| Balkinization   |
|
Balkinization
|
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Shorter Michael Mukaskey
JB
You're crazy if you think I'm going to admit that any of the interrogation practices previously performed by the Administration that just hired me are illegal. Saying that would suggest that people in the Administration violated the law and are subject to criminal prosecution, and that previous OLC opinions have condoned war crimes. The only thing I will tell you is that I sure hope we don't continue one of these practices in the future (lucky for me you haven't pressed me about the others!). But don't ask me to say that the President can't do any of them later on if he wants to. I mean, come on, guys, I just got here, you know? I just put new drapes in my office. I really don't want to have to get fired only three months after I started.
Comments:
Do you really believe that Mukasey’s positions are based on his desire to keep his job? After all, he just left a life-tenured judgeship for a very temporary term in a job that few other people want. I seriously doubt he has any concerns about being fired.
It may be comforting to proceed on the assumption that Mukasey is taking intellectually dishonest positions just to please his boss. It seems to me more reasonable, not to mention more generous, to assume (absent proof to the contrary) that he is taking positions that he believes to be consistent with the long-term institutional interests of the executive branch and the Justice Department. The fact that Congress views these positions to be maddening and circular is not to the contrary since (a) Congress always views DOJ’s positions on these matters to be maddening and circular (pick up any CRS memo on the history of congressional disputes with DOJ over information about “open” cases, deliberative process and attorney-client privileges, “secret law,” refusals to defend statutes, etc) and (b) they often are maddening and circular.
ARRRRGH,
OK, I love this blog dearly, but can you please fix it so that it only says "Continue Reading" when there's something to read? Please?
His exchange with Whitehouse was particularly troubling, for to claim that no grounds exist to initiate even a preliminary inquiry into allegations of torture is so patently false that his credibility as a prosecutor is basically nonexistent now.
The torture community got everything they wanted from him, immunity from prosecution for their past deeds and a carte blanche for future torturing. Forget the image problem, little can be done here as long as he and his principals stay in office, but if this is allowed to stand waterboarding will become widespread, everybody, freshly minted allies of ours in Eastern Europe, Uzbeks in Asia, Chinese in China, Sarkozy in France, South Americans in South America, etc will feel free to waterboard, to torture, you know if Americans can do it why can't we? Expect an epidemic of waterboarding and torture in secret prisons all over the world thanks to Mukasey and his principals.
(hopefully I'm not abusing hospitality of this site too much)
Here is YouTube of Whitehouse-Mukasey exchange, second round. Worth seeing for its intensity and Whitehouse's not so subtle hint that Mukasey by dint of his access to clasiffied information has more than enough to start an initial inquiry into allegations of torture. 2340a refers to prohibition on torture in US code. TPM has more analysis and the full transcript here.
rigamarole: rI gE mE rol
Post a Comment
1. a complicated, unnecessarily involved procedure. 2. a long, rambling, confused, or senseless story; nonsense. 3. General Mukasey's testimony before the Senate seems another Bush AG has joined himself with the Administration's criminal conspiracy. related: Taxi To The Darkside enters wider release. includes interviews with Scott Horton, Alberto Mora, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, John Yoo, et al. "memo" archives: torture memos w/ cold war, gitmo and iraq documents ACLU FOIA -- including DOD autopsy and death reports that "reveal homicides of detainees in U.S. custody."
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers
Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009)
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009)
Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009)
Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) Neil Netanel, Copyright's Paradox (Oxford Univ. Press 2008)
David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007)
Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007)
Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006)
Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006)
Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006)
Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005)
Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |