Mukasey Not Terribly Fond of Rule of Law

Mike Mukasey showed yesterday that he was less the man that mainstream was calling "independent minded" a few weeks ago and more one that carries a brown tinge to his nose, and who thinks that the president is a little too important to be subjected to the "rule of law".

You know that old thing which says everyone from the high to the low must be treated the same, must be subject to the same laws.

Excerpt NY Times report "Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture ": 

On the second day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Mukasey went further than he had the day before in arguing that the White House had constitutional authority to act beyond the limits of laws enacted by Congress, especially when it came to national defense.

He suggested that both the administration’s program of eavesdropping without warrants and its use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects, including waterboarding, might be acceptable under the Constitution even if they went beyond what the law technically allowed. Mr. Mukasey said the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress.

The tone of questioning was far more aggressive than on Wednesday, the first day of the hearings, as Mr. Mukasey, a retired federal judge, was challenged by Democrats who pressed him for his views on President Bush’s disputed antiterrorism policies.

In the case of the eavesdropping program, Mr. Mukasey suggested that the president might have acted appropriately under his constitutional powers in ordering the surveillance without court approval even if federal law would appear to require a warrant.

“The president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law,” said Mr. Mukasey, who seemed uncomfortable with the aggressive tone, occasionally stumbling in his responses. “The president doesn’t stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution.”

 If the doublespeak in that last paragraph doesn't make your head spin, I don't know what will.

This is the man that mainstream told us would not be a toady to the Bush administration.

Drollery ensued:

The remarks about the eavesdropping program drew criticism from the committee’s chairman, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, who told Mr. Mukasey that he was troubled by his answer, adding, “I see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.”

Mukasey apparently made certain he wouldn't know what he was talking about when dealing with some alleged forms of torture.

“I don’t know what is involved in the technique,” Mr. Mukasey replied. “If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.”

Um. Didn't he think the issue would come up? Senator Whitehouse even described the technique to him, but the nominee couldn't imagine his way through to a conclusion.  Not to mention that the issue has been before the public for years.  Hasn't he, like most concerned adults, just once tried to imagine how it feels for the waterboarded?

Mukasey, another Giuliani pick for the administration, seems a lot like WTC 7.  We won't know how bad a selection it was until it's too late.  

About his change from a more cooperative stance the day before Mukasey said he received no criticism from the White House overnight.

(So I guess we can assume that horse's head on the coverlet was just decorative, right Mike?) 

File this under "What kind of BS a person will throw around to get a cabinet-level position" 

tags: mukasey  attorney general  confirmation hearings  senate  whitehouse  leahy  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit