Here’s your unaccountable executive branch

Attorney general: No waterboarding investigation - CNN.com

Attorney General Michael Mukasey told lawmakers Thursday he will not open a criminal investigation into the CIA’s acknowledged use of “waterboarding” on terror suspects.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey testifies on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers asked Mukasey bluntly whether he was starting a criminal investigation since CIA chief Michael Hayden has confirmed the use of waterboarding.

“No, I am not, for this reason: Whatever was done as part of a CIA program at the time that it was done was the subject of a Department of Justice opinion through the Office of Legal Counsel and was found to be permissible under the law as it existed then,” he said.

In other words: “It’s not illegal if Alberto Gonzales said it wasn’t illegal.”

I expect the conservative outcry to begin … well, never.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on 08 Feb 2008 at 11:24 am

    Atty. Gen. Opposes Drug Sentencing Changes…

    Attorney General Michael Mukasey wants Congress to act within weeks to prevent the release of thousa…

Comments

  1. Redhand wrote:

    Why am I not surprised by Muk’s stonewalling? You can bet your rear end he was vetted on this issue before being nominated. He’ll turn out to be yet another individual who disgraces himself by association with this gang of criminals.

    Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 6:45 pm

  2. David C. wrote:

    “Whatever was done as part of a CIA program at the time that it was done was the subject of a Department of Justice opinion through the Office of Legal Counsel and was found to be permissible under the law as it existed then,” he said.

    That’s seems pretty straightforward. In my opinion there’s no reason for any “outcry” from conservatives — leaving aside the fact that most conservatives favor waterboarding terrorists.

    gang of criminals

    Yeah, a gang of criminals who committed no actual crimes. Policy differences aren’t crimes. The administration may be incompetent — there’s plenty of evidence to support that conclusion, but criminal? Mainly in the minds of BDS types.

    Posted 08 Feb 2008 at 9:46 am

  3. canuckistani wrote:

    “Whatever was done as part of a CIA program at the time that it was done was the subject of a Department of Justice opinion through the Office of Legal Counsel and was found to be permissible under the law as it existed then,” he said.

    It sounds pretty clear to me, too. Somebody in authority said it was ok, so it must have been ok, and the legal system can f*** off and mind its own business.
    If you think it was legal, then put it to a court test and prove it. Don’t rely on the opinion of one of least respected AG’s since Mitchell.

    Posted 08 Feb 2008 at 12:38 pm

  4. David C. wrote:

    If you think it was legal, then put it to a court test and prove it.

    Oh so now people accused by political opponents of doing something illegal have to prove their innocence?

    Interrogations of terrorists was a situation for which we had no hard and fast rules — exactly the type of scenario in which the Executive has to make a judgement call. And obviously they are going to rely on their legal counsel when making that judgement. You don’t like the counsel or their judgment, fine. But let’s not pretend it was some sort of crime.

    Posted 08 Feb 2008 at 6:03 pm

  5. canuckistani wrote:

    Oh so now people accused by political opponents of doing something illegal have to prove their innocence?

    Yes. Yes they do. They get the assumption of innocence before the eyes of the court, but they still have to remain accountable to the law.
    If my neighbour accuses me of shooting his dog, we go to court to settle the question of guilt. If someone accuses the President or the CIA of breaking the law, he doesn’t get to say “No court for me, the Attorney General said it was ok”. That’s for the judge and jury to decide.
    Up here north of the 49th parallel, we call that “accountability”.

    Posted 08 Feb 2008 at 6:12 pm

  6. John the Marine wrote:

    If my neighbour accuses me of shooting his dog, we go to court to settle the question of guilt.

    Unless your dog is alive and there is no evidence to support your neighbors accusation. Which is precisely the case with waterboarding terrorists. It wasn’t crime under the law, neither written statute nor court president.

    Posted 09 Feb 2008 at 7:47 am

  7. Grim wrote:

    If someone accuses the President or the CIA of breaking the law, he doesn’t get to say “No court for me, the Attorney General said it was ok”. That’s for the judge and jury to decide.

    Well, no, not in the American system. If I get arrested, the DA is fully within his rights to say, “In spite of the arrest, I don’t think he committed a crime according to the statute,” and let me go without trial; just as he is free to decide how he wants to categorize the crime if he does try me (e.g., was this simple assault or aggravated assault?).

    This is called “prosecutorial discretion.” It’s a solidly established principle of law.

    Posted 09 Feb 2008 at 8:45 am

  8. Grim wrote:

    That discretion, by the way, is why plea bargains work. The DA can say, “I could interpret this as murder, since you killed a man; but I could call it simple assault, since you just punched him in the nose and he only died when he fell down and busted his head. If you will plead guilty to simple assault, I’ll choose not to prosecute you for murder.”

    I actually saw this happen once, except it was aggravated assault he had the guy plead to — 20 years, for punching a guy in the nose. I asked, “What was the aggravating factor?”

    The answer: “Assault with a deadly weapon.”

    “What deadly weapon? Did he pick up the earth and clobber the guy with it?”

    “Well, it must have been a deadly weapon: the guy died.”

    That DA went on to become a judge. You want to talk about abuses of the law, there you go.

    Posted 09 Feb 2008 at 8:52 am

  9. David C. wrote:

    If Obama or Hillary wins this year, I’m sure all those on the Left are going to want the President hauled into court every time some right-wing Republican accuses him/her of doing something illegal.

    Posted 09 Feb 2008 at 5:41 pm

« Respectfulness at Appomattox
Mitt cannot aid surrender to terror »