When the story broke yesterday on destroying the CIA interrogation videotapes, why did Attorney General Michael Mukasey not issue an immediate preservation order, mandating that all federal government employees not destroy any evidence?
The administration has had two full days and now the entire weekend to rip, tear, and destroy to their heart’s content.
Update: The Justice Department and the CIA’s Inspector General announced Saturday that they had launched a joint preliminary investigation into the CIA’s destruction of the interrogation videotapes, but to my knowledge, Mukasey has yet to issue a preservation order.
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.
I know this is an extremely important issue, particularly with respect to how the country presents itself to the international community, but they’re willing to acquiesce on Arlen Specter’s issue regarding the president (this or any other) being above the rule of law? How can they possibly have a single point of demarcation? Is this the quid pro quo for letting Leahy and Specter review documents they are legally entitled to see anyway?
I’ve heard a few comments made by the Washington Pundit Elite that the Senate is so pleased Alberto Gonzales is gone that they will readily confirm Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General in spite of controversial answers he gave in his confirmation hearing last week.
I’ll not dare question their collective infinite wisdom, but at least for now, some members of the Judiciary panel are pushing back or at least demanding clarification on Mukasey’s controversial responses.
Sen. Patrick Leahy and the remaining nine other Democrats on the panel sent a letter to Mukasey Tuesday pressing him on his twisted response regarding waterboarding. In the letter they said they found it "“surprising that you are unfamiliar with waterboarding since it has been the subject of much public discussion” and asserted that “your unwillingness to state that waterboarding is illegal may place Americans at risk of being subject to this abusive technique.”
Although Mukasey’s response in the hearing was little more than a semantic hedge, their was no ambiguity in the 10 Democrat’s redirect. In the letter they asked, “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?”
The Committee’s Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) joined the Democrat’s by posing a few questions of his own in a letter sent to Mukasey yesterday. From my perspective, Specter addressed the most significant issue — the president’s claim of absolute power.
A question has been raised on your response to whether the President may legally authorize wiretaps which violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, when you stated: “That would have to depend on whether what goes on outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the President to defend the country.”
Would you please specify your views on the scope of the President’s Article II powers to disregard an explicit statutory requirement. If you believe the President can act outside the law, how do you square that belief with your statement at the hearing that “The President doesn’t stand above the law[?]” How do you deal with the public concern that the rule of law is supreme and the President at times appears to put himself above the law?
The panel simply must not allow Mukasey to slip by with semantic twists or ambiguous answers, however the White House is already posturing Mukasey for an ambiguous answer on the torture issue.
Mukasey contended last week he did not know what the interrogation techniques were because he had not been read into the program yet — an all too easy hedge for Mukasey. Yesterday, the White House reiterated Mukasey "has not been read into classified intelligence programs, and he won’t be read in until he is confirmed as attorney general."
Another Bush demand of give me what I want but I’m not going to provide you any detail information about what I want.
Yesterday, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey repudiated the notion of torture, saying it is “worse than a sin, it is a mistake” and that is “antithetical” to what America stands for.
Today Mukasey took a different position by twisting his answers and employing semantics. When asked by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT), and more specifically by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), if waterboarding is torture, Mukasey refused to classify the practice as torture, saying it depened upon how torture is defined.
SEN. LEAHY: Is the current statue outlawing torture constitutional?
MUKASEY: I believe it is.
SEN. LEAHY: So if something was authorized outside that statue…that authorization is illegal?
MUKASEY: Correct.
SEN. WHITEHOUSE : Is waterboarding constitutional?
MUKASEY: I don’t know waht’s invovled in the technique. if waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.
SEN. WHITEHOUSE : If waterboarding is constitutional is a massive hedge…Either it is or it isn’t. Do you have an opinion on whether waterboarding, which is the practice of putting somebody in a reclining position, strapping them down, put a cloth over their faces, and pouring water over the cloth to simulate the feeling of drowning. Is that constitutional?
MUKASEY: If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.
SEN. WHITEHOUSE : I am very disappointed in that answer. I think it is purely semantic.
MUKASEY: I’m sorry.
Watch the video:
Did Mukasey have dinner with Dick Cheney last night after the hearing?
Democrats continue to prove they don’t have a spine, much less know what one is. From the Washington Post:
“Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government’s domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program, according to congressional sources.
Disclosure of the deal followed a decision by House Democratic leaders to pull a competing version of the measure from the floor because they lacked the votes to prevail over Republican opponents and GOP parliamentary maneuvers.
The Washington Times’ piece today indicates just how weak the Democratic Congress is.
House Democrats, confounded by a Republican procedural maneuver that would force an embarrassing vote on terrorism, yesterday called off a vote on an electronic-surveillance bill that the White House opposes.
Republicans would have forced Democrats either to vote to effectively kill the bill that restricts federal wiretap power or to vote against authorizing the government to spy on Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist groups.
They’re scared to death George Bush is going to resort to name calling. What brave and courageous Patriots our Democratic Leaders are.
Not only do the major telecom companies get immunity, so does the entire Bush administration. Congress is about to let the Bush administration get away with the most egregious lawbreaking by any president in history.
FISA isn’t the only area Congress continues to be ineffective.
Almost a year after vowing to protect millions of middle-income families from a special tax meant for millionaires, Democratic leaders are still struggling to find ways to raise the billions of dollars needed to fix the problem.
In a series of meetings and interviews yesterday, lawmakers reiterated their determination to prevent the alternative minimum tax from imposing a major tax increase on 23 million American households this year.
The Relevance of an Irrelevant President
President Bush’s news conference yesterday.
President Bush on Wednesday criticized a Congress that has not “managed to pass many important bills” and is “just getting started” on funding bills.
At the beginning of a White House press conference, Bush launched an attack against Democrats for not doing enough to get the nation’s business done.
“There’s little time left in the year, and Congress has little to show for all the time that has gone by,” the president said.
Bush hammered Democrats on sending him State Children’s Health Insurance Program legislation that they knew would be vetoed, trying to make changes to legislation updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and failing to pass appropriations bills.
“Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that’s providing vital support for our military every day,” he said.
Asked if it was all the Democrats’ fault that bills are not moving, especially with regard to veto threats from the White House on several key pieces of legislation, Bush said he believes it is.
“I’m not part of the legislative branch,” the president said. “All I can do is ask them to move bills. It’s up to the leaders to move the bills.”
And by all means, don’t miss Mr. Bush’s narcissistic statements position on remaining relevant.
Judge Mukasey and the Senate Confirmation Hearings
Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey said yesterday that he would chart an independent path for the Justice Department after the tumultuous tenure of Alberto R. Gonzales, testifying that he would not be afraid to disagree with the president and would resign rather than implement policies that he believed violated the Constitution.
Mukasey, appearing for the first day of hearings before a generally friendly Senate Judiciary Committee, also said the president cannot use his powers as commander in chief to “override” prohibitions against using torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading conduct in the interrogation of prisoners.
“Are you prepared to resign if the president were to violate your advice and in your view violate the Constitution?” asked Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). Mukasey responded: “That would present me with a difficult but not a complex problem. I could either try to talk him out of it or leave.”
Michael B. Mukasey, the former federal judge expected to win confirmation as attorney general, vowed to end allegations of political meddling at the Justice Department by ensuring that hiring decisions are made without regard to partisan affiliation.
A test could come quickly. If confirmed, he will soon have to decide what to do about the stalled nomination of Craig Morford, the acting deputy attorney general who, until recently, appeared set to get the nod to be the Justice Department’s No. 2.
Mr. Morford, a 48-year-old former assistant U.S. attorney in Cleveland, has been the department’s parachuting troubleshooter for years, and he hasn’t been afraid to ruffle feathers. In August, when he was named as acting deputy, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave him a mandate to act like a chief operating officer hired to fix a company in crisis. That was one month before Mr. Gonzales resigned from the top job.
By an overwhelming margin, Turkey’s parliament on Wednesday authorized military raids into northern Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish rebels who have attacked Turkish targets.
The vote added to rising tensions in the region, with Iraqi Kurdish forces, known as peshmerga, going on high alert, although senior Turkish officials indicated that no invasion was imminent.
A State Department review of private security guards for diplomats in Iraq is unlikely to recommend firing Blackwater USA over the deaths of 17 Iraqis last month, but the company probably is on the way out of that job, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
Blackwater’s work escorting U.S. diplomats outside the protected Green Zone in Baghdad expires in May, one official said, and other officials told the Associated Press they expect the North Carolina company will not continue to work for the embassy after that.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that direct dialogue was a better way of easing the diplomatic crisis over Iran’s nuclear ambitions than the threat of military force or sanctions.
Putin, speaking at an annual question-and-answer session, brushed aside a reported plot to kill him on a visit to Tehran last week.
Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistani opposition leader and former prime minister, arrived in Pakistan this afternoon, ending her eight-year exile in a return that is expected to reconfigure the country’s already unsettled political landscape.
She stepped down onto the tarmac at Karachi airport at around 2 p.m. local time after a flight from Dubai, wearing a green shalwar kameez — a traditional Muslim outfit — and white headscarf, the colors of the Pakistani flag.
The man known as Chemical Ali for ordering poison gas attacks against the Kurds in the 1980s has been flown by helicopter from a U.S. base to a site near a prison gallows in Baghdad, according to an Iraqi police official, suggesting that his execution was imminent.
The prisoner, Ali Hassan al-Majid, a cousin of Saddam Hussein, was sentenced to death on June 24 for his role in the Anfal campaign that killed as many as 180,000 Kurds.
Bank of America Corp. posted a 32% drop in third-quarter net income as the company recorded $247 million in write-downs related to leveraged buyout loans, $607 million in trading losses and sharply higher credit-loss provisions.
