WHO IS Michael B. Mukasey, Bush's nominee for United States Attorney General?

How much do we know about Bush's choice for the new AG?
Very little, it seems. Please post anything you can contribute.

=============================================================
From his law firm (http://www.pbwt.com/mukasey_michael_bio/):
Michael B. Mukasey, e-mail: mbmukasey@pbwt.com

The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, formerly Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, rejoined the firm as a partner in September 2006. Judge Mukasey is active in the firm’s Litigation group, working on white collar defense and investigations matters, providing advice on corporate governance issues and actively litigating civil and criminal cases.

Judge Mukasey first joined Patterson Belknap in 1976, following his service as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal Division of the Southern District, where he had risen to become chief of the Official Corruption Unit. He left the firm as a partner in 1988 to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York. During his 18 years of service – including six as Chief Judge – Judge Mukasey presided over thousands of cases, including such high profile trials as that of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 co-defendants, who were charged with plotting to destroy a number of New York City landmarks. He also presided over major cases involving the dispute between Larry Silverstein and his insurers concerning insurance proceeds related to the World Trade Center site and the Motion Picture Association of America’s ban on the distribution of new movies to critics and award panels, among many other notable cases.

Detentions to Be Top Topic for Mukasey
By LARA JAKES JORDAN – 6 hours ago
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVl2y6_EGb2otQdOFsUE44s2QjPwD8S8U2BG0

WASHINGTON (AP) — As the chief federal trial judge in Manhattan, Michael Mukasey approved secret warrants allowing government roundups of Muslims in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks. Six years later, the man President Bush wants to be attorney general acknowledged that the law authorizing those warrants "has its perils" in terrorism cases and urged Congress to "fix a strained and mismatched legal system."

Mukasey's caution about the material witness law probably will please Democrats who control the Senate Judiciary Committee. At confirmation hearings set to begin Wednesday, they plan to press the retired federal judge about the Bush administration's terrorist detention policy.

The committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, long has criticized the government's use of the warrants. They allowed the FBI to detain, without charges, an estimated 70 people, all but one of whom was a Muslim, as witnesses after the terrorist attacks in 2001.

A fellow Democrat, New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, said he supports Mukasey but disagrees with some of his positions on terrorist detentions. .........

IN PARTS (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070917.html):

Judge Mukasey Was Appointed By President Ronald Reagan To Serve On The United States District Court For The Southern District Of New York, A Position He Held For Over 18 Years. Judge Mukasey was a strong leader during his six years as Chief Judge of this court, one of the country's most important and prestigious Federal district courts. His distinctive service earned him the Federal Bar Council's Learned Hand Medal for Excellence in Federal Jurisprudence in 2004 and an honorary degree from Brooklyn Law School in 2002.

* Judge Mukasey Presided Over The 1995 Trial Of 10 Individuals Accused Of Plotting Terrorist Attacks In New York City – Including Omar Abdel Rahman, The "Blind Sheikh" Involved In Planning The 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. Judge Mukasey sentenced Rahman and another man, El Sayyid Nosair, to life in prison, a decision that required him to keep armed guards with him for protection.

* Judge Mukasey Issued The First Ruling On Jose Padilla's Challenge To His Detention As An Enemy Combatant. He found that the Government had the right to hold Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant without charging him for a crime. Judge Mukasey also granted a defense motion to allow Mr. Padilla to meet with his attorneys.

* A Former Prosecutor, Judge Mukasey Served For Four Years (1972-76) As An Assistant United States Attorney For The Prestigious And Demanding Southern District Of New York Office. While in the United States Attorney's office, Judge Mukasey demonstrated strong leadership and management skills as the Chief of the Official Corruption Unit.

