Mukasey Rejects Inquiry(no special counsel to investigate *admin officials that approved torture)

[maddezmom]

Source: WaPo

Friday, July 11, 2008; Page A15

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey rejected calls to appoint a special counsel to investigate Bush administration officials who approved the use of coercive interrogation techniques against terrorism suspects.

In a letter sent yesterday to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), Mukasey said opening a criminal investigation would be "unfair" and "seriously short-sighted."

"I am aware of no basis for appointing a special counsel to investigate the policymakers who approved the CIA interrogation program or the national security lawyers who concluded that the program was lawful," he wrote to Conyers and nearly five dozen other Democrats.

Critics of the administration's policy have likened the questioning tactics to torture and have called for senior policymakers to be held accountable. Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility, which probes ethics complaints against department lawyers, is conducting its own investigation of Justice memos that blessed controversial techniques including simulated drowning and sleep deprivation.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002749.html

[Solly Mack]

1. Course not. What basis could there possibly be?

snort

[groovedaddy]

2. Remember: no matter what it is, if the President says it's okay, that's all that's needed.

Or in other words: tyranny is legal now.

[FreepFryer]

3. I'll say it again - Chuck Schumer, we told you so! Get rid of Mukasey - replace Schumer w/a REAL Dem

[atreides1]

5. Replace Feinstein also

She was more then helpful in getting Mukasey the job!

[gratuitous]

9. Schumer and Feinstein green-lighted this clown

Feinstein, for reasons that aren't clear to me at all. Schumer, who publicly stated that Mukasey would be responsive to the Senate if he was confirmed as Attorney General. How's that responsive thing working out for you, Mr. Schumer? Oh, but then Bush would have nominated someone even worse! Then vote that assclown down, too. That "advise and consent" power in the Constitution isn't just for window dressing; it's supposed to mean something.

[Supersedeas]

13. now we have justice -- in the Shumer/Feinstein framework

[indepat]

4. Scholars are going to have a field day eviscerating the litany of tortured reasoning

minions of this administration have concocted to provide cover to torture and violate the law and the Constitution all the while the Congress enabled, the MSM shilled for and protected, and the courts mostly yawned. Figuratively speaking, a public tarring and feathering, flogging, and public hanging would be too good for the lot of them. :D

[RedLetterRev]

10. But it'd be a fine place to start n/t

[LynnTheDem]

6. When a republican president orders torture, it's legal.

When a republican president violates the USC and the GC and orders illegal wars of aggression invasions, it's legal.

When a republican president violates the USC and US law and illegally spies on Americans, it's legal.

When a republican president violates the laws, it's legal.










When a democratic president has consensual sex with an adult...well that's different!

[seafan]

7. Mukasey can and should be impeached. Then he cannot be pardoned.

WP, July 11, 2008:

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey rejected calls to appoint a special counsel to investigate Bush administration officials who approved the use of coercive interrogation techniques against terrorism suspects.

In a letter sent yesterday to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), Mukasey said opening a criminal investigation would be "unfair" and "seriously short-sighted."

The House should start impeaching these criminals, one by filthy one. Picking off Bush's lieutenants would keep him on the defensive from here on out.


Not only would impeaching Mukasey derail his pardon, it would also make him unable to hold a government position again.


John Dean spelled this out in 2006:

Lowering the aim of an impeachment effort to focus on those who have aided and abetted, or directly engaged in, the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, would have all the positives, and none of the negatives, of going after Bush and Cheney. ...... to rid the government of those who have participated, along with Bush and Cheney, in abuses and misuses of power; indeed, many among them have actually encouraged Bush and Cheney to undertake the offensive activities.
Many of these men (and a few women) are young enough that it is very likely that they will return to other posts in future Republican Administrations, and based on their experience in the Bush/Cheney Administration, they can be expected to make the offensive conduct of this presidency the baseline for the next president they serve. Impeachment, however, would prevent that from happening.

....

It will be recalled that Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." (Emphasis added.) After any civil officer has been impeached, under the rules of the Senate, it requires only a simple majority vote to add the disqualification from holding future office.

...... Given the number of officials within the Bush Administration who may have been engaged in Constitutional high crimes or misdemeanors, and the nature of the impeachment process, there is no shortage of civil officers worthy of consideration. Where there is clear prima facie evidence of such constitutional misconduct, impeachment action should be commenced.

From Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution:

.... and (The President) shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

With the current House leadership, I am not optimistic.

[The Stranger]

8. Mukasey is Schumer and Feinstein's man.

They crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans to get him in.

[MidwestTransplant]

11. So if the AG Edwards legal team decides that it is lawful to put a tree up Rim Job's ass for having

a website that's racist and threatens President Obama, it's legal because they have an internal opinion that says it is?

[badgervan]

12. I Wonder What It Feels Like.....

.... to sell your soul and personal honor for politics?

[alfredo]

14. surprise surprise

Conducting their own investigation? Where, on the golf course with OJ?