« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Mukasey: I'm Open to Compromise... As Long As The Telecoms Get Retroactive Immunity
Attorney General Michael Mukasey has an open mind. Way open. From The Legal Times' blog:
"We need to stay engaged here because the stakes are tremendous," Mukasey said. "We're willing and happy to work with Congress on a workable bill. The Senate passed a workable, bipartisan bill that contains some compromises. The House passed a bill that was neither bipartisan nor workable."While Mukasey offered no hint that a compromise is in the works, he said the House proposal does not offer guarantees to the communications industry.
"The people we work with need to know that they can be secure in working with us," he said. "That would introduce the same level of uncertainty that would be introduced by having litigation go on in public...If you tell somebody that you've received assurances, but the propriety of your conduct is now up for grabs, that's not exactly reassuring."
Advertisement
Josh
Zachary
Like the typical Bushie we now know him to be, Mukasey means he's open to "compromise" as long as things are done his way.
-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
March 21, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps what he means is that he likes the idea of other people compromising.
March 21, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some compromise. Hands up! don't anybody move! give me everything I ask for!
March 21, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to post again but I reiterate a rehtorical question:
If the wiretaps were legal why do the telcos need immunity?
March 21, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
For all intents and purposes, we should just consider Mukasey to be Bush's lawyer--so, when he says, 'we' he means himself, Bush and Barney. 'We' need to get it done, because if 'we' don't, 'we' will be in trouble.
See how well that works?
The other lost aspect of 'we's' fear mongering is that
a.) said programs existed *before* 9/11
and
b.) 'traditional' intelligence was working fine before 9/11--Richard Clarke and Colleen Rowley did their job, it was their superiors who were grossly negligent, and all the illegal spying in the world won't change that fact.
Mukasey is a lawyer, so why not settle this in court? I'd always heard that a lawyer willing to settle was a lawyer who didn't want to go to court--for obvious reasons.
March 21, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought he was Attorney General? Why does he concern himself with partisan/non-partisan aspects of this issue?
Oh. Right. Consigliere personale, NOT Attorney General.
March 21, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
we're willing to compromise with mukasy, just as long as immunity ISN'T a part of the bill
see how that works
guess we ain't gonna compromise with mukasy
we don't have to do a FUCKING THING
bush and mukasy are the ones with a problem
March 21, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody should advise that him to reread Dr. Zhivago. The lawyer doing the negotiating survived, at least for a while. Those who work for those with unclean ends end up being flushed. Like toilet paper. Mukasey's got the stuff all over him now.
March 21, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
An Attorney General that insists on allowing corporations to commit federal crimes.
Huh.
March 22, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about this for "working" with people...
GET A FUCKING WARRANT!!
March 22, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent question, Elbonian. May I take it one step further?
How can the telecoms not cooperate with a legally served warrant?
Mukasey has warned before that the telecoms wouldn't be cooperative if they didn't get immunity. He's focusing more now on the ex post facto worries of the telecoms, but, as Elbonian implied, the wiretaps are claimed to be legal.
I would think the telecoms would welcome the House's bill, because this would take them off the kind of hook they were put on before: asked to do something without a warrant (which they had to know was illegal) but worried that if they didn't, there'd be repercussions. And all we have to do is to ask former CEO Joe Nacchio about that one.
Jeez, I hope the Congress doesn't get a case of the jitters on this again. They've got a solid, workable bill from the House that takes all the worries off of everyone's shoulders and leaves it up to a judge's discretion, which is where it should have been put in the first place.
March 22, 2008 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
March 22, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush and Mukasey shouldn't be allowed to say that if we prosecute telecoms they'll stop helping the government. The media and the democrats should be calling them out on this outright lie.
As you said, telecoms ARE REQUIRED AND HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO HONOR any subpoenas or warrants they are served.
AND, FISA further requires them to assist the government in any wiretapping before a warrant is granted (since the original FISA bill allowed for 72 hours of tapping before getting a warrant.)
Why doesn't anybody in the media call the Administration out on this lie?
March 22, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mukasey definition of comprimise = you give & I get!
March 22, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mukasey has shown now that he is a hack! The Attorney General is supposed to be independent, NOT a mouthpiece for the White House. If any of you Right Wing Nuts out there doubt it, just go back to the record ad see the trouble that Janet Reno cause Bill Clinton! That is what the AG does.