Judge Mukasey Has Demonstrated A Keen And Independent Interest In National Security And Terrorism Issues

In A Recent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, Judge Mukasey Argued Jose Padilla's "Case Shows Why Current Institutions And Statutes Are Not Well Suited To" The Effort To Combat Terrorism. "The history of Padilla's case helps illustrate in miniature the inadequacy of the current approach to terrorism prosecutions. …such prosecutions risk disclosure to our enemies of methods and sources of intelligence that can then be neutralized. Disclosure not only puts our secrets at risk, but also discourages allies abroad from sharing information with us lest it wind up in hostile hands. And third, consider the distortions that arise from applying to national security cases generally the rules that apply to ordinary criminal cases." (Michael B. Mukasey, Op-Ed, "Jose Padilla Makes Bad Law," The Wall Street Journal, 8/22/07)

In 2004, Judge Mukasey Wrote An Op-Ed Commending The USA PATRIOT Act And Encouraging Opponents To Avoid "Reflexive" Or "Recreational" Criticisms. "I think most people would have been surprised and somewhat dismayed to learn that before the Patriot Act was passed, an FBI agent could apply to a court for a roving wiretap if a drug dealer switched cell phones, as they often do, but not if an identified agent of a foreign terrorist organization did; and could apply for a wiretap to investigate illegal sports betting, but not to investigate a potentially catastrophic computer hacking attack, the killing of U.S. nationals abroad, or the giving of material support to a terrorist organization. Violations like those simply were not on the list of offenses for which wiretaps could be authorized." (Michael B. Mukasey, Op-Ed, "The Spirit Of Liberty," The Wall Street Journal, 5/10/04)

.................

"serving for four years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the federal prosecutor's office<2> in which he worked with Rudolph Giuliani"

"nominated as a federal district judge for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan by President Ronald Reagan"

"Mukasey presided over the criminal prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman and El Sayyid Nosair"

"Mukasey also heard the trial of Jose Padilla, ruling that the U.S. citizen and alleged terrorist could be held as an enemy combatant but was entitled to see his lawyers"

"Mukasey also was the judge in the litigation between developer Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center"

"Senator Charles Schumer submitted Mukasey's name, along with four other Republicans or Republican appointees, as a suggestion for Bush to consider for nomination to the Supreme Court"

"delivered a speech (which he converted into a Wall Street Journal opinion piece) that defended the Patriot Act"

"criticized the American Library Association for condemning the Patriot Act but not taking a position on librarians imprisoned in Cuba"

"Mukasey and son are also justice advisers to Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign"

"made campaign contributions to Giuliani for president and Joe Lieberman for Senate"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mukasey

So far, I'm seeing little discussion of his legal opinions. Also, what of the other opinions flowing from So NY, especially SEC and fraud type stuff letting CEOs off the hook under Bush.

Jose Padilla Makes Bad Law
Terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to convictions.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010505
BY MICHAEL B. MUKASEY
Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The apparently conventional ending to Jose Padilla's trial last week--conviction on charges of conspiring to commit violence abroad and providing material assistance to a terrorist organization--gives only the coldest of comfort to anyone concerned about how our legal system deals with the threat he and his co-conspirators represent. He will be sentenced--likely to a long if not a life-long term of imprisonment. He will appeal. By the time his appeals run out he will have engaged the attention of three federal district courts, three courts of appeal and on at least one occasion the Supreme Court of the United States.

It may be claimed that Padilla's odyssey is a triumph for due process and the rule of law in wartime. Instead, when it is examined closely, this case shows why current institutions and statutes are not well suited to even the limited task of supplementing what became, after Sept. 11, 2001, principally a military effort to combat Islamic terrorism.

Padilla's current journey through the legal system began on May 8, 2002,

Monday, October 8th, 2007 - http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/08/1340250

Attorney General Nominee Michael Mukasey "Has Distaste for People who Voice Skepticism about the Government's Motives in the War on Terror,"
Says Attorney from Center for Constitutional Rights

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript

Shayana Kadidal discusses Mukasey's role in the trial of Jose Padilla, his view on presidential power and the significance of the news that that the Justice Department under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales secretly issued legal opinions that reportedly authorize methods including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures. The Bush administration is continuing to reject calls by Congressional Democrats to release a series of secret legal opinions effectively sanctioning the use of torture.

The New York Times revealed last week that the Justice Department, under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, secretly issued the memos that reportedly authorize methods including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures. The first opinion came shortly after Gonzales arrived in February 2005. Just months earlier, the Justice Department had publicly declared torture “abhorrent.”

The showdown on Capitol Hill over the release of the documents comes as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares for confirmation hearings for US Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey. The hearings could begin as early as October 17th. President Bush officially nominated Mukasey, a retired federal judge, on September 17th.

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said he will seek Mukasey's opinion on the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, the Bush administration's secret domestic wiretapping program and a list of what he called other topics of "concern."

* Shayana Kadidal, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. He works on the Center's case on the illegal NSA domestic spying program, as well as the Center's PATRIOT Act case. He is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post.

About the only thing I could find about him is that he was involved in some of the earliest post-911 terror trials, and needed a bodyguard at that time.

Mukasey might actually be a pretty good guy, but the point is that he's relatively unknown. Bush can't get a name-brand conservative attorney through the confirmation process because, with Bush's record, anyone who anyone's heard of is going to be such a nut he couldn't get confirmed to catch dogs.

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1795019_1?channel=LP

In Defense of a Vigorous U.S. Attorney, New York Times, December 2, 1985

Dealing With the Prosecutor, Chapter in Business Crimes: A Guide for Corporate And Defense Counsel, Practising Law Institute, 1986

The Discovery Phase of Libel Litigation, Chapter in Libel Litigation, Practising Law Institute, 1986

Mukasey Seen As a Conciliatory Choice for Attorney General
By KEN HERMAN - Cox News Service - Sep 18, 2007
http://www.coxwashington.com/hp/content/reporters/stories/2007/09/18/BC_AG_MUKASEY18_1STLD_COX.html

WASHINGTON — President Bush made a conciliatory move Monday with his choice for a new attorney general but still may not have avoided a partisan confirmation battle with Senate Democrats.

And the White House also has some work to do in convincing conservatives that nominee Michael Mukasey of New York, a retired U.S. district judge, meets their criteria.

At least one key Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, endorsed Mukasey before Bush's Monday announcement. But another key Democrat, the chair of the Senate panel that will handle the confirmation process, indicated that hearings could be stalled ......

Schumer, a frequent and vocal critic of Bush's nominees, rejected Leahy's call for preconditions on the hearings.

"To hasten an attitude of confrontation when the White House has taken a step forward would be a mistake," Schumer said.

.............

A Conservative Record, But Not in Lock Step
By Amy Goldstein and Dafna Linzer - Sep 18, 2007; A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/17/AR2007091702504_pf.html


The first spring after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York spoke out in favor of the assertive but highly controversial legal strategies the Bush administration was using to detain hundreds of Middle Eastern men as terrorism suspects.

The government was entirely justified in arresting such suspects on immigrations violations and holding "a very small number of people" for a considerable period on material-witness warrants, the judge, Michael B. Mukasey, told graduating students in the Brooklyn Law School class of 2002. Civil libertarians who criticized the detention campaign as an unprecedented or unauthorized use of federal powers were spreading "breathless half-truths and outright falsehoods," he said.

Mukasey's willingness to defend aggressive legal anti-terrorism measures before a tough audience helps to explain his appeal to President Bush, who nominated him yesterday as the next attorney general. Mukasey, 66, is a former Reagan-era federal prosecutor and private lawyer who served as a federal judge in New York's Manhattan for nearly two decades. Not a nationally prominent figure, he is best known in legal circles for presiding over two of the most high-profile terrorism cases that have come before the courts in recent years: the trial of the "blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman for plotting to blow up New York landmarks and the detention of Jose Padilla.

Those cases make him one of the few judges in the country who have as much real-world experience in legal issues surrounding counterterrorism efforts. Mukasey's views on national security law and executive power also reflect a steady, if not absolute, conservatism ...............

:thumbsup:

Detentions to be top topic for Mukasey
By LARA JAKES JORDAN - AP Oct 15
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/attorney_general_10


WASHINGTON - As the chief federal trial judge in Manhattan, Michael Mukasey approved secret warrants allowing government roundups of Muslims in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks.

... Democrats ... plan to press the retired federal judge about the Bush administration's terrorist detention policy.

The committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, long has criticized the government's use of the warrants. They allowed the FBI to detain, without charges, an estimated 70 people, all but one of whom was a Muslim, as witnesses after the terrorist attacks in 2001.

.........

Congress authorized material witness warrants in 1984 to allow the temporary detention of witnesses who might flee before being called to testify to a grand jury or at trial. The warrants are signed by a judge in secret; the public is barred from court hearings about the people targeted by the warrants.