Shares slumped in premarket trading, falling to $48 from Wednesday’s close of $50.03.
The nation’s No. 2 bank by market capitalization, which hadn’t given write-down and loss projections guidance like many of its rivals, reported net income of $3.7 billion, or 82 cents a share, compared with $5.42 billion, or $1.18 a share, a year earlier. In addition to the write-down and trading losses, Bank of America recorded $2.03 billion in credit-loss provisions, compared with $1.17 billion a year earlier. Revenue fell 12% to $16.3 billion.
Media conglomerates are probably the greatest danger to freedom of the press and maintaining a true Fourth Estate. One needs to look no further than FOX News Noise to understand why.
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is proposing a plan that would wrap up by the end of the year the long-running debate over how many media properties a company should be allowed to own in a single market.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s proposal would allow for public comment on the proposed rules in mid-November and a commission vote on Dec. 18.
Among the rules that are potentially on the chopping block is a ban on one company owning a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market. The rule is of particular interest to Tribune Co., which is the subject of a pending buyout led by real estate magnate Sam Zell.
A group of Internet, media and technology companies plans to announce today a set of guidelines they have agreed on aimed at protecting copyrights online, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The companies supporting the principles include CBS Corp., Dailymotion, Microsoft Corp., NBC Universal, News Corp.’s Fox and MySpace units, Viacom Inc. and Walt Disney Co., the familiar person says. Notably absent is Google Inc., which had been in discussions about possibly joining the group, people familiar with the matter say.
The guidelines are meant to address copyright-related issues that have flared up as user posting of content — particularly video — to the Web has boomed.
The agreed-upon principles include using technology to eliminate copyright-infringing content uploaded by users to Web sites, and blocking any infringing material before it is publicly accessible, says the person familiar with the matter.
Google on Monday unveiled technology it has been testing to automate the identification of copyrighted material on its YouTube video-sharing service. It said the technology cannot yet prevent infringing content from being posted initially, though it can pull flagged content off the site “in a matter of a few minutes.”
Viacom in March sued Google, alleging willful copyright infringement by YouTube and claiming over $1 billion in damages. Google has said that it complies with U.S. law by removing any infringing video clips when requested by the content owners.
Judge Michael Mukasey repudiated the opinion (pdf), “Standards of Conduct for Interrogation,” issued in 2002 by Jay Bybee, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel, which broadly gave the Bush administration the right to use torture. The opinion, more commonly referred to as the “Bybee memo” or the “torture memo” was in theory retracted a few years later, but is still “active” for all practical purposes due to subsequent legal maneuvering by the administration.
Mukasey compared U.S. torture to the Holocaust, saying it is “worse than a sin, it’s a mistake,” and deemed it “antithetical” to what American stands for.
Furthermore, Mukasey said he did not believe the Commander in Chief had any inherent constitutional authority that would allow him to “override” any restrictions on torture. That within itself probably caused the heads of Dick Cheney and David Addington to begin spinning like Regan’s in “The Exorcist.”
From a news perspective it’s a busy morning in Washington. The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding its confirmation hearing for President Bush’s nomination of Judge Michael B. Mukasey to be Attorney General, replacing disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Thus far, it appears his confirmation is a fait accompli. Senators are acting out their pre-written scripts and moving along rapidly.
George Bush called a press conference this morning, but might as well have remained in the Oval Office. He refuses to answer any controversial questions except for those that give him an opportunity to promote his agenda on SCHIP, etc., and condemn Congress. His demeanor is more belligerent today than its normal belligerence — an obviously relative statement
If you want to follow the hearing closely, Glenn Greenwald is live-blogging.
Earlier tonight I began writing a reflective post about the failure of Congress to effectively investigate the Justice Department and the White House, and hold them accountable for the various and sundry malfeasance they have committed. After working on it for about an hour, I stopped, deciding to finish later. Moments ago, I just finished reading an incredibly disturbing piece in the Times that reveals more about the abyss Alberto Gonzales, the White House, and many at the DOJ reside in. I regret not completing and publishing the reflective post.
As a POW in World War II, my father was tortured and imprisoned in inhumane conditions. When he died at the age of 81, he still could not talk about many of the horrific experiences he encountered. There is little goodness one can find in the death of their father, but I’m glad he doesn’t have to read or hear about this on the evening news.
When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.
But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.
Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.
Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.
The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.
Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and the administration has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics.
Dick Cheney and his invertebrate minions (includes GWB) must be stopped and held accountable.
Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey has submitted his responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire for confirmation. The document is available here (pdf).
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) seems to be frustrated over the lack of response or communication from Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey. Leahy made it clear when President Bush nominated Mukasey that he wanted specific answers to address outstanding issues and concerns, and that Mukasey’s confirmation was contingent upon Mukasey’s and the White House’s cooperation. Apparently, Leahy’s initial request has gone unanswered — like everything else he has sent the Bush-Cheney administration — based on a letter he sent (html, pdf) Mukasey today.
