MUKASEY, Torture, and a Special Prosecutor. A Conflict of Interest Conundrum.

[L. Coyote]

Some are asking, "What did Bush know and when did he know it?"
Some are asking, "What did Pelosi know and when did she know it?"

I'm asking, "What did Mukasey know and when did he know it?"

Mukasey may have refused to answer the water torture question during his confirmation hearings because HIS OWN judgment was on the line.

Did Mukasey knowing use illegally obtained evidence in the Padilla ruling?
Had Mukasey already made the determination that water torture was just fine in his court?

Here is why this question arises. MrJJ's comment on TPM words this well:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004888.php

.... Mukasey may have a conflict of interest problem already, and may have to call upon a Special Prosecutor.

Jose Padilla’s lawyers argued before the Florida Federal Court that Abu Zubaydah was tortured into saying Padilla was an al Qaeda associate. The DOJ dismissed Padilla’s allegations as “meritless,” asserting Padilla’s legal team could not prove that Abu Zubaydah had been tortured. Well, it’s clear now that they certainly COULD have, if the tapes of the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah had been made available!

Now here is where Mukasey’s role comes into question. U.S. District Judge Mukasey, now attorney general, was the one who signed the warrant used by the FBI to arrest Padilla in May 2002. Court records show the warrant relied in part on information obtained from Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation. .....

The Attorney General can only issue a warrant based upon legally obtained evidence, and confessions under torture are certainly not “legally obtained”. So either Mukasey was misrepresented the evidence, and would be liable to be potentially a party in those who were presented with “perjured evidence”; or he knew that torture was used in obtaining the confession and ignored it.

In either case he is unsuitable to run an investigation, as it will, inevitably, involved himself. Thus a Special Prosecutor is necessary.

I'm also asking, "Are we back where we started, with an Attorney General who is guilty of politization of justice?"

I'm also asking, "Did George W. "Waterboard" Bush foist a co-conspirator on the U. S. Senate and the American People?"

This seems to be where inquiries will now, of necessity, need to focus first!
Deja Vu. We are back where we started all over again.

First, we need a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Junta's new Attorney General!

[L. Coyote]

1. Mukasey Refuses To Call Waterboarding ‘Torture’ w/VIDEO

Mukasey Refuses To Call Waterboarding ‘Torture’
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/18/mukasey-torture/


Throughout his nomination hearings, Attorney General nominee Mike Mukasey has consistently denounced the use of torture. Torture is “antithetical to what this country stands for,” he said yesterday. “I would be uncomfortable with any evidence used in trial that is coerced,” he added.

But under questioning from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) today, Mukasey refused to classify the practice of waterboarding — in which a suspect has water poured over his face to simulate drowning — as unconstitutional, repeatedly claiming it depends on how one defines “torture”:

MUKASEY: If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional. <…>

WHITEHOUSE: If it’s torture. That’s a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn’t. Do you have an opinion on whether waterboarding…is constitutional?

MUKASEY: If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.

WHITEHOUSE: I’m very disappointed in that answer. I think it is purely semantic.

MUKASEY: I’m sorry.

Watch it:

[Disturbed]

2. Mukasey has to recuse himself from this case.

The Padilla Case will be appealed on these grounds, as well as the Musawi Case.

Transcripts of the Interrogations might still be available even though the tapes have been claimed to
be destroyed. With these folk it is not sure that those tapes were actually destroyed or they are just saying they were. The transcripts need to be under Subpoena now.

[L. Coyote]

3. "it is not up to President Bush to declare waterboarding is okay."

Waterboarding and Torture
By Larry Johnson | http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/12/waterboarding_and_torture


The media are woefully ignorant on the subject of waterboarding and torture. Consider the coverage of former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, who is telling his story as an interrogator of Abu Zubaydah and insisting that waterboarding is an effective technique. ABC and CNN are repeating this absurd propaganda. However, if you read the transcript of his interview some key points are obscured in the media propaganda push:

* Kiriakou never witnessed the waterboarding. It was carried out by another group of individuals (nfi).
* None of the information provided by Zubaydah concerned threats inside the United States.

...... Unfortunately, the media are helping perpetuate several myths about waterboarding. Last Sunday in the Washington Post, for example, ...

it is worth noting that waterboarding is torture as defined in the Convention Against Torture & Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention defines torture as:

. . . any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Writers and editors at the Post and other newspapers should also consult the following sections of this Convention:

* Article 2 - No Exceptional Circumstances Warranting Torture
* Article 3 - No State Party shall expel, return (”refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
* Article 4 - Acts of Torture Are Criminal Offenses
* Article 10 - Education & Information Regarding Prohibition on Torture Provided in Training
* Article 16 - Each State to Prevent Acts of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Since the United States is a signatory to this Convention, it is not up to President Bush to declare waterboarding is okay. It is not. It is torture. Plain and simple.

[annabanana]

4. Will Mukasey willingly stand naked for B*shCo?

Will he be willing to throw all pretense of judicial rectitude out the window like Abu Gonzales did? Because that is EXACTLY what will be asked of him.

