Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey now appears to be blaming our legal system for the 9-11 attacks as opposed to documented failures by the FBI and the failure of the Bush Administration to heed direct warnings of an imminent attack. In an op-ed piece this week, Mukasey puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of our rights-infested legal system.
Mukasey stated in the Wall Street Journal that “we put our vaunted civilian justice system on display in these [previous terrorism] cases…
In return, we got the 9/11 attacks and the murder of nearly 3,000 innocents….”
To bring the point home, the editors added a subheading that reads: “We tried the first World Trade Center bombers in civilian courts. In return we got 9/11 and the murder of nearly 3,000 innocents.”
Mukasey is, of course, the same person who stated under oath that he did not know what waterboarding was. When it was defined for him, he then refused to answer questions about it being torture (here). He is also the man who blocked torture and war crimes investigations (here and here). For a prior column, click here. He is also the man who sought to block investigations into the CIA’s knowing destruction of evidence of torture. He is also the man who blocked efforts to punish Bush officials who politicized the Justice Department, here and here.
Mukasey’s op-ed is a disgraceful effort to use these attacks to further an extremist legal campaign. If there were a right of constitutional defamation, this would meet the test. Our constitution has survived every challenge and we have found that our laws are our strength not our weakness in fighting extremism. Mukasey long ago joined the forces of those at war with our fundamental principles of law and legal process. Not only is his historical revisionism patently absurd, but his legal relativism is patently obvious in this column.
For the full story, click
If I did not see it happen, did it happen? See Scalia and the minimal intrusion of the right to privacy. Folks, unless this right is upheld it is non-existent. It is one of those silent rights spelled out in court cases.
If I remember correctly, the information was given to Bush/Cheney by Clinton and they chose not to act. What ore can be said, oh yeah a travesty of justice. That can be said.
If we don’t like it, lets change the international law and make it more better and fairer for the people guilty of committing these egregious acts. Whats the difference between morals and the law, enforcing the laws and being ethical….
Is this ripe for a Twain moment? And I don’t mean Shania….
American Fascism. The new freedom.
I can’t add anything to what Professor Turley posted. He hit the nail on the head.
In 2003 Chuck Shumer submitted Mukasey’s name as a suggestion to Bush to consider him for the United States Supreme Court.
The truth is there was no failure to share information, either within the agencies of this nation or between nations. The FBI and CIA presented all the evidence and connected the dots for Bush. Any failure to disseminate information after it reached the White House was not the fault of our laws, it was the fault of our president. Additionally, other nations clearly warned us of these attacks. Had Bush allowed law enforcement to do it’s job these attacks very likely would have been stopped.
9/11 has been used by our govt. to strip out our rights and gut the Constitution. 9/11 was all about “blowback” which resulted directly from the US acting in an illegal manner overseas. The Taliban is our creature. Engaging in torture, manufacturing war, and using drones against civilians harms us internationally and makes our soldiers and civilians less safe. The destruction of our Constitution has done unspeakable violence to our nation. We have weak leaders whose only motive is not safety but power. On their quest to ultimate power, they will not keep us safe, they will destroy our nation from the inside out.
Micky is scared and paranoid; his op-ed is so twisted!
Closing Gitmo is just a start on addressing the many wrongs of Bush’s prosecution of the “war on terror.” He was chosen to obstruct justice and he is still at work as another loyal Bush revisionist.
From Mucasey’s mishmash, one of his many crazy rationales he would have been better off leaving out of his argument:
“The courtroom facility at Guantanamo was constructed, at a cost of millions of dollars, specifically to accommodate the handling of classified information and the heightened security needs of a trial of such defendants.”
Oh yeah, let’s be sure to get our moneys worth. Funny how he points to the wasted millions of dollars spent on this courtroom ignoring the billions wasted on these wars!
Here’s an estimate from the National Priorities Project.org website:
http://costofwar.com/
Well heck CEJ,
You mean that we all can’t afford to lose an income tax deduction of $3,137 per person? Come oh, it is just oil futures we are protecting. Whats wrong with you. They have it, we want it so we will take it. Get a grip. Its only money, can’t you take a joke? Geeze, for that you shall be tried as a dissenter in the Bolshevik manner.
The irony in the Bolshevik this term as per the Revolution it means small. If memory serves me, I do think that this small intrusion upon Czar Nicholas II’s power ceased the operations as they were known at the time.
Oh well, live and learn….
Mike S.,
This is something that I was not aware of and thought that I would share this with you. It is interesting to note this Historical significance. This made an interesting read.