Leahy’s questions and concerns are valid and appropriate. He wants to know who Mukasey’s master will be, George Bush or the Constitution.
I have emphasized most of the salient points of Leahy’s letter below.
October 2, 2007
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Dear Judge Mukasey:
I look forward to scheduling and chairing the confirmation hearing on your nomination to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. I also look forward to your response to the Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire, and we may have additional requests for background information that would be helpful to the Committee in preparation for the hearing.
As I told you when we met the day after your designation, I look forward to meeting with you and having a substantive discussion before the hearing. I propose that we meet on Tuesday, October 16, at 10 a.m., if that is convenient for you.
I also mentioned when we first met that I would provide you with some of the topics that concern me. Regrettably the White House has chosen not to clear the decks of past concerns and not to produce the information and material it should have and could have about the ongoing scandals that have shaken the Department of Justice and led to the exodus of its former leadership. Those matters now encumber your nomination and, if confirmed, your tenure.
We will need to explore with you how you would ensure the independence of federal law enforcement from political pressure, what steps you would take to restore morale at the Department and the public’s trust in the Department, and whether you would uphold constitutional checks on Executive power.
The mass firings of the U.S. Attorneys appointed by this President were unprecedented. I will inquire whether you share my view that the integrity and independence of federal law enforcement should not be compromised by political operatives from the White House. I will ask for your assurance that the Department of Justice and, in particular, our U.S. Attorneys, will not be employed in upcoming elections to seek to affect the outcome. The Department of Justice should be working to protect Americans’ right to vote and have their vote count, not seeking to swing close elections into a partisan column by leaking allegations of corruption or bringing last minute legal actions alleging voter fraud.
A related matter of significant concern to a number of Members of the Committee is the recent rewriting of the Department of Justice’s guidebook on “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses.” It not only changed from the “red book” to the “green book,” but the traditional practice of not bringing last-minute investigations and actions was turned on its head. The traditional version of the protocol, part of which I read to former Department of Justice official Bradley Schlozman at our June 5 hearing, provided: “In investigating election fraud matters, the Justice Department must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself. . . Thus, most, if not all, investigation of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates.” As recently revised under the outgoing, discredited leadership group, it provides great latitude for the Department of Justice to influence the outcomes of elections. Will you reassure us that under your leadership that these guidelines will be changed back to the time-honored rules? That is a concrete step you can take at the outset to set a new tone.
Another aspect of this concern is your close association with a candidate for the Republican nomination for President. Given that longstanding relationship, what assurances can you give the Committee, the Senate and the American people, should he be the Republican nominee, that you will not improperly use your position? The White House press operation suggested last weekend that you would recuse yourself from matters involving Mr. Guiliani. Is that true, and would that recusal include the Republican presidential campaign if he is the Republican nominee?
From our earlier meeting I know that you knew and worked with Judge Harold Tyler. I have admired Judge Tyler. He, too, was faced with restoring the Department of Justice when he served as the Deputy Attorney General in 1975, following the Watergate scandal and the resignation of President Nixon. Likewise, I think we both view Attorney General Robert Jackson’s 1941 speech to U. S. Attorneys as striking the right chord on the role of the Department of Justice and the independence of federal prosecutors. If they, Elliot Richardson and Edward Levi are your models, I will look forward to working with you to restore the Department.
In that connection, I note that as the House Judiciary Committee was considering contempt citations for former White House officials this summer, a senior Administration official said that a U.S. Attorney “would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case” and that a U.S. Attorney would not be “permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that Department of Justice provided.”
Under applicable statutes and practices, contempt citations against Administration officials by the House and Senate would be certified to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring before a grand jury for its action. If the House or Senate certified a contempt citation against current or former White House officials arising from the U.S. Attorney investigation, would you permit the U.S. Attorney to carry out the law and refer the matter to a grand jury as required by 2 U.S.C. § 194?If the White House sought to prevent the U.S. Attorney from bringing contempt charges to a grand jury as required by law, would you take any action to prevent the U.S. Attorney from doing so?
More generally, what would you do as Attorney General if you learned that a White House official had called a U.S. Attorney asking for information about an on-going criminal investigation? What would you do as Attorney General if you learned that a Member of Congress had called a U.S. Attorney asking for information about an on-going criminal investigation?
What will you do to ensure that legal advice from the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is independent and protected from political influence?
While you can set an example and a tone at the Department of Justice, you cannot effectively manage it by yourself. Who will be the members of your team to help turn the Department around?
Other key issues arise from this Administration’s abuse of secrecy and expansion of executive power. Policies enacted by this Administration have encouraged Department of Justice officers to withhold information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the bedrock statute that opens our government to its citizens. Will you commit to review and consider overturning these policies, and supporting legislation Senator Cornyn and I have sponsored to reform FOIA, so that the presumption of openness which is at the heart of FOIA is restored for the American people?
The Attorney General who recently resigned apparently believed that the President has a commander-in-chief override of the laws of this country, which contributed to his violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), his signing statement reservations, and other overreaching. We must explore those topics. For example, do you believe that the President has authority to override legal requirements and immunize acts of torture contrary to our treaty obligations and laws? Do you believe that before Congress amended the FISA this summer, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in the days following September 11, or Article II of the Constitution gave this President authority to override the requirements of that law with respect to wiretapping Americans?
In connection with these matters the Judiciary Committee has been seeking the historical legal analysis of the Department of Justice and this Administration. We have made numerous requests and have even had to subpoena the FISA documents. I want to know whether you will work with us and provide those materials so that we can examine the legal justifications that have been utilized by this Administration to excuse its conduct.
Similarly, in light of the failure of the White House Counsel to provide even a privilege log to substantiate his blanket claim of executive privilege for all information relating to the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, we need to consider that matter together. I want to know your view of executive privilege. Do you view it as a communications privilege or something else? Do you think it extends to the actions and emails of political operatives in matters in which the President was not personally involved?
With so much to do and so much damage that needs to be repaired, I had hoped that the White House would have taken advantage of the time since the resignations of Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Rove to work with us to fulfill longstanding requests for information so that we could all agree about what went so wrong at the Department of Justice and work together to restore it. Instead, they have left you to answer the unanswered questions and left longstanding disputes unresolved.
“Howard J. Krongard, the State Department’s inspector general, has repeatedly thwarted investigations into contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, including construction of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and censored reports that might prove politically embarrassing to the Bush administration, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform charged” on Tuesday “in a 13-page letter,” the Washington Post reports. See TPC related post.
“The National Security Agency has not conducted wiretapping without warrants on the telephones of any Americans since at least February, the nation’s top intelligence officer told Congress on Tuesday,” the New York Times reports. “Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, told the House Judiciary Committee that since he took office that month, the government has conducted electronic surveillance only after seeking court-approved warrants.” See TPC related post.
“President Bush, cheered on by Iraq war veterans and their familieson the White House’s South Lawn, urged lawmakers Tuesday to back his plan to withdraw some troops from Iraq but keep at least 130,000 through next summer or longer,” AP reports. “‘I ask the United States Congress to support the troop levels and the strategies I have embraced,’ Bush said, to loud cheers and chants of ‘USA! USA!’”
“President Bush defended himself Tuesday defended himself from criticism by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who said Bush has not been a good shepherd of the economy,” according to a FOX News interview with the president. “Our fiscal record is admirable and good. After all, the deficit as a percentage of GDP is low relative to the 30-year average. It’s about 1.5 percent of GDP which is good, and we submitted a budget that shows we can get to balance.” See TPC related post.
“Internal discord in the office of U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose has led to an investigation of complaints that she retaliated against dissenters,” the Star-Tribune reports. “The internal upheaval that roiled the upper ranks of the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota last spring has prompted an investigation by an independent federal agency that looks into whistleblower and discrimination complaints involving federal employees.” TPC reported on Ms. Paulrose back in April as the DOJ scandal was unfolding.
CONGRESS
“Unable to garner enough Republican support, Senate Democratic leaders said” on Tuesday “that they are abandoning a bipartisan effort to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq by next spring,” the Washington Post reports. Instead, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, D-Nev., “will again push for a firm deadline, this time June 2008, along with a stronger effort at cutting off war funding.” See TPC related post.
“Four new Senate Republicans signaled Tuesday that they may vote for a Democratic amendment aimed at giving U.S. troops in Iraq more time at home between deployments, helping Democrats inch closer to a rare victory on the conduct of the Iraq war,” The Hill reports. “The talks came amid tense backroom negotiations over the terms of the Iraq debate in the Senate, which is expected to dominate the floor schedule during the next two weeks. ”
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., “and 11 other members of Congress have been subpoenaed to testify in the trial of a defense contractor charged with bribing jailed” former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif.,, USA Today reports. “All of the lawmakers said they do not intend to comply with the subpoenas.”
“Even as Senate Democrats on Tuesday softened demands that the White House provide thousands of documents in advance of a hearing to confirm Michael Mukasey as attorney general, they warned that it remained highly improbable that a vote on his installation would occur before the October recess,” Roll Call (sub. req.) reports. “The White House has asked Democrats to complete the confirmation process by Oct. 8 — a date on which Democrats said they are unlikely to meet.”
The House Federal Workforce Subcommittee split along party lines yesterday “over proposed legislation that would ban discrimination against federal employees and job applicants based on sexual orientation.” the Washington Post reports. “Republicans asked for a roll call, and Democrats, as the majority party, prevailed, 5 to 3.
“Twelve years after conservative Republicans in Congress were blamed for shutting down the government, they are introducing legislation to ensure that government continues to function no matter what,” The Hill reports. “Anticipating a showdown with Democrats that could force government offices to close, President Bush is backing the legislation.”
