Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

KABUKI ON THE HILL

By       Message William Fisher     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 7
Become a Fan
  (11 fans)
- Advertisement -

The partisan political divide morphed into a chasm again this week as the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee convened to grill Attorney General Michael Mukasey for the first time since his confirmation hearings.

 

The ostensible objective of the hearing was “oversight.” But one has to wonder what, if anything, our elected representatives learned that everyone didn’t already know.

 

If there was a big winner in this all-too-familiar tableau, it was the audience, which got to enjoy some of America’s best Kabuki Theater.

 

The Democrats on the panel, under the velvet-voiced chairmanship of the patrician John Conyers of Michigan, clearly smelled blood in the water. Their menu was a litany of allegedly penetrating questions whose answers were totally predictable.

 

These covered such issues as whether the AG would open a criminal investigation of the CIA’s use of waterboarding, whether he thought waterboarding constituted torture, whether he would prosecute Bush’s chief of staff, Joshua Bolten, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, for failing to show up in response to a congressional contempt citation, whether the telecom companies involved in the FISA controversy should receive retroactive immunity from prosecution for helping the government to snoop on American citizens, whether he thought the CIA destroyed their interrogation tapes simply to protect the spooks from prosecution – and lots more fun subjects.

 

Our elected representatives put on their most serious faces and asked their questions with just the right combination of gravitas and passion.

 

The AG, soft-spoken and seemingly unflappable, answered with his own mix of legalese and gravitas – at least a welcome change from the bumbling, confused and disingenuous ramblings of his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales.

 

But his answers were as predictable as the questions he was answering.

- Advertisement -

 

Take, for example, his response to the question of opening a criminal investigation into the CIA’s use of waterboarding.

 

No, he would not open such an investigation because a memorandum prepared at the time by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the practice was legal. An investigation would place the DOJ in the position of investigating procedures it had found to be lawful.

 

What was never asked: If the DOJ found waterboarding “legal at that time,” why was it stricken from the CIA’s menu of “enhanced interrogation” techniques? And if waterboarding become un-legal at some point, why and when?

 

And, no he would not let congress see the OLC memorandum because (a) it was classified and (b) it was covered by executive privilege.

 

And yet again, no, he would not prosecute Bolten and Miers because the president has the authority to instruct his senior aides not to comply with congressional subpoenas or contempt citations. It was a “separation of powers” issue, he said.

- Advertisement -

 

Mukasey then addressed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He urged Congress to reauthorize the expiring law, including granting retroactive immunity to the private telecom companies who cooperated with the government to intercept, without warrants, telephone calls and emails the Administration believed involved terrorists.

 

The AG said the companies participated at the government’s request and believed their efforts to be “necessary and lawful.” Makes you wonder about Constitutional education of the army of lawyers who work for these telecom giants!

 

Maybe these corporate law types didn’t know that FISA requires the government to obtain warrants from its own special and highly secretive court before intercepting phone calls or emails involving Americans. That’s odd, because any first-year law student could tell you this requirement is based on the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids unlawful searches and seizures.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

http://billfisher.blogspot.com
William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and elsewhere for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration and now (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Liberties Lost Since 9/11

The Silence of the Sheep

BAHRAIN: UNION LEADERS ON HUNGER STRIKE

Law Professors Outraged by Senate Vote on Indefinite Detention

Feel Safer Now?

The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable -- A Must-Read.