« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Mukasey Punts on Indefinite Detentions of U.S. Citizens
Among Michael Mukasey's most controversial decisions as a judge was to sign a material-witness warrant for suspected (and now convicted) al-Qaeda affiliate and U.S. citizen Jose Padilla, which allowed his detention after his mid-2002 arrival at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. A month later, the Defense Department declared Padilla an enemy combatant -- a decision that the Justice Department revoked three years later to bring Padilla to criminal trial. Mukasey wrote in an August op-ed that Padilla's trial showed that "current institutions and statutes are not well suited" to trying terrorists since Padilla's counsel-free "confession" of being involved in a dirty-bomb plot was inadmissible.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked, in light of Mukasey's involvement with the Padilla case, whether Mukasey thought the law -- and particularly the September 2001 authorization of military force for Afghanistan -- permitted seizing U.S. citizens on U.S. soil indefinitely without charge. Mukasey cited the 2004 Hamdi case as upholding the president's ability to detain U.S. citizens on the battlefield, but said he "can't say now" whether the "battlefield" applies to the United States. It remains unclear whether Mukasey thinks U.S. citizens captured at home in terrorism-related investigations can be indefinitely detained.
Comments (19)
Anonymous wrote on October 17, 2007 12:06 PM:Mukasey's op-ed sucks. He should blame the Bush administration for not conducting a proper investigation rather than jumping to the conclusion that our criminal justice system can't handle such matters.
Chris Kapilla wrote on October 17, 2007 12:24 PM:Mukasey has been saying some of the 'right things' in his hearing, but his previous ruling that a US citizen can be locked up indefinitely without charges is so blatantly unconstitutional, how in God's name can he be seriously considered for the post of Attorney General?
jolly ranchero wrote on October 17, 2007 12:44 PM:"but his previous ruling that a US citizen can be locked up indefinitely without charges is so blatantly unconstitutional"
You haven't been paying much attention to the current makeup of our Supreme Court, have you?
It's only "unconstitutional" if/when they say so. Oddly, I don't think they'd say so.
ProDem wrote on October 17, 2007 1:31 PM:Geeesh!...This Mukasey character is such an obvious lying Facist fraud! It's sickening to see Leahy lapping this worhless, dribble up ... "The more things change, the more they remain the same..."
billjpa wrote on October 17, 2007 2:01 PM:from what you are reporting- the mukster can't be approved! They will and it will haunt the dems well past the next election. apparently, they just do not get it and this group of individuals will never get it!
Johnny2Bad wrote on October 17, 2007 2:12 PM:This country has never been is such trouble in its history.
You'd think a senator from California could pronounce a hispanic name correctly...Its Pah-Dee-Ya, Diane. Jeez.
sabbadoo32 wrote on October 17, 2007 2:19 PM:Remember people, this is just for 18 months or so. By the time he gets his seat warm, it will be time to go.
The trick is whether or not he's set the last of the Bushies up for a smooth transition, AKA "getaway."
tony wrote on October 17, 2007 2:34 PM:gives a whole new meaning to the concept Battlefied Earth!
Mark C wrote on October 17, 2007 2:43 PM:Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Again:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
And:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
I realize I don't have any nice fancy letters after my name, but this seems pretty straight forward to me.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why this man is fit to be confirmed as US Attorney General if he can't even bring himself say the President of the United States DOESN"T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISAPPEAR AMERICAN CITIZENS!
And perhaps more importantly, why ANYONE who votes to confirm him is fit to be a US Senator.
Words escape me. Just totally un-fucking-believable...
Anonymous wrote on October 17, 2007 2:49 PM:so I guess in your opinion, the period between the end of the civil war and the 1960's, there was nothing unconstitutional in the treatment of black people, because the SC never ruled that anything being done was unconstitutional
westwind wrote on October 17, 2007 2:53 PM:Actually, Johnny2Bad, Jose Padilla pronounces his name Pa-Dill-Ah, not Pah-Dee-Ya. Feinstein is fairly ineffectual most of the time, but at least she got that right.
JubleJohnson wrote on October 17, 2007 3:04 PM:It remains unclear whether Mukasey thinks U.S. citizens captured at home in terrorism-related investigations can be indefinitely detained.
*****My goodness,if this guy can't articulate his belief on this matter why is he being considered ? Is it not basic American human right? what democracy we have we lost that when the supreme court appointed Bush Prez.
JMOHR wrote on October 17, 2007 3:27 PM:Get ready for more public torture (tazer) & beat downs to put us in our places folks.
So many of the concepts that I was taught in law school, followed as a prosecutor and as a military judge advocate seemed so clear and easy to apply. Now they are not. Why? Not because of changed circumstances, not because of a new and significantly different threat and not because there is a war going on in this country.
Our country's courts and civil institutions are open. There is no blood bath in the streets. Civil order is intact. Martial law is neither appropriate or necessary.
Why then do we attempt to justify these intrusions into the basis of our constitutional government?
The United States continues its slide into a fascist state with leaders justifying their actions through fear tactics. If there is a reason to chuck our laws and seize people, it may well be these leaders.
Fred M. wrote on October 17, 2007 3:33 PM:Mukasey's answer really tells us where we are today in this country. How could any rational person reasonably try to argue that our Constitution allows the president the right to indefinitely detain an American citizen captured on U.S. soil?
Equally troubling is his assertion that this so-called War on Terror seems to justify the president defining the "battlefield" of this war as he chooses, including the United States.
These republicans all seem to want to do anythign in order to come across as "tough on terror," but I frankly think they show themselves for the pussies they really are. The world didn't change on 9/11 ... America changed. Much of the rest of the world has been dealing with these sorts of threats for decades. This isn't World War III or anywhere close! But fear has become a powerful tool for some in this country and many are trying to exaggerate the dangers in order to get people to accept an attack on their liberties. Keep in mind that the goal of terrorism is to use violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. The only way the "terrorists win" is if we lose sight of our guiding principles.
eLad in Mo wrote on October 17, 2007 4:52 PM:???????????? It remains unclear whether Mukasey thinks U.S. citizens captured at home in terrorism-related investigations can be indefinitely detained. ??????????
Today, America moved one step closer to all-out fascism. In front of God and country, this man couldn't clearly state that it's ILLEGAL to indefinitely detain US citizens on US SOIL!
Oh! It's just for a few months we allow this fascist in office. Then it's ok. HUH!!!
Show them. Show me every single senator that votes for this fascist. This will NOT be forgotten. Ever.
Fred M. wrote on October 17, 2007 9:21 PM:“The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.”
Sound like a quote from Dubya? It is actually a quote from Hitler's first radio address to the German people, twenty-four hours after coming to power.
VictorLaszlo wrote on October 18, 2007 1:27 AM:Mukasey wrote in an August op-ed that Padilla's trial showed that "current institutions and statutes are not well suited" to trying terrorists since Padilla's counsel-free "confession" of being involved in a dirty-bomb plot was inadmissible.
---
In what way is that situation unique to terrorists? The same situation could arise and has arisen in murder cases or any number of other types of cases.
Right?
parrot wrote on October 18, 2007 2:37 AM:Um...this guy has turned the United States into a "battlefield"? Fascism, anyone? Anyone?
Praedor Atrebates wrote on November 2, 2007 12:03 PM:What a bunch of monsters we have in government. The answer to this is a no-brainer: NO ONE from ANY country for ANY reason can be held indefinitely without charge or ability to challenge their detention. It really is as simple as that. Any country that does such things is NOT a free nation, is NOT worthy of trust, and has NO moral authority anywhere over any issue.