IRAQ
“The top two American military and diplomatic officials in Iraq sought to play down differences over Iraq policy as they met with senior British officials on Tuesday, at a time of mounting pressure here for the withdrawal of Britain’s remaining 5,200 soldiers from southern Iraq,” the New York Times reports. “At a news conference with Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, Gen. David H. Petraeussought to ease strains that developed this month when British commanders withdrew the 500-man contingent that comprised their last remaining troops in central Basra.”
“The U.S. military has introduced ‘religious enlightenment’ and other education programs for Iraqi detainees, some of whom are as young as 11, Marine Maj. Gen. Douglas M. Stone, the commander of U.S. detention facilities in Iraq, said yesterday, the Washington Post reports. “Stone said such efforts, aimed mainly at Iraqis who have been held for more than a year, are intended to “bend them back to our will” and are part of waging war in what he called ‘the battlefield of the mind.’ ”
“A preliminary Iraqi report on a shooting involving an American diplomatic motorcade said Tuesday that Blackwater security guards were not ambushed, as the company reported, but instead fired at a car when it did not heed a policeman’s call to stop, killing a couple and their infant,” the New York Times reports. “The report, by the Ministry of Interior, was presented to the Iraqi cabinet and, though unverified, seemed to contradict an account offered by Blackwater USA that the guards were responding to gunfire by militants.”
“A vast internal migration is radically reshaping Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian landscape, according to new data collected by thousands of relief workers, but displacement in the most populous and mixed areas is surprisingly complex, suggesting that partitioning the country into semiautonomous Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish enclaves would not be easy,” the New York Times reports. “In Baghdad alone there are now nearly 170,000 families, accounting for almost a million people, that have fled their homes.”
NATION
“About 1,000 highly skilled legal immigrants, carrying placards and wearing T-shirts emblazoned with American flags, rallied Tuesday at the Capitol to protest long delays and vast bureaucratic backlogs in the immigration system,” the New York Times reports. “The immigrants, including doctors, medical technicians and computer engineers from India and China, came from as far as California and Washington State to call on Congress to provide more permanent visas for highly educated immigrants and more resources for the overburdened immigration system.”
“Video of police Tasering a persistent questioner of Sen. John Kerry became an Internet and TV sensation Tuesday, generating fierce debate about free speech and the motives of the college student involved — a known prankster who often posts practical jokes online,” AP reports. “University of Florida President Bernie Machen said Monday’s takedown, in which the student loudly yelled, ‘Don’t Tase me, bro’ was ‘regretful.’”
“Advocacy groups sued the FBI and the Department of Justice on Tuesday for failing to turn over records they requested on surveillance in the Muslim-American community,” AP reports. “The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Muslim groups, alleges that the FBI has turned over only four pages of documents to community leaders, despite a Freedom of Information Act request filed more than a year ago. The documents were not related to surveillance.”
WORLD
“U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice scolded the U.N.’s atomic watchdog agency” today “over its Iran strategy and called for diplomacy with ‘teeth’ to end Tehran’s nuclear plans,” Reuters reports. “While repeating the U.S. stand that ‘all options’ remained on the table — a reference to military action against Tehran — Rice sought to ease fresh concerns over talk of war.”
“A multinational force commanded and led by British troops has launched a major offensive against the Taleban in the southern Afghan province of Helmand,” BBC News reports. “The operation involves about 700 men, mostly infantry and engineers. ”
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan “refused on Tuesday to rule out the possibility of military operations into northern Iraq to root out armed Kurdish separatist groups that he said had taken refuge in the border region,” the New York Times reports. “Mr. Erdogan also criticized some Western countries for what he called their increasingly hawkish stance against Iran.”
“Pro-Taliban militants in northwest Pakistan attacked a military checkpost” today “and captured seven paramilitary soldiers,” Reuters reports. “The raid was the latest in a series of bloody militant attacks on security forces and abductions of soldiers since July, when a pact with militants broke down and commandos stormed a radical mosque in Islamabad.”
Patrick Leahy issued this statement after meeting with AG nominee Michael Mukasey. As indicated in this statement and press accounts yesterday, Leahy intends to put Mukasey’s nomination in a holding pattern until the White House provides previously requested/subpoenaed information/documents related to the Committee’s investigation of the Justice Department.
I’m not sure I agree with Leahy’s tactic, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe Leahy would unjustifiably slow the process.
Remarks Of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, After Meeting With Prospective Attorney General Nominee Judge Michael Mukasey September 18, 2007
I begin this process of Senate review of the President’s nomination with hope and with optimism. The last thing I or any of us want is to be disappointed in those hopes.
Replacing an Attorney General is part but not all of what needs to be done to restore trust in the Justice Department. The confirmation process can be a catalyst for resolving outstanding issues between the Senate and the Administration. I hope that will happen now.