He has NO business getting into this partisan baloney.
NO TO TELECOM IMMUNITY! We have had enough of this President's arrogant disregard for the rule of law. He is once again covering his own flank and trying to scare the public about national security. The real issue is that if these lawsuits go forward, the rules of discovery will allow the public to see what Bush has been up to in secret since BEFORE 9/11. He may have gotten away with his lawlessness for 7 years, but he is going to finish his term UNDER the RULE of LAW. IF the suits show that he and Cheney will fully broke the law then now is their time to pay the fiddler for 7 years of boogying!
We the people WILL NOT let up on Congress. They are finished if they cave into Bush this time. We will throw their behinds out and they know it!
My fellow citizens-let us send another 1,000,000 letters to congress.
NO IMMUNITY!
March 22, 2008 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mukasey can't have it both ways. Is he the Attorney General for the United States, or the personal attorney for George W. Bush?
I'm no attorney, but it seems to me that Mukasey, if he has not already done so, is about to implicate himself in White House crimes. And if this is the case, he needs to be indicited by the Congress like any other criminal.
March 22, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed! He has a responsibility to uphold and protect The Constitution from the likes of bush.
March 22, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The American people have sent a clear message to the likes of Mukasey... Perhaps these Constitutional hating, illegal wire tapping, email reading criminals need to rethink what patriotism is all about?
March 22, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said it before, and I will say it again: Grant telecom immunity AFTER Mukasey appoints a special prosecutor to investigate what was authorized, by whom, and whether it was legal.
There's your compromise.
Fully independent special prosecutor. Bring down whoever authorized it.
March 22, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Dems actually outsmarted Bush on this one, they got the extension into a timeframe that will allow a new Congress and President to make the decision with plenty of time to work on it, and it looks like it is not a political hot potato, so I say just sit tight and wait for the resounding Dem victory in the fall...there is no threat to Nat Sec until then.
March 22, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Telco immunity is nothing less than a scheme to provide a legally justifiable foundation for the Bush administration policies that have violated exisitng federal law. This is an end run around the legal restrictions that government is bound to abide.
There can be little doubt this maneuvering has as it's primary goal an overriding need for the administration to shelter itself from possible legal claims. It is impossible to misinterpret what is going on here. This is about the expansion of executive power that is a foundation principle of the Bush / Cheney WH. These people are traitors to this country. Plain and simple. And the degree of their criminality warrants no less than a firing squad.
March 23, 2008 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what I see as the real agenda for Bush:
18 US Code 2511 makes surveillance without a warrant, which was done starting before 9/11, a felony. Which makes Bush a felon. Granting immunity will let him off the hook post inauguration day, when some Democrat with balls finally takes him to court. Its immunity for Bush, not the telecoms that's in play here.
March 23, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can anyone explain to me the difference between Mukasey and Gonzales? Re: Immunity - In a word NO!
March 23, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
There isn't any question about whether or not retroactive immunity should be granted: it shouldn't.
Everyone who has been paying attention knows the Bush people and the telecoms openly, willfully, and knowingly violated the law thousands upon thousands of times. These violations needn't have occured. The law was clear and nothing prevented them from conducting the surveillance they desired to conduct save their own premeditated, well-informed decision to break the law. All those on the government and private sector sides who were involved in the violation of the law should not only be liable, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If they are allowed to walk, then it is clear that Leona Helsmley's famous statement about taxes also applies to the law in general: "Taxes are for little people." said the Queen of mean and Mukasey's message is "Laws are for little people."
The only question is whether or not the Democrats will cave in. Given past experience I guess more precisely the question is sadly: when will the Democrats cave in?
March 24, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Supposedly, the telecoms were given assurances from Little Georgie's administration that what they (the telecoms) were asked to do was legal. The purpose of granting immunity is to obviate the need to display before the Court and before Congress, the contents and signatories to those assurances.
Somebody told the telecoms that the grossly intrusive surveillance they were asked to perform was legal. Somebody signed a piece of paper. That Somebody will go to jail for a long time if that documentation comes to light. If the telecoms are granted immunity, then that documentation never need be seen by anyone else.
This isn't about the telecoms. It's about Little Georgie and whoever else signed off on the massive spying on Americans.
March 24, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink