Skip to main content

It is becoming increasingly clear the new Atty. Gen. is what we used to call "A Company Man". In his first OpEd Mukasey shows his true colors, removing any doubts whose boy he is. The rank dishonesty that shows through is appalling. He ignores many of the facts in his claims for the need immunity.

Second, it would provide protections from lawsuits for telecommunications companies that have been sued simply because they are believed to have assisted our intelligence agencies after the 9/11 attacks. The bill does not, as some have suggested, provide blanket immunity for those companies. Instead, a lawsuit would be dismissed only in cases in which the attorney general certified to the court either that a company did not provide assistance to the government or that a company had received a written request indicating that the activity was authorized by the president and determined to be lawful.
A FISA fix

The bold sentence shows just how dishonest Mukasey is willing to be. The Telecoms are not being sued "simply because they are believed to have assisted our intelligence agencies after the 9/11 attacks", not by a long shot. They are being sued because they broke the law, something the US Atty. Gen. is charged with prosecuting. Instead here he is misrepresenting the facts right out the gate. Back in Sept. Glenn Greenwald wrote in depth about how wrong this kind of perspective is. Here is his first major objection.

First, retroactive immunity turns the "rule of law" into an even greater mockery than it has been for the last six years. The central premise in granting immunity is that telecom companies did nothing wrong -- even if they violated the law -- because they cooperated with warrantless spying at the behest of the President.

But we don't actually live in a country where private actors are permitted to commit crimes and violate laws provided that the President tells them that they should. The President has no greater power to authorize others to break the law than he does to break the law himself. Quite the contrary, Article II of the Constitution imposes the opposite obligation: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Lawbreaking is still illegal even if George Bush says it should be done. Does that principle really need to be explained?

Sadly, that principle has escaped many in Congress, both Right and Left. They actually seem to totally ignore that principle if they sit on the Sen. Intel. Comm., whose bill give the Bush admin., and the Telecoms everything they want. The bill they voted out at 13 to 2 gives away the farm and the Bill of Rights. Our Chairman Rockefeller, and Dianne Fienstein, two elitists that have done nothing to rein Bushs abuses, voted for the Immunity. Surprised ? Me neither even tho "Judge Anna Diggs Taylor (ruled) that Bush's warrantless eavesdropping activities violated both federal criminal law and the U.S. Constitution. Shameless.

AG Mukasey goes even further in his sellout when he asserts it is just plain "unfair" to make the Telecoms accountable for the Laws they broke, and the Civil Rights they violated. If this wasn't so serious it would be laughable.

It is unfair to force such companies to face the possibility of massive judgments and litigation costs, and allowing these lawsuits to proceed also risks disclosure of our country's intelligence capabilities to our enemies. Moreover, in the future we will need the full-hearted help of private companies in our intelligence activities; we cannot expect such cooperation to be forthcoming if we do not support companies that have helped us in the past.

This paragraph is so misleading coming from someone who sat on the Bench, it should give us all pause. If this is the type of reasoning Mukasey has employed in the past when passing judgement, he should never of been made AG. To claim the Telecoms could, and would refuse to help their country or that they would refuse to follow a legal Court Order, ordering that they help is disingenuous at best, a total lie at worse. Glenn's third point about why the Immunity should not be allowed may be the most important one. Since he says it better than I could, here it is.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, a Congressional grant of immunity for past lawbreaking would amount to a bipartisan endorsement of Bush's illegal eavesdropping program. To remove consequences for illegal behavior is, by definition, to approve of that behavior. Laws with no consequences for violations are meaningless. And those who seek to shield lawbreakers from accountability are endorsing the lawbreaking.

Back in Oct. FireDogLake posted this video on UTUBE, where Glenn lays out the beginnings of some actions the ACLU, Moveon, WorkingAssets, and others are taking. These different Bills and amendments are coming up for a vote very very soon, and it's time to really swing into action. Please take the 3 mins., and watch the video.

Mukasey barely touchs the blanket warrants he and Bush want that will allow them to scoop up the calls, and emails of Americans overseas without having to go to court. There as already been tons written about this issue, but Glenn has written what I think is the clearest so I encourage you to click on the Salon link and read  everything he has written on the subject. It is coming down to the wire on this, and we simply cannot allow ourselves to be railroaded into accepting and condoning the giving away of our civil rights, and the lawbreaking of this Admin. The time is now, will you join in the actions needed or will you allow our party's leaders to bendover one more time ? I've made my choice, have you ?