[gratuitous]

5. According to the nitwits on the Committee

I think it was Schumer who said that once they confirmed him, Mukasey would be responsive to the Senate's concerns. Well Chuck, how responsive is the AG now?

[L. Coyote]

8. Indeed. We are still waiting on the waterboarding response. Is this why?

[L. Coyote]

6. Investigations of the Destruction of CIA Torture Tapes and the ACLU Court Order

John Dean presents an interesting legal perspective on the tape destruction. It violated a sweeping federal court order!

================
The Investigations of the Destruction of CIA Torture Tapes: How An ACLU Lawsuit Might Force the Bush Administration To Reveal What Actually Happened
By JOHN W. DEAN - Dec. 14, 2007 - http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20071214.html


By my count, there appear to be no less than ten preliminary investigations underway, ........

There are three court orders that may have been violated, but one in particular strikes me as a very serious problem for the CIA. Accordingly, we may well be in the unique situation in which a pending civil lawsuit might flush out some answers.... the Bush Administration thinks nothing of stiffing federal court judges who seek information ....

Nevertheless, the situation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as a result of Freedom of Information Act requests by the American Civil Liberties Union, could well force the Bush Administration's hand. An order holding the CIA in contempt of court might get the Administration's attention.

The ACLU's Lawsuit, and the Order that the CIA Produce Documents

.... the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request targeting the CIA and others on October 7, 2003 and May 25, 2004, seeking records concerning the treatment of all detainees apprehended after September 11, 2001 and held in U.S. custody abroad. This, of course, would mean not only in Guantanamo but in the secret prisons in Eastern Europe operated by the CIA.

Not surprisingly, the government stiffed the request, so the ACLU filed a lawsuit in June 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case ended up in the courtroom of Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. On September 15, 2004, Judge Hellerstein ordered the CIA and other government departments to "produce or identify" all responsive documents by October 15, 2004.

The CIA claimed that some of the relevant documents were the subject of an inquiry by the CIA's Office of the Inspector General, so its attorneys requested a stay of the judge's order and an extension of time to comply with the request for other documents. In February 2005, Judge Hellerstein denied the CIA's request for a stay, but he did not enforce the stay immediately when the CIA moved for the judge to reconsider his ruling based on additional evidence from the CIA's Director - as the CIA entered a full-court press to prevent the ACLU from getting anything.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

7. Already recommended.

Nice work L. Coyote.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

9. Why did Schumer foist upon us this Mukasey?

this insanity is never going to end.

[L. Coyote]

10. I am asking that question too. My guess is lessor of many evils that GW could nominate

and to avoid having Justice under Peter Kiesler until 2009, or Ted Olsen. Another possibility is a personal relationship of some sort, like same synagogue or some professional relation providing direct experience.

I realize, moreso now, that there is a lot we are not being told. The focus on the waterboarding has taken on new meaning now that we all know USG/CIA is destroying evidence of torture. Apparently, Congress knew this in a classified way before it was forced out. How much more and what else in the way of classified information underlies his nomination process?

Democracy does not work well when the People co not have the facts. This is illustrative.

I sent these questions to a legal scholar with far more insight into the situation.

[KharmaTrain]

11. On Piece In A Large Puzzle

The other day we were discussing Mukasey and I brought out how he is a firewall for this regime. You, rightly, brought up his involvement in the Padilla case and his conflicts...but I think there's a far bigger picture here.


Mukasey, if he were ever able to speak out, has been bought off by this regime, but he only knows of this case and not of many others, known and unknown, that involve torture or forced rendition or other war crimes that this regime wants hidden for as long as possible. Gonzo knew where all the bodies were burried, where Mukasey knows only a few, thus when investigators come calling, he can feign ignorance about the cases and this regime gets to stonewall until he "gets up to speed"...if at all.

Face it, the need for a special prosecutor has been long overdue regarding the Justice Department...the politization of the Department is one of the greatest threats to our civil liberties and abuses and crimes must be investigated and prosecuted before they become codified.

While Mukasey is a toadie...we all knew that (this regime would throw up another one), the real investigations must continue to focus on Gonzo...the consigliere...the fixer.

[L. Coyote]

12. ACLU Outlines Reasons Why Independent Prosecutor Is Necessary

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1213-18.htm

WASHINGTON - December 13 -- The American Civil Liberties Union today sent a detailed 12-page letter to all members of Congress urging them to demand that Attorney General Mukasey appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any violations of federal criminal laws related to the interrogation of detainees, including any obstruction of justice.

