The ACLU's Demands of the Attorney General Nominee

Brian Doherty | September 17, 2007

Here's what Michael Mukasey has to do to win the ACLU's love. An excerpt:

The Senate should refuse to confirm Michael Mukasey or any nominee unless the nominee promises under oath to take the following four steps within the first thirty days in office:

• Turn over to the Judiciary Committee all documents in the Justice Department's possession concerning the authorization to monitor any phone call in the United States without a warrant, and concerning the use of national security letters to obtain documents anywhere in America.

• Turn over to the Judiciary Committee all documents in the Justice Department's possession authorizing the use of any interrogation or detention practices that are not authorized by the Army Field Manual on Interrogations, as well as any documents interpreting or analyzing any legal prohibitions on torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

• Appoint an outside special counsel for the investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution of any person who violated federal laws protecting detainees against torture and abuse, or who violated federal laws against wiretapping within the United States without a warrant.

• Create a blue-ribbon committee of civil rights advisors to focus on restoring the Civil Rights Division to its historic role as the nation's premier and nonpartisan civil rights enforcement agency.

I question the use of "blue-ribbon committee" type operations, but the rest of it is a good start in ensuring the new guy sees his job as more protecting and defending the Constitution than protecting and defending his boss's behind.

Comments

|9.17.07 @ 2:58PM|#

These confirmation hearings are going to be fun. Unlike Gonzalez who is a moron chroney, Mukasey is a really smart guy. I don't think the members of the judiciary committee want to get into a debate with him. He will crush them. Not that that is much of an achievment but the ACLU might want to pick a fight with an easier target because this guy ain't no Gonzalez.

NP|9.17.07 @ 3:03PM|#

Brian,

Methinks thou dost dream too much.

ACLU|9.17.07 @ 3:09PM|#

... and a pony.

|9.17.07 @ 4:17PM|#

kyle

Does Experience Matter? (Clinton and JFK didn't think so)

Going one for two isn't that good a record.

And Clinton had executive experience (even if it wasn't a big state) going for him anyway. Two terms as AG and two as Governor are not chopped liver experience-wise. Certainly more than Bush II had.

In terms of experience he was up there with "the great ones".

|9.17.07 @ 4:45PM|#

Maybe its just supreme court nominees but I was under the impression that you aren't supposed to say with any specificity how you would do your job in the future.

I doubt the AG nominee can legitimately promise to hand over all this crap when he doesn't have the slightest idea what the situation really is.

Making that promise would be a big old red flag that the dude isn't qualified (even if the govt. really should hand it over).

JBinMO|9.17.07 @ 5:15PM|#

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Morgan|9.17.07 @ 5:27PM|#

It'd also be stupid and just ensure that the acting AG (without any confirmation) would stay there for the 200 or so days he's entitled to without a confirmed replacement.

Fluffy|9.17.07 @ 5:37PM|#

Appoint an outside special counsel for the investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution of any person who violated federal laws protecting detainees against torture and abuse

All those guys were already immunized retroactively by the Military Commissions Act.

|9.17.07 @ 6:07PM|#

Who gives a fuck what the ACLU thinks? Who elected them?

|9.17.07 @ 6:36PM|#

All those guys were already immunized retroactively by the Military Commissions Act.

Not true. The Military Comissions Act merely allows these people to avail themselves of defenses from Section 1004 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Those defenses aren't all encompassing.

|9.17.07 @ 6:43PM|#

Who gives a fuck what the ACLU thinks? Who elected them?

The same guys who elected you.

Fluffy|9.17.07 @ 7:32PM|#

Since one defense the McCain Amendment allows is "obedience to orders", that effectively means that everyone is immunized, Chris.

In addition, since the act neutered the War Crimes Act of 1996, and declared that breaches by US personnel of the Geneva Conventions that did not meet the vague legal standard of being "grave" could not be prosecuted.

|9.17.07 @ 7:54PM|#

The obedience to orders is only available under the below cirsumstances:

"(a) Protection of United States Government Personnel- In any civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States Government who is a United States person, arising out of the officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent's engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity that poses a serious, continuing threat to the United States, its interests, or its allies, and that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or extinguish any defense or protection otherwise available to any person or entity from suit, civil or criminal liability, or damages, or to provide immunity from prosecution for any criminal offense by the proper authorities." (emphasis added)

|9.17.07 @ 7:55PM|#

Don't mind my numerous typos...

Nadine Strossen|9.17.07 @ 8:40PM|#

Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

T A M N Y , T . D .|9.18.07 @ 1:21AM|#

The A . C . L . U . , which long ago evolved into an organization with an overt and obnoxious political agenda , demonstrates so with their ' demands of the A . G . nominee . '

No President - - not even the much - vilified Mr . Bush - - is obligated to mollify ANTHONY ROMERO . The nomination of the Attorney General is still the President ' s prerogative , and given the confrontational bent of CHARLES SCHUMER , BARBARA BOXER et . al . , President Bush might want to consider a recess appointment a ' la ' JOHN BOLTON .

|9.18.07 @ 9:41AM|#

Uh, yeah, because that worked out so well...

jimmy|9.18.07 @ 6:51PM|#

i read in the paper this morning that the president says this nominee knows what it takes to win this war. excuse me??? i thought this was about the AG. was he nominated for secretary of defense and i missed it??? geez, is this guy obsessed, or what?