Civil liberties

The sooner Democratic supporters get that through their heads the better.

You’d think, wouldn’t you, that after the warcrimes of Iraq and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, after the warrantless wiretapping of its own citizens, and the theft of an election, that the congressional Democrats would be taking a long, hard look at any candidate for Attorney General that Bush might’ve nominated. A reasonable person might consider that the very fact that Bush, a known criminal and liar, nominated him or her should be sufficient to put a confirmation on indefinite hold.

You’d be wrong.

This is the man, Michael Mukasey, that the Democrats have agreed is a fit person to be potentially in charge of of the impartial administration of federal justice and to be the arbiter of the legality of all executive actions:the judge who took away habeas corpus.

Dealing with terrorists

“Michael Mukasey was the chief judge of U.S. District Court in Manhattan from 1987 thru 2006. President Reagan appointed him to the bench. He was the judge of the 1995 trial of 10 militant Muslims who were convicted of a plot to blow up the United Nations and other landmarks around the city. He should be better known however as the first judge to rule on Jose Padilla after his arrest. He ruled that President Bush did have the authority to hold Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant without charging him for a crime.[4] But he also ruled that the government must allow Mr. Padilla to see his attorneys.

Supports torture

In October 2001, Judge Mukasey “dismissed concerns by a 21-year old Jordanian immigrant that he had been beaten while in U.S. custody, leaving bruises that were hidden beneath his orange prison jumpsuit.”[8] “‘As far as the claim that he was beaten, I will tell you that he looks fine to me,’ said Judge Mukasey.”[9]

Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff reported in the October 1, 2007, issue[10] “that in recent private meetings with ‘hard-liners,’ Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey reassured conservatives that he was committed to the Bush administration’s right-wing ideology:

“According to three sources, who asked not to be named discussing the private meetings, Mukasey said that he saw ‘significant problems’ with shutting down Guantánamo Bay and that he understood the need for the CIA to use some ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques against Qaeda suspects. Mukasey also signaled reluctance with naming a special prosecutor to investigate Bush-administration misconduct, according to one participant.”[11]
[edit]

“Terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to convictions.”

In an August 22, 2007, Wall Street Journal op-ed, Mukasey[12] “argues that ‘Terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to convictions’,” ArgusRun wrote in The Daily Kos.[13] “Not because they involve detainees who have been tortured or mistreated, or secret information not available to the defense. No, this respected jurist does not care about the damage done to the rule of law or our constitutional protections. Rather, he is terrified that the trials give valuable information to the terrorists.”

“Mukasey is obviously just what the Justice Department needs to restore Americans’ confidence in their legal system: A judge who does not have confidence in our legal system,” Argus Run commented.[13]
[edit]

Defended Patriot Act

“In a 2004 speech accepting the Learned Hand Medal for Excellence in Federal Jurisprudence, Judge Mukasey delivered a defense of the controversial counter-terrorism law.[14]

“I think one would have to concede that the USA Patriot Act has an awkward, even Orwellian, name, which is one of those Washington acronyms derived by calling the law ‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Interrupt and Obstruct Terrorism.’ You get the impression they started with the acronym first, and then offered a $50 savings bond to whoever could come up with a name to fit. Without offering my view on any case or controversy, current or future, I think that that awkward name may very well be the worst thing about the statute.”

[edit]

Joined at the hip with Giuliani
[edit]
Battling crime in New York

Michael Mukasey was “an assistant U.S. attorney and head of the official corruption unit” when Rudolph W. Giuliani was U.S. Attorney in New York. “To prepare for trials, Giuliani practiced his cross-examinations on Mukasey, who would portray the witness.”[15]

In 1985, when Mukasey was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Giuliani “was coming under intense criticism for his aggressive tactics in prosecuting organized crime, including his use of mass trials, his habit of holding defendants without bail and his practice of subpoenaing defense lawyers to testify at their clients’ grand jury hearings, which lawyers argued was a violation of client confidentiality.

“Springing to Giuliani’s defense was a former colleague, Michael B. Mukasey, who argued in a strongly worded opinion piece that Giuliani’s tough tactics were justified to defeat an enemy that, he said, was far more dangerous and powerful than Giuliani’s critics were willing to acknowledge,” Alec MacGillis reported September 18, 2007, in the Washington Post.[16]

[edit]

Swore Giuliani in as NYC Mayor

On January 2, 1994, Judge Michael Mukasy swore in now Republican 2008 presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani as Mayor of New York City.[17]

“When Giuliani was elected mayor of New York in 1993 and 1997, Judge Mukasey presided at his friend’s swearing-in. In fact, one of the ceremonies was held at Mukasey’s own Manhattan apartment.”[15]

[edit]

Justice Advisory Committee

Michael Mukasey and his son, Marc L. Mukasey (see below),[18] both partners (Michael prior, Mark current) in Giuliani’s law firm, are both members of Giuliani’s Justice Advisory Committee.[19][20]

There’s more, much more…

Those who want actual change in America aren’t going to find it via any Democrat.

Either Dems’ve been pressured (it’s not just hippies get wiretapped) or they really do not give a shit anymore for anything except short-term political self-interest or they’ve just gone “Oh, it’s only another 15 months, what the hell, saves hassle”. Any one of those reasons is enough to prove they’ve totally abdicated their responsibility to their country.

An electorate that allows their Democratic representatives to continue to cave in to Bush and the far-right, over and over again, and who then continue to donate to and vote for them, deserves everything it gets as a consequence. America was a great political experiment, once. It’s very sad to anyone who believes in liberty and equality to see it fall apart like this.