The letter outlines ten reasons why the Senate should ask for an independent prosecutor. They are:

1. There is credible evidence of numerous federal crimes
2. Attempts to shield government officials from criminal prosecution were pursued by the White House, including by the president and vice president
3. Attorney General Mukasey still refuses to say whether waterboarding and other forms of torture are illegal
4. The current head of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department was in meetings on interrogations
5. The past head of the Criminal Division reportedly advised on interrogation practices, possibly including the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah
6. The Justice Department wrote the legal opinions authorizing torture
7. The Justice Department has failed to bring any indictments based on twenty CIA and DOD referrals of possible crimes by civilians
8. Military prosecutors have not gone up the chain of command
9. Further delay in criminal investigations could put some crimes outside the statutes of limitation
10. Congress and the agencies have failed in holding torture perpetrators accountable

"These tapes were sought by courts, Congress and the 9/11 Commission, and their destruction raises serious concerns of criminal obstruction of justice. But the tapes depicted far more serious criminal activity," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Limiting an independent prosecutor solely to any misconduct in the destruction of the tapes could end up being a further miscarriage of justice."

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel with the ACLU said, "Prosecutors should look beyond these videotapes and investigate the bigger problem of roughly six years of unpunished torture crimes. The range of alleged crimes is breathtaking in its scope, from obstruction of justice to torture to homicide. But because the torture program involved top officials in the White House, CIA, Justice Department, and Defense Department, only an independent prosecutor who can act outside the influence and control of this Administration can be trusted."

[L. Coyote]

13. MUST READ: "The President’s Coming-Out Party" == Okay, Yes, I Tortured!

Of course, the first person I thought should read this OP, and who could
shed some light on the issue, was Scott Horton. So, I sent him an alert.

================================
The President’s Coming-Out Party
BY Scott Horton - Dec 15, 2007 - http://harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001917

This has been an important week in the torture debate in America. It has been the week of the President’s coming-out party. Up until this point, torture has been something that “a few rotten apples” do. When evidence of it erupted in the media, a few grunts were quickly rounded up and scapegoated. Never officers, mind you—after all, they generally knew where the orders came from, and if you prosecuted them, they might just tell.

But this week, a CIA agent, John Kiriakou, appeared, first on ABC News and then in an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer, and explained just how the system works. When we want to torture someone (and it is torture he said, no one involved with these techniques would ever think anything different), we have to write it up. The team leader of the torture team proposes what torture techniques will be used and when. He sends it to the Deputy Chief of Operations at the CIA. And there it is reviewed by the hierarchy of the Company. Then the proposal is passed to the Justice Department to be reviewed, blessed, and it is passed to the National Security Council in the White House, to be reviewed and approved. The NSC is chaired, of course, by George W. Bush, whose personal authority is invoked for each and every instance of torture authorized. And, according to Kiriakou as well as others, Bush’s answer is never “no.” He has never found a case where he didn’t find torture was appropriate.

.......

This is the background against which the current acts of the new Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey must be judged. As I noted previously, there is a strong basis to fear that Mukasey came up through a litmus test under which he was required to do two things: (1) to give his commitment to continue to provide cover for the torture system, and (2) to block any effort to have a meaningful criminal investigation that would disclose the torture system or any of its details. As things now stand, it looks like Mukasey is delivering on these test points. He’s been on the job for a month, and he continues to publicly refrain from expressing an opinion on waterboarding. This signals that there has been no change in the status quo ante, namely, torture techniques including waterboarding remain on the agenda, available for use.

So that takes us to the key question of getting to the bottom of it. The Justice Department has announced an “initial probe” into the destruction of the CIA torture tapes. There is no credible basis upon which this can be viewed as anything other than a conscious crime. The tapes were destroyed, .............

DISCUSS at: Mukasey's Litmus Test-1) Cover-up Torture 2) Block Criminal Investigations (Scott Horton)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2473859

PLEASE Rec that important thread!!!

[spanone]

14. this is why the democrats should have fully rejected his nomination

but, don't get me started.

[L. Coyote]

15. I fear we have a wiser, more clever enabler now than before.

Time will tell. I'll know I'm wrong if they handcuff Bush before sunrise on Monday.

I'd suggest putting him on a plane to Paraguay in his pajamas, but I'd prefer a trial in de Hague,

[L. Coyote]

16. Senator Patrick Leahy On Attorney General Mukasey’s Response

Reaction Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
On Attorney General Mukasey’s Response To Leahy-Specter Letter About The Department
Of Justice’s Investigation Into The Destruction Of CIA Interrogation Tapes

December 14, 2007 - http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200712/121407a.html

“I am disappointed that the Department of Justice declined to provide us, either publicly or in a classified setting, with any of the information Senator Specter and I have requested. The Judiciary Committee has an important role in the oversight of the Department of Justice. Oversight fosters accountability. This Committee needs to fully understand whether the government used cruel interrogation techniques and torture, contrary to our basic values.

“I will ask Attorney General Mukasey -- in public and on the record -- more about the Department’s knowledge of and role in the existence and destruction of these videotapes at the Committee’s next oversight hearing, which I intend to call early next year. The Committee will also look forward to hearing from Deputy Attorney General nominee Mark Filip about this matter at his confirmation hearing on December 19.”

To read a PDF of Mukasey's letter, click here. http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200712/121407LeahySpecterFromMukasey.pdf

[deacon]

17. "Are we back where we started..." certainly looks that way. What an terrible decision by congress.