rule out the fix being in just yet. Pat and Russ and even Harry have been known to say the right things, while Congressional Dems still manage to collapse all over themselves to do the King’s bidding.

      • looseheadprop says:

        Ya know, it’s like the SAT’s. Usually you first choice for the answer, is the right one

        • phred says:

          Yep ; ) Stick with the fix LHP — at least that way you won’t be surprised when it comes ; )

          Damn.

      • Nell says:

        Unless you envision legislation which is entirely about a judicial process coming through something other than the Judiciary Committees, the statement of the chair of the Judiciary Committee should be given some weight.

        This is/was an effort by the regime to test the weakness of the Congress and to gin up an issue for their candidates. Since the Dem chairs are not going to fold, they’ve got their issue. And they’re welcome to it; may it be just as effective on the campaign trail as it was in 2006.

  3. emptywheel says:

    I love so many of these comments I was tempted to bold much of them. But I gotta give the prize so far to Russ:

    The Attorney General’s comments today appeared to be an attempt to create an election-year security issue where there isn’t one. Our federal courts are capable of handling these cases, and no dangerous detainees held at Guantanamo will be released anytime soon. By repeatedly mishandling these cases, the administration has delayed justice from being served. If congressional action is needed to clean up the mess the administration created at Guantanamo, it should be taken alongside a new administration that doesn’t have such contempt for the rule of law.

    • Petrocelli says:

      Russ is Pure Gold !

      Reid should hurry up … he only has a few months left to hand BushCo everything they want … /s

  4. AZ Matt says:

    Good shot by Leahy:

    With so little time left in this legislative session and the complexity of these issues, it may be an issue more responsibly addressed in the next Congress with a new President.

    That is sort of a go away if ever I saw one.

  5. Peterr says:

    I don’t know if it’s message discipline. It sounds to me more like a bunch of folks who’ve been kicked in the same way by the school bully every day for the last six years or so, and have finally gotten the hang of kicking back.

  6. bell says:

    as an outsider it strikes me as wrong, wrong, wrong to hold others in a lockup for close to 8 years without any trail while cavalierly suggesting it can be worked it out with a new administration into a deeper future as some suggest.. this continues to be a huge black eye on the usa.. it says politics trumps justice… politicians continue to walk free protecting their own, while a group of detainees are held indefinitely considered guilty until proven innocent… no wonder many view politicians are inherently corrupt…

  7. SparklestheIguana says:

    Yup, I just saw some Uighurs in orange jumpsuits running down my street. We DO need legislation after all!

  8. bobschacht says:

    I wonder about the new Strange Bedfellows project. If they put up an actual candidate against our next senator who is up for re-election in my state, I might actually vote against the incumbent.

    Harold Ford with his sycophantic “the Constitution doesn’t poll well” is odious to me. The fact that he’s a Democrat is shameful.

    Bob in HI

  9. bmaz says:

    And from bmaz:

    I would like to thank Mr. Mukasey for his heartfelt and creative suggestions, and they will be given the due consideration that his track record as Attorney General on legal and Constitutional issues warrants.

    • emptywheel says:

      Just for clarification, bmaz, are you looking to replace the gluehorse, or Kyl?

      I mean, we’d support you for either one, so long as you didn’t bump Napolitano if it came to that.

        • emptywheel says:

          When we’re about to elect our second straight President who has done coke (more for 43 from the sounds of things than for 44), how does a little inhalation matter anymore?

          Besides, you’re a trial lawyer, they expect it of you.

            • emptywheel says:

              All I know is that–per a friend who used to party with Jerry Garcia and once got invited to a strange party in the upper east side with bowls and bowls of amazing blow–Poppy Bush kept one of Bush’s cousins in coke siphoned off the Agency’s stores provided he kept his name out of the newspapers.

              But I’m sure Junya never attended those parties.

        • bobschacht says:

          Well, I hope you let it all out, occasionally. Even dope smoke gets stale after a while.

          Bob in HI
          Ex-Denizen of “Joint House” in Ann Arbor

        • Jim Clausen says:

          Dam.
          I was going to give you the Srgt. Schultz routine:

          ” I know nothink, nuthink about this”*G*

  10. AZ Matt says:

    Kind of what I thought, Mukasey has nothing new to send over. And right now he is not Conyers’ or Leahy’s favorite person. Maybe a swap could be arranged – Rove for a bill?!

    • phred says:

      If Mukasey offers to swap, that will be a first. So far the Dems have got nuthin’ from their capitulating ways…

    • emptywheel says:

      AZ Matt

      Where’d you learn your negotiating skills??

      We start with all the USA purge documents outstanding, Rove, plus Cheney’s FBI report.

      And we bargain down to the latter two items.

      • AZ Matt says:

        HA! I’ll leave you in charge of negotiating! Tell them you want the White House visitors log too!

      • freepatriot says:

        send me, send me

        I don’t negotiate

        I’ll argue like a sonofabitch (and I’m really good at it)

        but I don’t negotiate

        I might knock somebody out, and I’ll certainly make a huge scene, we might even hafta kill somebody, but I’ll get the documents you want

        Probably steal a few wallets while I’m at it too, but you gotta overlook little stuff like that …

        (wink)

        and bmaz at 23:

        Eh, I did inhale. Constantly….

        dude, you’re still not doing it right

        you gotta exhale once in a while

        if ya don’t, you’re just a vacuum cleaner

  11. SparklestheIguana says:

    Lawyers Guns & Money reminds us of Ben Wittes’ assurances from last October:

    The Democrats have a big club to wield over Mukasey’s head to make sure they don’t get snookered: Without a strong working relationship with them, he won’t be able to get anything done. The lack of such a relationship gravely impaired both of his predecessors….

    I love experts. Also – think tanks rock!

    • freepatriot says:

      how about a cure for Stockholm syndrome

      if Obama could come up with that, we could cure our congress critters

      and on an off topic throwback:

      remember those tomatoes that kill people ???

      the jalapeños have signed an alliance with the tomatoes

      the whole pepper subculture is now suspect

      I never thought the veggies would fight back, the cows I could understand,maybe the pigs too, but veggies ???

  12. chetnolian says:

    Hey how can you even discuss trades. This is people’s lives. And unless the US has been more competent in rounding up assorted brown people than it has at anything else, there are at least a few completely INNOCENT guys out in GITMO. The first trial to start is of a man accused of being OBL’s driver for Pete’s sake.How dangerous is that?

  13. freepatriot says:

    let mukasy say whatever the fuck he wants to say

    he can blather on all he wants

    headlines like this SCARE THE SHIT OUTTA MUKASY

    RADVAN KARADZIC, WANTED WAR CRIMINAL, CAPTURED

    SOON TO GO ON TRIAL FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

    mukasy can try to spin American opinion all he wants

    doesn’t affect the war crimes charges being prepared against him

    slobodon milosivic dies in a prison cell. History isn’t gonna overlook that

    karadzik is gonna die in a cell too

    george and his buddies can’t fix away the International Criminal Court

    they can’t grant any immunities the ICC will recognize

    and if I ever end up in the company of any of these assholes, they’re gonna wake up in Juarez in a sack

      • freepatriot says:

        don’t tell george shit

        let that stupid fucker learn the hard way

        I don’t really know the words, but here’s a song for them:

        I got a friend named ramblin bob

        he use to gamble cheat and rob

        he thought he was

        the smartest guy in town

        He’s in The Jail House Now

        and one more for karadzik:

        breakin rocks in the hot sun

        I fought the law and the law won

        I don’t have faith in the wheels of justice, or God or whatever

        but Karma

        she’s my bitch

  14. ondelette says:

    Sorry to be so one track mind about this, but we have a letter we’d like people to take a look at over at Humanity Against Crimes. We’re basically giving up on the Congress to hold the people in the Bush administration accountable for their war crimes. We’re asking the Prosecutor at the ICC to investigate.