There are a number of issues that arise from that dark period that still need resolution. Cooperation from the Administration in making progress on our longstanding oversight requests is still needed and will be helpful in moving forward.
I am pleased to report that recent discussions that I have had with Mr. Fielding, the White House Counsel, have been encouraging on that score. I take him at his word that he will work to provide the Judiciary Committee with information and documents that we need. This is relevant to the next nominee and future Attorneys General so that past excesses and mistakes are not repeated.
I met with Judge Mukasey today hoping that after we get cooperation from the Administration and are able to conduct a fair and thorough review process, all Senators will be able to vote in favor of his confirmation. I want to avoid the kind of witch hunt from the Right that scuttled the President’s nomination of Harriet Miers.
I see Judge Mukasey’s nomination as another chance to clear the decks of some important unfinished business that goes to the heart of accountability in government. It is also another chance for a fresh start in the relationship between Congress and the Justice Department headed by a new Attorney General.
The big job of Attorney General of the United States has gotten bigger, with the erosion of public trust and sagging morale throughout the Department of Justice. The next Attorney General will need to begin the process of restoring the Department of Justice to its proper mission so that it is worthy of its name.
“Two Senate Democrats warned Monday that the Judiciary Committee would delay confirmation of President Bush’s choice for attorney general unless the White House turned over documents that the panel was seeking for several investigations,” the New York Times reports. “Mr. Bush announced the selection of Michael B. Mukasey, a retired federal judge from New York who has presided over several high-profile terrorism trials, during a morning Rose Garden ceremony.”
“The White House on Monday rejected demands by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that the administration release thousands of documents related to the U.S. attorneys scandal and other Justice Department controversies before hearings begin on” Bush’s nomination of Mukasey, Roll Call (sub. req.) reports. “A showdown between Leahy and President Bush over largely procedural matters could turn what is widely seen as a relatively noncontroversial nomination into a political lightning rod for both parties.”
“The White House in recent days told nearly a dozen Cabinet secretaries to send letters to Capitol Hill rejecting Democrats’ proposed new funds for their agencies, escalating a confrontation between lawmakers and President Bush over domestic spending priorities,” the Washington Post reports. “The Democratic Congress is considering 2008 spending bills that increase funding for politically popular programs including health care for veterans, education, medical research and infrastructure improvements.”
“The top U.S. intelligence official is asking Congress for even more changes to a law that he says limited the government’s ability to eavesdrop, not just on terrorists but also on more traditional potential adversaries,” AP reports. “Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, says China and Russia are aggressively spying on sensitive U.S. facilities, intelligence systems and development projects, and their efforts are approaching Cold War levels.”
“The White House threatened on Monday to veto a bill that would add 15 years to a post-Sept. 11 government insurance program that supporters say is critical for major projects like the new World Trade Center,” the New York Times reports. “The legislation, known as the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, was originally passed by Congress after the 2001 attacks. It is due to expire this year, and the House had planned to vote this week on a 15-year extension.”
CONGRESS
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday “unveiled a proposal to provide health insurance to all Americans, placing herself at the center of an issue that provided perhaps the greatest setback of her political career,” the Washington Post reports. “In a speech in Des Moines, the Democratic front-runner said she would expand insurance to the 47 million people who do not already have coverage and would attempt to reduce costs for others without spawning a massive new bureaucracy.”
“Key lawmakers in the House and Senate negotiated into the night” on Monday “on a deal that would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over the next five years,” the Washington Post reports. “That would set up a clash with President Bush, who has promised to veto such a plan.”
“Three senators who are considered potential swing votes on war policy said Monday that a weekend visit to Iraq left them discouraged about prospects for political reconciliation there and convinced that the United States must quickly shift more responsibility for security to the Iraqi Army,” the New York Times reports. “‘We must take decisive action to force the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to secure the peace for Iraq,’ said Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado, as the Senate opened a pivotal debate on the war.”
“Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) are among the biggest winners in the 2008 Appropriations defense bill, according to data gathered by The Hill and the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS),” The Hill reports. “Senate appropriators disclosed about 936 earmarks worth a combined $5.1 billion in the 2008 defense-spending bill, with top committee members in both parties securing the highest dollar amounts.”
IRAQ
“At least 12 people were killed and 37 wounded today after Baghdad was hit by two parked car bombs and two roadside bombs, police said,” the Guardian reports. “A car bomb blew up in the centre of the Iraqi capital at 9.30am in a car park near the health ministry and the so-called Medical City complex of buildings, which includes several hospitals and a forensic institute.”
“Blackwater USA, an American contractor that provides security to some of the top American officials in Iraq, has been banned from working in the country by the Iraqi government after a shooting that left eight Iraqis dead and involved an American diplomatic convoy,” the New York Times reports. “A spokesman for the Ministry of Interior, Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf, said Monday that authorities had canceled the company’s license and that the government would prosecute the participants.”