Critics have said the administration has used the law to detain suspected terrorists when the government lacked sufficient criminal evidence to hold them. The administration has tried to deflect criticism by pointing out that judges must sign the warrants.

.........

He criticized a fellow U.S. District Court judge in Manhattan who ruled that warrants issued in the post-Sept. 11 roundup was an illegitimate use of the law. Mukasey issued a ruling upholding the warrants as constitutional.

..............

Ten Questions for Michael Mukasey - Oct 15, 2007
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071029/questions_for_mukasey

Even before confirmation hearings for the next Attorney General were scheduled, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee gave signs that Bush's nominee--former federal Judge Michael Mukasey--would sail through the process. ..... but the Senate cannot afford to treat Mukasey's nomination as a done deal. The next Attorney General will inherit a severly damaged Justice Department, embroiled in the Attorneygate scandal and controversies over torture, rendition, wiretapping and other "war on terror" tactics.

With these concerns in mind, The Nation asked ten of the country's leading legal minds what they would ask Mukasey during his confirmation hearings.

1. As Attorney General, will you independently review the constitutionality of ongoing programs, such as electronic eavesdropping and CIA rendition camps? If so, what will you do if you conclude that they are unconstitutional?

...........

Questions Mukasey Must Answer
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=24820

Michael Mukasey heads into his hearings for confirmation as Attorney General with a high bar to clear. The retired judge must demonstrate that he can restore morale and the integrity the Department of Justice lost under Alberto Gonzales, demonstrate independence from the White House, and regain the trust of the American people.

While Mukasey’s nomination has drawn initial, bipartisan praise, the Senate must provide intense scrutiny and vigilant oversight. Mukasey may be new, but this is still the Bush Administration, which has shown no sign of changing any of the policies that led to the disintegration at the DOJ.

When he appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, Mukasey must be asked tough questions about key issues he’ll face as Attorney General, and held accountable for his responses:

# The political firing of U.S. Attorneys

# Indefinite detention of Guantanamo detainees and terror suspects

.....

Attorney general nominee on the docket
Broadcast: Midmorning, 10/16/2007, 9:06 a.m.
Listen to program
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/16/midmorning1/

When Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, he's likely to face tough questions on torture, warrantless wiretapping, and the politicization of the justice department. Midmorning previews the hearings with two legal scholars.
Guests

Scott Horton: Adjunct professor at Columbia University and human rights lawyer. He is author of the "No Comment" column for Harper's Magazine.

Michael J. Kelly: Professor of law at Creighton University. He co-wrote the book "Equal Justice in the Balance: America's Legal Responses to the Emerging Terrorist Threat."

......

Lieberman, Schumer Will Introduce Mukasey
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/10/lieberman_schumer_to_intro_muk.html

Former U.S. District Court judge and attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey's Wednesday confirmation hearing is expected to be one of the most bipartisan nominations of the entire Bush administration. Democrats are already signaling that confirmation is likely.

The current plan calls for Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the top Republican on the panel, to meet Mukasey beforehand in the Capitol and walk him into the committee room together for the 10 a.m. hearing.

There, before the cameras, Mukasey is going to be introduced to the committee by a pair of senators who have played leading roles in recent national Democratic campaigns: Joe Lieberman (Conn.), the 2000 vice-presidential nominee who won re-election to the Senate as an independent last year, and Charles Schumer (N.Y.), who as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee helped toss Republicans out of power.

.............

How LOW CAN THEY GO!!!!!!! And...Leahy said: "I like him." OMG! :nuke:

Leahy Expects Mukasey to be Confirmed as Attorney General
CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE - Oct. 16, 2007
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqm/cqmidday110-000002605957.html


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy said Tuesday he expects Michael Mukasey to be confirmed as the next attorney general.

“I like Judge Mukasey. . . . I want him to succeed,” Leahy, D-Vt., said, after his latest meeting with the former federal judge nominated by President Bush to replace Alberto R. Gonzales. “I see a man who has the potential to clean up the Department of Justice.”