Postscript: You don't think the timing of this OpEd could be to distract us from the current Missing Waterboarding Tapes do you ? Nahhh, they would never do something like that.

Originally posted to SmileySam on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:43 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tipjar (13+ / 0-)

    He may not be Gonzales, but I don't think we got much better this time around. He is still deciding if Waterboarding is Torture, that should say it all...

    "bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson

    by SmileySam on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:45:02 AM PST

  •  Call it what it is... TREASON. (6+ / 0-)

    Preznit and Congress each recite an oath to "defend the Constitution."  

    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:57:34 AM PST

    •  but that is sooo 2006 (4+ / 0-)

      Treason is not quite strong enough for what will eventually be revealed about this Pres. History will treat Bush worse than it has "Old Hickory".

      You might think, for example, that teenagers today have less than no interest in Jackson -- but you'd be wrong. One night recently, a 13-year-old friend who knew I was making a television biography of Jackson came racing into the house in advance of her parents, got right my in face and screamed, "You're making a film about a very bad man!" Her outrage had been triggered by learning, like millions of other eighth-graders taking American history, how the Cherokees had been driven from their homes by American soldiers and forced to march west into the wilderness so that white Americans could steal their land.

      Was 'Old Hickory' a great president or an American Hitler?

      "bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson

      by SmileySam on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:02:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Prosecute bushco along with the Telecoms. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Owllwoman, SmileySam

    Lets just get a "blanket" indictment.
    We'll just throw them all in the "basket" of "approved" indictments.

  •  Well, looks like (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nancelot, fugue, Terra Mystica, SmileySam

    we have to give Schumer and DiFi the "what for" over "their guy" Mukasie. It's time for Schumer and DiFi to go, we don't need any more of their help for anything.  Schumer and DiFi are helping the GOP to further destroy the Constitution.  What asshats.

    If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

    by Mz Kleen on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:15:59 AM PST

  •  Cheney wanted what tricky Dick had. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nancelot, SmileySam

    So they took it. And because they did this and so much more, a conviction of treason would be enough to keep them in jail until death.

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:16:58 AM PST

  •  parallels dishonest op ed by McConnell (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nancelot, SmileySam

    about which I diaried on Monday:  Help Me Spy on Al Qaeda

    Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy

    by teacherken on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:48:43 AM PST

    •  Thanks, I had missed it. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teacherken, nancelot, Terra Mystica

      The LATimes article only mentions McConnell once, when we know he is up to his armpits in this crap. With his history he should not have been approved in the first place. The price of being the minority in a partisan climate. Cleaning house come 2009 should be swift, deep and drastic.

      "bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson

      by SmileySam on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:55:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Great piece (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      So many people don't know that when McConnell speaks of his time working in "the Private Sector", that he worked for the Telecms. So basicly he is still lobbying for immunity from his old friends, bosses, employees and probable future employers. That should come in quite handy to him in 09.

      "bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson

      by SmileySam on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:09:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What's a new AG writing an Op-Ed piece (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NearlyNormal, SmileySam

    for anyway?

    Didn't he say in the hearings something to the effect that he was going to be more or less independent and reverse the politicization of the DoJ?

    Schumer is not our friend on the big issues given his support of Lieberman and Mukasey.

    It's full of stars... Star: Amish Grace - extraordinary forgiveness in the face of unspeakable tragedy. (Book: "Amish Grace" by Kraybill, et. al.)

    by Terra Mystica on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:04:52 AM PST

  •  The central issue of this decade is whether (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    or not the American people are entitled to know and monitor and approve or stop what the agents of government are up to.  I think most of us overlooked the signal importance of the Freedom of Information Act and ancillary open-government reforms, simply because they seemed such logical positions to take.
    But, the general public knowing what their agents of government are up was a truly revolutionary development and the agents of government have been striving ever since to return to a semblance of the prior condition, where government was run without public interference.

    You could say it's the difference between the representatives of the people acting in loco parentis, as opposed to legal agents.  Indeed, to a certain extent, this has a "family values" component in that our representatives in Congress want to behave as if they were our parents.

    Keeping secrets from the children is what Bush/Cheney is about and we are supposed to hold those who helped them blameless because they were helping Santa Claus.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site