My OperaWhy there are no investigations into possible Bush- administration lawbreaking.
Sunday, February 10, 2008 12:20:29 PM
"Justice Dept. 'Cannot' Probe Waterboarding, Mukasey Says"
Got that? The justice- department declared torture was legal in 2002, so therefore there is no investigation to be had regarding the torture- issue, and whether anyone broke the law - since they obviously didn't.
This is the same as when the Bush- administration stalled and sabotaged the various investigations launched by the democrats earlier on as well - they argued they had not broken the law, by their own declarations and legalistic torture. And therefore, there were no grounds to start an investigation.
The same doctrine was excercised when it comes to the FISA problem. Except here the argument is used to suggest.. well, demand.. that pending court- cases must be stopped preemptively. Through the use of unprecedented "amnesty" for "lawbreaking" that really isn't - due to, or so presumably the rationalisation goes, an unfortunate lack in the constitution, that the president should be allowed to amend by decree. Ironically, this exact argument against executive overreach has been made by various officials in US history, from Robert Kennedy, to the Church- commission's leadership after the Nixon- administration. With much more scorn than has been on display so far in the US, where it is considered impolite to oppose dictatorial power. Indeed, the Church- commission and Kennedy are all labeled liberal opportunists who want to undermine the executive branch - because that's what people in the inner circle believe. And they proclaim that to be "democracy", and have the audacity to oppose any objections to that view by arguing that this is a conflict of fundamental philosophy regarding what democracy is.
Regardless - I am genuinely delighted to have this on the record from the Attorney General. It's not like anyone expected Mukasey to kick Bush in the arse at all - so this kind of inadvertent, compulsive honesty will do just fine.
But hit him again, please. Why is it that there were no investigation into declassification procedures at the White House, for example? Why were the documents denied, and briefings held off the record considered acceptable? What exactly is Congress complicit in accepting? ..I wonder. Could it be they accepted a unilateral declaration from the Bush- administration as a substitute for the law? Yes.. what will they think of next? Declaring effective total war, martial law, and suspension of pre- constitutional legal doctrine, based on an elliptic bill without a single detail?
(...)The remarks reflected a renewed effort by the Bush administration to defend its past approval of the interrogation tactic known as waterboarding, which some lawmakers, human rights experts and international lawyers have described as illegal torture.
Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said Justice Department lawyers concluded that the CIA's use of waterboarding in 2002 and 2003 was legal, and therefore the department cannot investigate whether a crime had occurred.
Got that? The justice- department declared torture was legal in 2002, so therefore there is no investigation to be had regarding the torture- issue, and whether anyone broke the law - since they obviously didn't.
This is the same as when the Bush- administration stalled and sabotaged the various investigations launched by the democrats earlier on as well - they argued they had not broken the law, by their own declarations and legalistic torture. And therefore, there were no grounds to start an investigation.
The same doctrine was excercised when it comes to the FISA problem. Except here the argument is used to suggest.. well, demand.. that pending court- cases must be stopped preemptively. Through the use of unprecedented "amnesty" for "lawbreaking" that really isn't - due to, or so presumably the rationalisation goes, an unfortunate lack in the constitution, that the president should be allowed to amend by decree. Ironically, this exact argument against executive overreach has been made by various officials in US history, from Robert Kennedy, to the Church- commission's leadership after the Nixon- administration. With much more scorn than has been on display so far in the US, where it is considered impolite to oppose dictatorial power. Indeed, the Church- commission and Kennedy are all labeled liberal opportunists who want to undermine the executive branch - because that's what people in the inner circle believe. And they proclaim that to be "democracy", and have the audacity to oppose any objections to that view by arguing that this is a conflict of fundamental philosophy regarding what democracy is.
Regardless - I am genuinely delighted to have this on the record from the Attorney General. It's not like anyone expected Mukasey to kick Bush in the arse at all - so this kind of inadvertent, compulsive honesty will do just fine.
But hit him again, please. Why is it that there were no investigation into declassification procedures at the White House, for example? Why were the documents denied, and briefings held off the record considered acceptable? What exactly is Congress complicit in accepting? ..I wonder. Could it be they accepted a unilateral declaration from the Bush- administration as a substitute for the law? Yes.. what will they think of next? Declaring effective total war, martial law, and suspension of pre- constitutional legal doctrine, based on an elliptic bill without a single detail?
