Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Not Crazy About Mukasey
Michael Mukasey emerges from the press coverage of his nomination as smarter and more thoughtful than Alberto Gonzales, more popular with Democrats, and possibly a little less dedicated to a maximalist view of the president's powers in fighting terrorism. Mukasey's closeness to Rudy Giuliani, whose main claim to the presidency is that he's a Strong Leader who will do what is necessary to defeat terrorism, is unsettling. On the brighter side, at least some defense attorneys who appeared before Mukasey when he was a federal judge describe him as fair-minded and deny that he was overly deferential to the government.
In 2002 Mukasey upheld President Bush's detention of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil, as an "enemy combatant," saying Bush was "operating at maximum authority" under the Constitution and the post-9/11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. But he rejected the administration's contention that Padilla had no right to a lawyer and said the government had to present "some evidence to support the president's finding."
After several years in military custody, Padilla was ultimately convicted in a civilian court. In the mid-1990s Mukasey himself presided over the successful prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman for conspiring to blow up targets in New York City. Yet he is skeptical of treating terrorists as criminals, saying trials risk exposing information useful to jihadists.
Mukasey is also described as an advocate of broad surveillance powers to prevent terrorist attacks. I'm not sure whether that means he wants Congress to grant them or thinks the president has the inherent authority to exercise them, no matter what Congress (or the courts) might say. The Padilla decision provides some hope that Mukasey would be more protective of civil liberties than Gonzales was and less inclined to support breaking the law in the name of national security—although that description also applies to John Ashcroft, which suggests how low Gonzales has set the bar.
|9.21.07 @ 1:39PM|#
"In the mid-1990s Mukasey himself presided over the successful
prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman for conspiring to blow up targets
in New York City. Yet he is skeptical of treating terrorists as
criminals, saying trials risk exposing information useful to
jihadists."
Perhaps that is because he and his family were under 24 hour armed
guard for the entire length of the trial. Mukasey knows better than
anyone the challenges and dangers of prosecuting a terrorist case.
Look around the world, anywhere where terrorists are tried in the
criminal justice system, Peru and Columbia come to mind, the tactic
is, kill the judges and prosecutors. Mukasey knows this first hand.
Of course, I am sure all of the brave writers as reason would say
from the safety of their offices "too bad that is your job to risk
getting blown up". Well, generally it is not their job now and you
can certainly undrerstand why they want to leave that job to the
military.
|9.21.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Wait a second, I thought people sitting in their offices were in such danger of being killed by terrorists that their telephones, email servers, and workspaces were appropriate spheres for the Commander in Chief to treat according to his war powers.
|9.21.07 @ 1:43PM|#
also, John, Peru and Colombia are very different places than the
United States, places where (as I understand it) criminal gangs and
terrorists have power parity with the legitimate government, either
through bribing police forces or just having all the guns and
cojones.
It's hard to imagine a prosecutor being blown up on the way to the
office, and if it did happen you can guaran-damn-tee it would be
offset by strict security for the states side in any such
trial.
|9.21.07 @ 1:44PM|#
I'd be a lot more concerned about Mukasey's ties to Benito if he didn't have a pre-existing professional relationship with him during their years working in the same courthouses.
|9.21.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Hence the term, Banana Republicans.
They look at Columbia, Peru, of El Salvador and say "More like
that, please."
|9.21.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Addendum: if these prosecutors really believe they are fighting, like the brave 301st Keyboard division, in the most important struggle of our lifetimes, they should be willing to put some skin in the game. Not to be like the rest of the "brave writers at reason."
|9.21.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Randolph,
Perhaps the FBI and the US Marshall service were dreaming up the
threats to Mukasey and wasting your tax dollars. If they were I
would like to hear why other than "this is not Peru". Indeed, every
country that has ever delt with serious terrorism has ended up
creating secret courts to deal with it. We all sit around and slam
on Peru, but I would like to see anyone on this thread go down and
deal with the Shining Path. Perhaps the US really can be the first
country in history to deal with terror by giving every terrorist a
gold plated federal trial complete with Lynn Stewart as a defense
attorney passing notes to the "resistance" as she does so. If that
is the case, we really are as cool as we think we are or there
really isn't much of a threat.
|9.21.07 @ 1:50PM|#
Michael Mukasey emerges from the press coverage of his
nomination as smarter and more thoughtful than Alberto
Gonzales...
Now that is truly damning with faint praise.
Episiarch|9.21.07 @ 1:50PM|#
They look at Columbia, Peru, of El Salvador and say "More
like that, please."
I don't think that's what John was saying, joe. Though I do agree
with Randolph that federal judges and the like should put their
money where their mouth is. Also remember that federal judges are
much higher forms of political life than us plebes and have federal
carry permits, can get armed guards, etc.
|9.21.07 @ 1:53PM|#
John, if you're calling a trial by the jury of your peers
"gold-plated," I can't really help you out.
I wasn't saying that there is no risk to any prosecutor, simply
that that risk is an acceptable one, and it holds for any type of
organization that has one of its members under trial. We don't have
secret courts for mobsters, do we?
Episiarch|9.21.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Or to put it more simply, if you want to be a federal judge, with all the perks, power, and priveledge that provides, you have to take the occasional risk that might come along.
|9.21.07 @ 1:57PM|#
E,
I think that's exactly what John is saying, and he makes it pretty
clear in his next comment.
What's next, hoods on the judges?
And judges and prosecutors DO put their "skin in the game." Woody
Harrelson's father in serving a life sentence for murdering a
federal judge as a hit man. A prosecutor in Philly was killed a
couple years ago.
Episiarch|9.21.07 @ 2:03PM|#
Woody Harrelson's father in serving a life sentence for
murdering a federal judge as a hit man.
I did not know this. Now I am intrigued. Well, not really. Maybe if
I get high.
|9.21.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Whoa, you want to eat cereal in Denver?
Because that's totally what this conversation is about.
|9.21.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Oh, c'mon. Did anybody think that bush would nominate an AG with
an expansive view on civil liberties? Will Clinton or Obama? Nah.
The AG, is almost required to despise civil liberties because they
are perceivd to interfere with his/her law enforcement
mission.
Do you many cops who think they have too much authority?
Doctor Duck|9.21.07 @ 2:25PM|#
smarter and more thoughtful than Alberto Gonzales
Not to mention, slimmer and more agile than Roseanne Barr.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245