| By Ken - Oct 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: 1stProtestinTheStreet.Org | Broom Brigade | CivicSatisfaction.org | Denver County | Operation Bird Dog- Colorado |
I caught this off Truthout.org on Micheal Mukasey, Bush's nomination for Attorney General:
WASHINGTON — President Bush's choice for attorney general told senators Friday the Constitution does not prevent the president from wiretapping suspected terrorists without a court order.
Michael Mukasey said the president cannot use his executive power to get around the Constitution and laws prohibiting torture. But wiretapping suspected terrorists' without warrants is not precluded, he said.
Read the rest here.
What's the point that Judge Mukasey is making? I fail to see the distinction that Judge Mukasey is seeing with regard to how this administration's lawyers at the Office of Legal Consul and the White House legal staff. How can you say that torture is a not legal under the auspices of the Constitution but still argue that surveillence is to be condoned in contradiction to the Bill of Rights?
The legal reasoning by him will not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
"Torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment are prohibited by the laws of the United States, which of course includes the Constitution," Mukasey wrote. In contrast, "the weight of authority indicates that warrantless surveillance to collect foreign intelligence is not unconstitutional so long as it is otherwise reasonable."
Judge Mukasey is setting a very low standard of judicial proof- reasonable versus probably cause. Again this is moot since he is backing up the administration's legal argument that the judicial branch has no purvey in how or why surveillence of Americans is justified.
He is not qualified to be the Attorney General because his answers to the Senate Judiciary questions are not forthright in clarity to key constitutional issues that are in play with this administration.
Tell Senator Salazar that Judge Mukasey should be voted down.
Comments are closed for this post.