This is the kind of stuff that makes my wife (a registered Republican) foam at the mouth. She gets so angry when she hears about signing statements and the refusal of the Bush administration to enforce the laws as written by Congress, she starts ranting about how she wants to see them paraded down Pennsylvania Avenue in chains after they are impeached and convicted, etc. It's pretty entertaining (the rant, that is).
These guys are the spiritual successors to Nixon, who famously said that if the President does it (whatever "it" may be), it's not illegal.
This administration will continue to push the line and take whatever they can until Congress stands up. Feinstein and Schumer knew what they were getting when the pushed Mukasey's confirmation through. It's the same story with warrantless surveillance of Americans and retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Many Democrats at the very least allow it and often help enable it.
You've got to be ****ing kidding me. How Mukasey has a job in the legal profession, let alone is the "top" lawyer in the country is a complete ****ing mystery after making such a claim. I'll be extremely disappointed not to see the ABA decry such a ludicrous statement.
Don't believe the hype. Their party will drag them away from any hopes they may have of governing from a rational position. And Lawd he'p us all if something blows up or gets bombed again here- the stupid public's panties will get into such a wad that the rainbow alert system and Patriot Act will seem nonintrusive by comparison. And you with an album cover of the Greatest Country Band Ever- The Eagles. It's not my wish, but the GOP is going to win in November. The masses are too worried about a Black man or a woman in the White House.
If left to his own devices do you really not think Giuliani would continue this nonsense? While he was still a candidate he disagreed with McCain on whether waterboarding is torture, didn't he? Or are you just saying that McCain will rein this crap in regardless of who is AG?
I don't find anything controversial about Mukasey's statements. The short blurb doesn't provide much context, but it sounds to me that he's talking about a doctrine most commonly called "entrapment by estoppel", which is well established in criminal law. The details as to whether it applies to a particular situation or issue can be debated, but as a general proposition this defense was available under criminal law way, way before George W. Bush ever became President. The article sounds like political hyperbole.
OK, so let's say a group that opposes global climate change is interested in protesting at a coal powered plant, and they contact the attorney general and say we want to engage in a protest, but it isn't a civil disobedience thing and we don't want to be arrested, and they lay out their plans. The AG, then say, that seems fine as long as you only do X, Y and Z. The protest goes off without a hitch and the protestors are carefull only to do X Y and Z. Two days later the AG rounds them all up and prosecutes them saying, oh, I'm sorry I was wrong. after the protest somebody pointed out that the courts might believe that doing X is probably considered a violation of some ant-terrorist bills that have been passed. You would all side with the AG and have these guys thrown in jail because after all you have to enforce the laws as written right?
Michael, I am not a fan of that analogy. In it, the protestors and the AG's office are separate entities. In this testimony, you have the AG protecting the administration. New poll has Bush at 30% approval (IIRC) and Congress well below that. I'm not a fan of sail-trimming in politics, but I recognize it's sometimes necessary. Suicidal sail-trimming makes me want to beat up a bunch of fat old Congressmen (and women.)
You are correct. That's exactly what I expect would happen. If the justice department makes a faulty ruling on the law, that does not unmake the law. Therefore, if someone later breaks that law, the law-breaker is still responsible. It seems with Bush, right and wrong have now become conditional.
Of course not. What doe this have to do with the right hand of the Bush administration giving the left hand impunity again? Are you sure you're in the right thread?
Interesting that you're more of a legal expert than our AG, who was stumped to cite a legal precedent.
OK, how about this one then. A defendants is testifying before a committee of a State Legislature. The chairman of the committee tells them that they could assert their right against self-incrimination. They asserted this right, and refused to answer questions. However, state law provided them immunity from prosecution, so the right against self-incrimination was inapplicable, and they were subsequently prosecuted for their failure to answer questions?
First, to say that they cannot be investigated is bunk. Second, there are cases that he could (and should) have been able to cite. "Entrapment by estoppel" implies the government's actions conclusively led the person in question to commit an illegal act and that the person in question was not predisposed to commit an illegal act. There is a lot of context we don't have to assume this precedent is applicable in the instance being debated.
This is where entrapment by estoppel is completely applicable. The protesters would not be guilty because their actions were conclusively dictated by the government's advice.
And, the defendant's reliance upon the legal opinion of his superiors has to be reasonable. Just like a soldier can't get away with shooting civilians simply becuase his officer told him to, despite that the soldier knew full well he would be committing a war crime - the underling can't just ignore a clear and accepted legal understanding that waterboarding is torture, simply because his superior provided a cover memo that said "we know the law better, and we think it's ok". In other words, the AG can't just slap together a bullshit memo that wouldn't pass muster for a 1st year law student and thereby acquire immunity. Also - it's a defense to be raised in the face of a prosecution - it would not prohibit a prosecution.
So are you saying people in the administration are not entitled to the same rights as everybody else? If you can show that somehow the Justice Department was coerced into giving recommendations that they knew to be untrue, then you might have a case, but in general I would think people in the administration should be able to turn to the Justice department for legal advice, and not have to worry that if the advice is bad they will be held persioanlly responsible.
Damn you spoiled it for me! of course I was hoping he would say, sure they broke the law dammit. Since when did liberals become such law and order types anyway?