    Take a look, we could use some more people signing.

    Unless, of course you’d like to write to him yourself.

    • watercarrier4diogenes says:

      From the letter at ondolette’s link:

      The Congress of the United States is the body that prosecutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” of the office of the President, by independent prosecutors and by impeachment. They have repeatedly failed to do so, and instead have passed the aforementioned acts. We believe that they are in violation of the provisions, Articles 5, 6, and 7, and Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the CATCIDT, and Articles 129, 130, and 131 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 and Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which we believe require our Congress to effect such investigations and prosecutions with due respect for these treaties and with due haste. Therefore, we would ask that you further consider the role of the Congress in your investigation, and determine whether or not it has failed these obligations sufficiently as to indicate that the United States Government does not intend to prosecute war crimes in good faith.

      I can picture the indigestion this proposed investigation would cause among the Rethugs who controlled Congress for most of the years this stew was being conjured up and among certain of the Gang of Eight who likely knew explicitly of its content and didn’t think their oath of office was worth honoring.

      • stryder says:

        Fuck the ICC and the Hague.
        We need to set up our own rendition flights to Devil’s Island

  15. drational says:

    Message discipline=

    When you have allowed yourselves to be hammered so deep into the ground that looking up from the hole, everyone can describe the same thundercloud in the sky.

  16. bmaz says:

    The Bushco Torture Brigade is on a bad luck streak in dancing school. Four beatdowns by the Supreme Court on the legality/Constitutionality of their torture and trial program is beyond bad. Four drubbings of this type for a Presidential Administration, during a supposed time of war, is simply unheard of.

    When Bushco got the ruling late last week that they could proceed with their first gulag trial against Salim Hamdan, they were ecstatic. Smug in the self satisfaction that the first show trial of the many the have been pining for would not be further delayed, Hamdan was rushed to the Guantanamo dock and the trial commenced this morning. So far, so good.

    But wait, there’s more; and it’s not good for Bushco’s cherished show trial dreams. Not even one full day into the show, and even the hand selected military judge, Keith Allred, is sending Bushco up the proverbial creek without their torture evidence paddle. From the CBC:

    Judge Keith Allred, the navy captain presiding at the trial, decided Monday to bar evidence obtained from Hamdan by interrogators under “highly coercive” conditions in Afghanistan, saying prosecutors cannot use statements he made shortly after his capture at the Bagram air base and Panshir in Afghanistan.

    Hamdan has said he endured beatings and solitary confinement at those locations.

    The judge left the door open for the prosecution to use other statements Hamdan gave elsewhere in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo.

    Michael Berrigan, the deputy chief defence counsel, described the ruling as a major blow to the tribunal system that allows hearsay and evidence obtained through coercion.

    “It’s a very significant ruling because these prosecutions are built to make full advantage of statements obtained from detainees,” he said.

    Berrigan is exactly right, this is a major blow. And it is a blow with far reaching consequences too, because it sets the tone, in an absolutely blistering manner, for the considerations on the Habeas petitions about to be considered by Royce Lamberth’s designated judge, Tom Hogan. What will the government do now? Ah, well…

    Prosecutors are considering whether to appeal the judge’s ruling — a development that could halt the trial of Salim Hamdan that began earlier Monday after years of delays and legal setbacks.

    “We need to evaluate … to what extent it has an impact on our ability to fully portray his criminality in this case, but also what it might set out for future cases,” said Army Col. Lawrence Morris, the tribunals’ chief prosecutor.

    Irony is a bitch when you are a Bush.

  17. lllphd says:

    not to wax too cynical about this, but i’m not sure that keeping to dem talking points is such a viable consideration when they are simply stating the obvious.

    i suppose that’s why i’m of mixed feelings when it comes to dem talking points. seems like an oxymoron to me, and i don’t like the idea of my party, or any party, speaking in terms of marching orders, and certainly not marching in lockstep.

    lockstep is ok when it so clearly expresses the obvious constitutional ramifications, tho.