Monday, July 21, 2008

Once again, our "Attorney General" unclear on the concept

Dubya consiglier... -- umm, sorry, "Attorney General" -- Michael Mukasey wants Congress to 'fix' the adverse decision by the Supreme Court in Boumediene and pass a new law to reinstate the Dubya practises found wanting, which is to say, no court review of the maladministration's handling of detainees:
[Mukasey]: “... uncertainty is not the only, or even the main, reason these issues should not be left to the courts alone to resolve. There is also the question of which branches of government are best suited to resolve them. . . . Congress and the Executive Branch are affirmatively charged by our Constitution with protecting national security, are expert in such matters, and are in the best position to weigh the difficult policy choices that are posed by these issues. Judges play an important role in deciding whether a chosen policy is consistent with our laws and the Constitution, but it is our elected leaders who have the responsibility for making policy choices in the first instance.”
h/t to Digby for the quote from Mukasey's testimony.

(BTW, thanks, Chucky Schumer and Dianne Feinstein for enabling this travesty of an appointment)

You know, "three strikes, you're out" is a popular RW 'legal maxim'. After Hamdi and Rasul, then Hamdan, and now Boumediene, and also after passing the DTA, found wanting, followed by the MCA, also found wanting, you'd think they'd learn....

But what to make of this reasoning?: "Congress and the Executive Branch are affirmatively charged by our Constitution with protecting national security, are expert in such matters, and are in the best position to weigh the difficult policy choices that are posed by these issues. Judges play an important role in deciding whether a chosen policy is consistent with our laws and the Constitution, but it is our elected leaders who have the responsibility for making policy choices in the first instance." Hey Mukasey!!! Didn't you just say that it is the responsibility of the courts to make sure that the executive's actions (and policies) are consistent with the law and the Constitution? If so, then what's the matter with the court doing what it's supposed to be doing?!?!? Why do you now insist on a replay of the Hamdi/Rasul/Hamdan/Boumediene stuff? And why should matters of nash'null secur'tah lead to shortcuts and end-arounds round our time-tested legal process? Where in the Constitution does it say that should happen?


Update

More from consigliere Mukasey:
“Fourth, any legislation should acknowledge again and explicitly that the Nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans—soldiers and civilians alike.”
A backdoor attempt to get Congress to sign on to a "declaration of war" in perpetuity, so as to be able to argue Congress gave Dubya "war powers" again?!?!? Outside of that, I see no purpose of insisting on this provision....

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home