Leahy’s committee has scheduled confirmation hearings for Mukasey beginning Wednesday. Although Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has not set a date for a Senate floor vote on Mukasey, Leahy said, “I would expect him to be confirmed.”

................

according to what's over at Josh Marshall's TPM site. Leahy has already given him the "Green Light" for "GO." :puke: When will our Dems ever learn...and what the hell is going on with Leahy. He started out so good and has caved so badly. :-( When we have to think "dark thoughts" against our own Dems...then where are we as a Party? :shrug:

The NEW Acting Attorney General = Peter Keisler = Who is he? Just a Gonzales CLONE?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1839232

Not that this justifies approving any nominee. The Dems are between a rock and a hard spot in trying to overcome Executive power and stonewalling.

There are real concerns in Mukasey's record. How would we view him historically if he had ruled that rounding up the Japanese was legal during WWII? That is what is in store for him, at the least, and he should be held to account for his past rulings. He really did Bush's bidding in the past!

CQ TODAY – LEGAL AFFAIRS
Mukasey Hearing Likely Venue for Democrats’ Criticism of Administration
By Keith Perine, CQ Staff - Oct. 16, 2007
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002605949.html


The confirmation hearing that begins Wednesday for attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey will function more as a forum for Senate Democrats to air grievances about the Bush administration’s Justice Department than actual vetting of the former judge.

Unless he stumbles under Judiciary Committee questioning, Mukasey is likely to be confirmed in the next few weeks. Democrats are seeking assurances that unlike Alberto R. Gonzales, who resigned last month, Mukasey would be loyal to the department first and the White House second.

President Bush’s nominee met with the panel’s top Democrats on Tuesday. Chairman Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont said he expects Mukasey to be confirmed.

“I don’t see a bombshell. . . . I see a man who has the potential to clean up the Department of Justice,” Leahy said.

.................

If he has the approval of Cheney & Addington, it can't bode well.

First, the So NY USA office just supplied several new staff attorneys, legal counsels, to the White House. How tight is Mukasey with these lawyers?

Second, there were cases before So NY USAs because SEC/insider trading cases were ionvestigated there. There were some real sweetheat deals for CEOs and corporations since Bush took office, often with industry insiders appointed to Executive branch oversight roles. These case settlements came out of So NY, where Mukasey was chief judge.

perceived enemy, he said so in answer to that very question put forth by Russ Feingold a little while ago.

Mukasey Punts on Indefinite Detentions of U.S. Citizens
By Spencer Ackerman - Oct 17, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004482.php

Among Michael Mukasey's most controversial decisions as a judge was to sign a material-witness warrant for suspected (and now convicted) al-Qaeda affiliate and U.S. citizen Jose Padilla, which allowed his detention after his mid-2002 arrival at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. A month later, the Defense Department declared Padilla an enemy combatant -- a decision that the Justice Department revoked three years later to bring Padilla to criminal trial. Mukasey wrote (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010505) in an August op-ed that Padilla's trial showed that "current institutions and statutes are not well suited" to trying terrorists since Padilla's counsel-free "confession" of being involved in a dirty-bomb plot was inadmissible.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked, in light of Mukasey's involvement with the Padilla case, whether Mukasey thought the law -- and particularly the September 2001 authorization of military force for Afghanistan -- permitted seizing U.S. citizens on U.S. soil indefinitely without charge. Mukasey cited the 2004 Hamdi case as upholding the president's ability to detain U.S. citizens on the battlefield, but said he "can't say now" whether the "battlefield" applies to the United States. It remains unclear whether Mukasey thinks U.S. citizens captured at home in terrorism-related investigations can be indefinitely detained.

=======================
TPM is working overtime on the hearing. This links to everything Mukasey: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/michael_mukasey/

Contribute to TPM: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/contribute.php

Mukasey: No Politics at DoJ
By Paul Kiel - Oct 17, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004481.php

It's definitely one of Michael Mukasey's bottom line messages today: He's no Alberto when it comes to politicization.

When Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) asked him how he would ensure that politics plays no role at the Justice Department, he replied that any attempt by a "political person" to interfere with a case would be "cut and curtailed" and that whoever that person was would be promptly referred to the "very few people at the Justice Department" permitted to take calls from elected officials.

As to whether he might, say, try to fire a group of competent U.S. attorneys because they weren't "loyal Bushies" and try to replace them with loyalists, or make sure that career employees were also team players, Mukasey said that hiring in the department would be based solely on qualifications, "not whether they had an R or D next to their name."

And what would he do if such a firing of U.S. attorneys were going on? He'd "get in the middle of it very fast and stop it."

Mukasey's 'Goal' is Closing Guantanamo
By Spencer Ackerman - Oct 17, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004480.php

Mukasey wouldn't commit to recommending to President Bush that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed. Shuttering Gitmo, reportedly, was one of Defense Secretary Robert Gates' first major recommendations (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/washington/23gitmo.html?hp) to the president earlier this year.

............He considered himself in broad alignment with the administration, since Bush said last year (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060614.html) that he'd "like to close Guantanamo" but also added a number of caveats.

Mukasey Says He'll Look at Issue of Contempt
By Paul Kiel - Oct 17, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004479.php

Does Michael Mukasey think that a U.S. attorney cannot enforce a citation of contempt from Congress against a White House official who's hiding behind executive privilege?

It's a key question for Harriet Miers, Karl Rove and current White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, who have all refused to testify to Congress or turn over documents relating to the U.S. attorney firings. Votes of contempt are probably on the horizon for at least those three. Such citations would be referred to the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., who would then either kick start a criminal case or refuse to enforce them.

Here's what Mukasey had to say: ....

WOW, they have been working overtime at TPM!

They have a CONTRIBUTE button too: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/contribute.php

========================
Mukasey Calls Torture 'Antithetical' to American Way
By Spencer Ackerman - Oct 17, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004478.php

That was, um, unexpected. Not only did Michael Mukasey repudiate the so-called 2002 "torture memo" signed by Office of Legal Counsel chief Jay Bybee -- which appears to have survived in spirit (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004380.php), if not in letter -- but he compared U.S. torture to the Holocaust.

Most significantly, Mukasey said that he is unaware of any inherent commander-in-chief authority to override legal restrictions on torture -- a huge repudiation of Dick Cheney, David Addington and John Yoo's perspective on broad constitutional powers possessed by the president in wartime -- or to immunize practitioners of torture from prosecution. That answer is sure to create anxiety inside the CIA, where many interrogators fear that they will be brought up on charges for carrying out interrogation methods earlier approved by the administration.

The Bybee memo is "worse than a sin, it's a mistake," Mukasey said. He referenced the photographs taken by U.S. troops who liberated the Nazi concentration camps in 1945 to document the "barbarism" the U.S. opposed. .......

Just now live at the hearings, when asked if waterboarding is illegal, Mukasey hedged his answer by saying, "If waterboarding is torture..." I would think that every other person on the planet knows that waterboarding IS torture!

This is just totally unacceptable as an answer from a prospective AG!

Is Waterboarding Torture? Mukasey: Yes, if It's Torture
By Paul Kiel - Oct 18, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004499.php

Mukasey has firmly established that he's against torture -- yesterday he even compared (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004478.php) it to the Holocaust (see also here http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004489.php).

But what exactly does that mean? Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked Mukasey if he thought waterboarding was Constitutional. "If waterboarding is torture... torture is not Constitutional," he replied.

Dems Give Mukasey a Waterboarding Primer
By Spencer Ackerman - Oct 23, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004535.php

In response to Michael Mukasey's professed ignorance as to what waterboarding is (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004499.php), all eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have sent Mukasey a detailed primer on the centuries-old torture technique. It includes some surprising historical details: did you know, for instance, that during the occupation of Japan, the U.S. prosecuted Japanese soldiers who waterboarded U.S. POWs?

You can read the letter here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/mukasey-waterboarding/). But we thought we should do our part to educate Mukasey as well. So here's a waterboarding reenactment, courtesy of Keith Olbermann:

VIDEO

The Senators write, "Please respond to the following question: Is the use of waterboarding, or inducing the misperception of drowning, as an interrogation technique illegal under U.S. law, including treaty obligations?" ....