“Despite efforts by U.S. forces to recruit and train women for jobs in the Iraqi security forces, just over 1,000 have been trained, many have quit and those who remain say they are struggling for acceptance,” the LA Times reports. “We’re in our posts because the Americans are here,” the army commander said. “Once they leave, we will all be out.”
NATION
“As the government’s signature terrorism-financing trial moved toward a close here Monday, federal prosecutors reaffirmed their charge that the largest Muslim charity in the United States was not simply trying to help poor Palestinians but was in fact an arm of the radical Islamic group Hamas,” the New York Times reports. “The charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, and five of its officers have been on trial here since July 16, charged with conspiracy, money laundering and providing financial support to a foreign terrorist organization.”
“National foreclosure filings in August were up 36 percent from July and 115 percent from August 2006, according to a market forecast out today,” the Boston Globe reports. “Nevada, California, and Florida posted the top state foreclosure rates in August, and Massachusetts was ranked 12th, said RealtyTrac, which defines foreclosure filings as default notices, auction sale notices, and bank repossessions.”
WORLD
“In a controversial step, election officials Monday announced a rule change under which President Pervez Musharraf would be allowed to stand for reelection whilestill serving as head of Pakistan’s military,” the LA Times reports. “At the same time, though, the Supreme Court began hearing legal challenges to Musharraf’s plan to remain army chief as he seeks reelection by lawmakers as head of state early next month.”
“France’s foreign minister,Bernard Kouchner, sought Monday to tone down remarks he made in a radio and television interview the day before that the world had to prepare for possible war against Iran,” the New York Times reports. “Attacked verbally by Iran and quietly criticized within his own government, Mr. Kouchner shifted the focus away from the threat of war and back to a call for hard negotiations as the way to force Iran to abandon key nuclear activities.”
“Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday,” AP reports. “John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.”
“The Sept. 6 attack by Israeli warplanes inside Syria struck what Israeli intelligence believes was a nuclear-related facility that North Korea was helping to equip, according to current and former American and Israeli officials,” the New York Times reports. “Details about the Israeli assessment emerged as China abruptly canceled planned diplomatic talks in Beijing that were to set a schedule to disband nuclear facilities in North Korea.”
President Bush officially nominated Michael Mukasey for Attorney General earlier today, but in spite of cordial remarks and a general atmosphere of approval from Democrats and Republicans, Harry Reid took a swipe at the president, and the president, through his Press Secretary, gave Reid a smack down.
Speaking in the Rose Garden, Mukasey emphasized the importance of adhering to the rule of law and the Constitution. Displaying resolve and what appeared to be a pointed statement to President Bush, Mukasey said the Justice Department “faces challenges vastly different from those it faced when I was an assistant U.S. attorney 35 years ago.” But he said the “principles that guide the department remain the same: to pursue justice by enforcing the law with unswerving fidelity to the Constitution.” (See the video.)
After Bush made the announcement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he was pleased Bush listened to Congress in making his decision and commented positively on Mukasey’s credentials. Reid also said, given Mukasey’s credentials, he “surely understands the importance of checks and balances and knows how to say no to the president when he oversteps the Constitution.”
Bush’s smack down of Reid came during today’s White House press briefing.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters that Bush first met Mukasey on Sept. 1 at the White House and offered him the job on Friday. She said criticism from Reid and other Democrats had no impact on his thinking.
I find it hard to disagree with Perino’s comment. One cannot impact something that does not exist.
Christy at FDL is right — there are benefits when the Democrats show a little spine. Ted Olson was George Bush’s first choice to be Gonzales replacement, but Harry Reid said no, and it worked.
Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general, was said to be a White House favorite for the post. But talk of his possible nomination provoked a preemptive strike from Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who threatened that Senate Democrats would block the nomination.
That may have doomed Olson’s prospects to replace Gonzales, according to several conservatives who talked to Washington Post reporters Michael Abramowitz and Dan Eggen over the weekend. One insider said that in spite of his outstanding legal credentials, Olson, who represented Bush in the Supreme Court fight over the contested 2000 election, would be seen by senators voting on his confirmation as “very political.”
The Dems need to take the same position on Iraq and quit worrying about the ludicrous accusations that will come from Bush-Cheney and the paltry 15% of the people that support the War Mongers.
Apparently the message is starting to sink into some — hopefully John Edwards’ response to Bush’s speech Thursday night stirred up a little dust inside the Beltway. Barack Obama said this weekend he would not vote for any war-funding bills that did not include a timeline for troop withdrawal. I believe Hillary Clinton committed to do the same over the weekend, but I cannot remember where I read it at the moment.
Time has proven George Bush and Dick Cheney will fight to the bitter end. They need to encounter the same resolve from the Dems.
I’ve heard a few comments made by the Washington Pundit Elite that the Senate is so pleased Alberto Gonzales is gone that they will readily confirm Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General in spite of controversial answers he gave in his confirmation hearing last week. 
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) seems to be frustrated over the lack of response or communication from Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey. Leahy made it clear when President Bush nominated Mukasey that he