The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution
and Russia’s Early Soviet Regime
Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism
and as always here is the link: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html
This is coming from the previous administration, but I wonder if it does not have the blessings of the current administration. There are only a few remaining individuals in the government speaking out for the defense of civil rights, for the restitution of civil rights. My mind is out at sea over what is the truth.
naschkatze,
I believe there is clearly a seemless transition between the administrations. The level of propaganda has increased since Bush. Obama seems deft at creating headlines such as: “Obama is closing Guantanamo within the year”. Sounds great. Too bad he transfered 60 prisoners to Bagram where he insists they have no rights. Too bad he’s keeping innocent people at Gitmo whom the court has demanded their released. Too bad torture is still occurring there. Too bad he’s refusing civilian trials to the remaining detainees. Too bad it won’t happen in one year, etc.
It looks like good cop/bad cop to me. The past administration’s people play the bad cop, Obama plays to good one, yet the policies remain the same.
John Roberts Laments Drunk Driving Ruling
Chief Justice Says Lower Court Ruling Will Give Inebriated Drives “One Free Swerve”; High Court Declines to Hear Appeal
This is unmitigated bullshit.
link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/20/national/main5402947.shtml
If we can’t have these types of causes thrown out, what the hell is Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, yada yada yada all about.
Guess who joined in the dissent? No other than the whore monger Scalia. To be honest, I am surprised Thomas did not.
Unfortunately, We the People have been asleep at the switch and the country has careened off the precipice into an unfamiliar world.
There was a time that the many determined the course of our country by voting and participating in government. Acting as a voice and making certain that the voice was heard.
Over decades, we have chosen to lose that voice and have allowed others to determine our course of action in the world at large and for our people at home.
We were hammered with the great election of 2008, so many voters went to the polls…larger turnout than expected…People signing up and the youth vote shone brightly like the dawn of a new age.
Not really true…better than 2006 when only a measly 37% BOTHERED to vote which ushered in a 2nd term of the BUSH cabal.
We had almost 57% of the voting age citizens. Nothing spectacular. We had higher percentages in the 60′s
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
Now the question is why are we allowing the few to speak for the many? Do we not care? Are we so uninformed and uncaring that we are willing to tolerate anything just to keep from taking responsibility?
Or are we so jaded that we gave up?
What I do surmise is that as long as “We the People” shirk our responsibility then we are responsible for the Mukasey’s, the Bushes…the crimes against humanity and the crimes against the state.
We did not lose our voice, we gave it up; We did not get stuck with people committing crimes in our name, we ushered it in.
The question remains as to whether or not it is too late to do anything about it. Have we come too far and given up too much to get a country of the people, by the people and for the people? One that truly acts for the common good?
One that creates laws for the common good and acts on them as guidelines?
Or is it impossible and is that just too fantastical for humans to achieve?
That I would like to pose to the professor.
Having attained a college degree, law license, judgeship, Attorney General of the U.S., does not rule out that Mukasey is still a delusional fool.
Indeed, Big Fella, some of those things makes it more likely.
Let’s see. If I correctly understand what passes for logic in Judge Mukasey’s brain, the attacks on the World Trade Center were a direct consequence of the prosecution and conviction of the first World Trade Center bombers. I suppose he then would argue that had we instead tortured the initial attackers, held them in indefinite detention or rendered them to countries known to utilize torture as an instrument of law enforcement, the 9/11 bombings would not have occurred. It is indeed marvelous to behold what happens to reason when fear gets a death grip on the mind.
Judge Mukasey obviously believes that the rights embedded in the Constitution are unnecessary and dangerous relics of a kinder, simpler time. But if he and his apologists had a dollop of intellectual honesty among them, they would have approached Congress with proposals to revise the Constitution and the statutes to more closely conform to their view of the new world realities. Instead, he and others chose to treat the Constitution as a mere statement of political idealism, a list of worthy principles for a perfect society which impose no obligations on real world government. His editorial is an after-the-fact effort to justify the violation of his oath of office and his oath as an attorney.
Revisionism is the favorite pastime of veterans of the Bush administration, all of whom appear to fear the verdict of history almost as much as they fear Al Qaeda. Although I recognize that he is not interested in what I have to say, I nevertheless suggest to Judge Mukasey that his approval of the grossest violations of law in the history of this country are a matter of public record, and he can wash his hands from now until the end of his life without erasing either the stain or the stench of his abandonment of the rule of law.
Going on the attack against Mukasey’s record of service as Attorney General, Turley has completely failed to address Mukasey’s concerns, spoken on the basis of his authority and experience as a federal judge, not an attorney general.
AY, I agree with you on Justice Roberts’ dissent. In the new Age of Conspiracies, the rule of probable cause is quickly giving way to the rule of reports of suspicious behavior from anonymous citizens.
We’re in big trouble, if what I’m seeing and experiencing are any indication.
An Interview with John Dean
By Matthew Rothschild
May 20, 2006
Q: Do you fear for our democratic system?