Dems Say Mukasey Vote Depends on Answer to Torture Question
By Paul Kiel - Oct 25, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004564.php

Before the hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wasn't shy (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004467.php) about saying what he thought of Michael Mukasey: "I like him." And the attorney general nominee breezed through the first day of questioning. But day two got rough (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004499.php). And now the chairman seems to be wavering in his support of Mukasey. From the AP (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/10/mukaseys_nomination_runs_into.php):

"Judge Michael Mukasey's nomination for attorney general ran into trouble Thursday when two top Senate Democrats said their votes hinge on whether he will say on the record that an interrogation technique that simulates drowning is torture.

......... "

The issue, of course, is Mukasey's "massive hedge" of an answer to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's (D-RI) question about whether waterboarding is torture (watch the exchange here http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004499.php). Earlier this week, the Democrats on the committee penned a letter (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004535.php) to Mukasey, giving him a primer on the old torture technique and asking again for an answer. His confirmation might depend on it.

Sen. Bernie Sanders - Why I Will Vote "No" on Mukasey
Posted Oct 26, 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/why-i-will-vote-no-on-m_b_70043.html

The attorney general of the United States must be a defender of our constitutional rights. Because President Bush thinks he can do whatever he wants to do in the name of fighting terrorism, we need an attorney general who can explain to the president what the Constitution of this country is all about. We need an attorney general who does not believe the president has unlimited power. We need an attorney general who will tell President Bush that he is not above the law. We need an attorney general who clearly understands the separation of powers inherent in our Constitution. Regretfully, I have concluded that Michael B Mukasey would not be that kind of attorney general. That is why I will be voting against his nomination.

Let me be clear. Of course the United States government must do everything that it can to protect the American people from the dangerous threat of terrorism, but we can do that in ways that are effective and consistent with the Constitution and the civil liberties it guarantees. The Bush administration and the lawyers who have enabled it for the past seven years cannot be bothered with such technical legal niceties as the Bill of Rights. This administration thinks it can eavesdrop on telephone conversations without warrants, suspend due process for people classified as enemy combatants and thumb its nose when Congress exercises its oversight responsibility. That is why I called on Alberto Gonzales to resign. I had hoped that the confirmation process for a new attorney general would give the president and the Senate an important opportunity to refocus on the core American principles embedded in our Constitution.

Unfortunately, Judge Mukasey doesn't get it. At his two-day confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he suggested that eavesdropping without warrants and using "enhanced" interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects might be constitutional, even if they exceeded what the law technically allowed. He said Congress might not have the power to stop the president ........

Dodd Opposes Mukasey Nomination
By Paul Kiel - Oct. 29, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004581.php


And then there were two: Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) is the second senator and first Democrat to come out against Mukasey. Says Dodd: "Mr. Mukasey's position that the President does not have to heed the law disqualifies him from being the chief attorney for the United States."

Obama: "I Cannot Support" Mukasey For AG
By Greg Sargent - Oct 29, 2007
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/obama_i_cannot_support_mukasey_for_ag.php

Barack Obama's campaign sends over the following statement:

"We urgently need an Attorney General who will check the vast and unconstrained executive powers that have been accumulated under the Bush-Cheney Administration. Judge Mukasey has failed to send a clear signal that he understands the legal and moral issues that are at stake for our country, and so I cannot support him.

"No nominee for Attorney General should need a second chance to oppose torture and the unnecessary violation of civil liberties. It's time to stop the political parsing and to close the legal loopholes. Waterboarding is torture

Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden Lays Down Line on Waterboarding For Michael Mukasey
By Major Garrett - Oct 30, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306123,00.html


WASHINGTON — Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said late Monday that unless Michael Mukasey defines waterboarding as torture, he won't vote to confirm the attorney general nominee.

Biden said he is waiting on a response from Mukasey to a letter he and all the Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee members sent last week asking the nominee to clarify answers he gave about waterboading during his confirmation hearing earlier this month. The presidential candidate indicated that he considers Mukasey's responses to lawmakers' questions at the hearing evasive at best.

"I think Judge Mukasey's comments on waterboarding were outrageous, especially given that he's seeking the job of attorney general," Biden told FOX News. "Anyone who thinks that waterboarding is not torture, is not fit — and will not have my support — to be attorney general."

Though Mukasey's confirmation appears on track, the waterboarding issue has introduced an unexpected dimension of jeopardy. ............