Dean: I fear for the system. And I fear for our liberties. Only a small group of people fights for our liberties. Once we start on the slippery slope and those people are put in jeopardy, then we’re really in trouble
Disappointed,Judge Mukasey’s authority and experience as a federal judge make his comments, and his actions as AG, even more reprehensible.
Diappointed,
What part of the Const and Bill of Rights don’t you understand? A lot of people like knee jerks reactions when it happens to somebody else. How about you, could you stand it for one second if this were your son that they took away their liberties?
What is the problem with most republicans is they think that it can never happen to them.
“Liberal” Fascism.
Oh, good grief!
DW’s response to Mukasey refuses to answer questions on water boarding in Congress.
deeply worried
1, January 31, 2008 at 11:27 pm
If you strip away America’s ideals and deepest held values, what do you have left?
On what moral authority, on what standing, do we then try to lead the world out of the darkness?
We are never stronger than when we are just and when we are righteous. If you take those away from us, what then will be our shield and buckler?
And how will we teach our children that our country is the light of the world and the hope of humanity?
Let us defend ourselves; we need hire no tribe of torturers to stand between us and the enemies of our land.
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/30/mukasey-refuses-to-answer-question-on-waterboarding-in-congress/#more-1042
Mukasey is a bonafide war criminal. Mike A., you are correct that the scariest thing about reading this is that it is from someone with Mukasey’s educational and judicial background. How does he sleep at night? Or does he just float around at night and sleep during the day in his sealed vault??
Well, I guess I’m not surprised by Mukasey’s op-ed piece. After all, he worked for an administration that perceived the agreements of the Geneva Convention as being “quaint.” One word comes to mind when I think of Mukasey, John Yoo, Judge Bybee, Dick Cheney, George Bush, et al: amoral.
Elaine M:
I think we can go all the way with these guys, and call them “immoral.” They do, after all, have that Old Time Religion coursing through their veins as they so proudly showed us time and again.
Mike Appleton:
Are you writing for retired General Paul Eaton too?
GEN. EATON: DICK CHENEY WAS “INCOMPETENT WAR FIGHTER”
http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1442
Mike thank you for the dissection.
Want to wake America up to the truth regarding 9/11? Here’s how…….
http://blandyland.com/?p=388
Please leave a comment voicing your support for this idea. It is a very small price to pay considering everything that has happened in our world based on the tragic events of that fateful September morning.
Thanks,
Daniel Edd Bland III
http://www.BlandyLand.com
“Mukasey’s op-ed is a disgraceful effort to use these attacks to further an extremist legal campaign.”
Didn’t the last administration use the violence & fear created by 9/11 for the achievement of their political ends? And not for nothing, but ain’t that the definition of terrorism?
“If there were a right of constitutional defamation, this would meet the test. Our constitution has survived every challenge and we have found that our laws are our strength not our weakness in fighting extremism.”
Hey, that reminds me. I remember watching an episode of Countdown with Keith Olberman and guest Jonathan Turley…
http://crooksandliars.com/2006/10/17/olbermann-the-day-habeas-corpus-died
“Mukasey long ago joined the forces of those at war with our fundamental principles of law and legal process. Not only is his historical revisionism patently absurd, but his legal relativism is patently obvious in this column.”
A man is shot in Dallas, and we get 27 volumes worth of investigation as to what happened. 3,000 people are killed in an attack on 9/11 and we get a total of 23 pages (chapter 1) of an explanation that fails the plausibility test by contradicting itself on its own terms.
So, I ask, as I always ask, what ever happened to those white papers promised by Powell and Blair?
Just as an idea: It would be nice to have “Ridiculous Argument” and “Brilliant Argument” button on your posts, as well as maybe a “Take that lawyer’s license!” button to allow quick feedback to the insane murmurings of members of the legal community which you are documenting. It would be interesting to see in quantitative terms how many other lawyers thing these folk are laudable, wrong and/or deserve to be disbarred.
Mukasey is, of course, an easy case, but others may provoke some excellent discussion.
http://www.aclu.org/about/41347prs20091023.html?s_src=RSS
American Civil Liberties Union Mourns Passing Of Former Executive Director Jack Pemberton (10/23/2009)
Pemberton was keenly aware of the role of the ACLU during the turbulent years in which he led the organization. In 1963, he wrote in the official newsletter:
“When parts of our nation are responding to a revolution in race relations with an almost totalitarian repression of ideas, when new reactions to the complexities of an increasingly industrialized and urbanized society are manifesting themselves in more sophisticated forms of intolerance to dissent and unorthodoxy, and when fear-bred responses to constant international tension are threatening liberty everywhere – the need for putting sinew and muscle on the structure of a firm and steadfast guardian of the American ideal is unprecedented.”
(What precedes this is taken directly from the ACLU web site.)