Mukasey: ‘I Would Not Advise’ Granting Habeas Rights ‘Beyond Those That Detainees Already Have’
Mukasey: ‘I Would Not Advise’ Granting Habeas Rights ‘Beyond Those That Detainees Already Have’
One year ago today, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 suspended habeas corpus for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo and other offshore prisons. “At the urging of the Bush administration, the Republican-controlled Congress last year voted to sharply limit detainee access to the courts.”
In the confirmation hearing of Attorney General nominee Mike Mukasey, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — who previously threatened to filibuster the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act — asked Mukasey whether he would restore habeas corpus to “unlawful enemy combatants” held in U.S. detention centers.
Mukasey said he would not support granting habeas corpus rights to detained prisoners at Gitmo:
GRAHAM: Would you advise the President of the United States to allow unlawful enemy combatants to have habeas rights, to grant them habeas corpus rights at Guantanamo Bay?
MUKASEY: I would not advise the President to grant rights beyond those that they already have.
Watch it:
Graham asked if Mukasey “associates” himself with former Attorney General Robert Jackson’s statement that expanding legal rights to detainees would cause a “conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting to enemies of the United States.” “Yes I do,” affirmed Mukasey.
Earlier in today’s hearings, Mukasey refused to say whether he would recommend to Bush that Guantanamo be shut down. Unfortunately, it appears that many of Alberto Gonzales’ punitive detainee policies will continue under Mukasey’s Justice Department.
UPDATE: Today, Amnesty International took out a full-page ad in USA Today commemorating the Military Commissions Act’s one-year anniversary. View the ad HERE.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
71 Responses to “Mukasey: ‘I Would Not Advise’ Granting Habeas Rights ‘Beyond Those That Detainees Already Have’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Bush administration will go down in history as the most consistent administration ever.
Consistently wrong that is.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:06 pmYes, and just before we appoint you, disgrace you and pin on you that Medal of Honor, could we have a little water boarding fun?
October 17th, 2007 at 8:14 pmSo we should grant the same rights to TERRORISTS as we do to soldiers of war and US citizens!! HAve you left nut libs lost whatever brains you had? When we hear you wackos say things like this we name you all traitors and cowards.
Habeas has NEVER granted any rights to TERRORISTS! Don’t you libs get this???
UNBELIEVABLE!
October 17th, 2007 at 8:16 pmPlease . . . I just love that feeling . . . when I’m completely panicked and my lungs are full of water . . . when I will tell you what ever lies you want to hear.
Gurgle.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:17 pmSo when the President decides, without due process, that Mukasey is “an unlawful enemy combatant,” we whisk him away!
October 17th, 2007 at 8:19 pmGurgle, gurgle . . .
Croak . . .
America, gptta love the freedom.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:21 pmwell… dahlia lithwick was on rachel maddow earlier talking about the
hearings… she sounded as if this guy may not be too horrible, another toady… maybe she spoke too soon?
i wasn’t able to listen as closely as i wanted…
anyone else?
i did hear the definite recommendation that the dems push hard on
October 17th, 2007 at 8:26 pmthis guy… not expecting to “fix” everything gonzo f’d up… but let
him know that they will be watching…
am i far off here?
…
Lindsey Graham cheers the destruction of our freedom. He is helping Osama Bin Laden achieve the goal of destroying the USA and all the freedoms it once stood for.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:26 pmas in, NOT another toady…
October 17th, 2007 at 8:27 pmWhy not?
If there is proof of guilt (of conspiracy to commit or actual terrorism), then the writ could go forward and the holding of the detainee would be justified. Suspending habeous corpus goes against the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
How does the suspension of such a basic, God-given right support the ideals of Freedom and Democracy?
October 17th, 2007 at 8:27 pmNo vote on Mukasey until all requested information and documents are turned over to congressional investigation. Make these GOP SOBs come clean or grind everything to a halt.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:29 pmHow does the suspension of such a basic, God-given right support the ideals of Freedom and Democracy?
Comment by Bob — October 17, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Excellent question and should be the headline on the front page of every paper in the country…..I can dream can’t I.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:31 pmholy cow… do you notice that the comment count above is 77 ???
i think i’m glad to not be reading those lost “comments”…
October 17th, 2007 at 8:37 pmmore like idiotic rants…
Mukasey’s answers on topic after topic were evasive and calculated. A sick feeling in my gut tells me the Democrats are rolling over for the Bush regime one more time with the Mukasey nomination and will get nothing in return. I agree with the above poster who said no vote until the regime turns over all documents related to the attorney firings and the NSA program. They should also insist on getting guarantees that the NSA program has not been used to spy on domestic political opposition. I’m sure it has and I’m disturbed that no one has raised the question.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:04 pmOnly the most evil of governments make people disappear.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:10 pmHoly cow Katy . . . are you on crack?
October 17th, 2007 at 9:13 pm*snip*
*snip*
October 17th, 2007 at 9:15 pm106 Comments »
October 17th, 2007 at 9:18 pmI only see 18. What’s up with that?
Just another nazi enabling domestic and international fascism…
October 17th, 2007 at 9:19 pmI wonder if the people that were tortured except Michael’s mistake. Some men, women and children died by the torture Michael approved of so were kidnapped and torture with Michael’s order that Cheney wanted. Now all he has to say is it was a mistake so let’s move on. How many Bush appointees have we seen lie under oath just to get the job.
Will the US except the words mistake when another country tortures Americans. Michael may be able to brush his crimes of now but he’ll have to answer to God and then he’ll have a problem. As God sees our hearts and Michael is no more sorry about what he order then a person would be sorry for winning a billion dollars. Hell has a place for Michael and the rest of the Satan Worshippers.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:25 pm#19 and #21
Where are the comments? Explain.
#20 WTF?
October 17th, 2007 at 9:28 pmMUKASEY: I would not advise the President to grant rights beyond those that they already have.
Which rights are none. If the Democrats allow this man to become our new AG, they will be putting another nail in their coffin. We don’t need another AG who disrespects our constitution and the rule of law.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:45 pmSomething weird is going on here. A few minutes ago the ‘footer’ between the topic and the comment said 106 comments. That was after katy posted about 77 comments. I was only seeing less than 20. Now it says ‘25 comments’.
Is this Cheney’s Law in effect or what? Is this Chineese version of free speech?
October 17th, 2007 at 9:48 pmwell, at least i’m assured that my comments can be seen…
thanks for that, rockyroad… but, why the slander?
what’s crack got to do with anything? … why be a jerk?
generally, when you see a count number that’s higher than the actual comments, that means there have been deletions…
when that count is WAY off, as is this, it means there probably is an
attempted trooll infestation…
and it means that TP is doing a good job cleaning up the mess…
thank you TP…
October 17th, 2007 at 9:51 pmI think I would still have freedoms if I was dead.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:53 pmWhy do we need another Bush appointee exactly? But they’ll confirm and then regret. These people are all liars and fascists and need to be sentenced to writing the US Consitution and the Geneva Conventions on a mile long blackboard for the next 30 years. Habeas Corpus was first codified in 1679. How quaint.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:57 pmThe troll droppings must be going batshit crazy. Like the trolls.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:00 pmThe counter was showing 109 posts…..
Now it shows 27, ODD!!!!
Comment by RemoveBush — October 17, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
I don’t know, but earlier today I discovered that I can read my previous posts (to look for responses, for example) only if I am logged in to the comments area. Weird.
Anyone else seeing this???
October 17th, 2007 at 10:15 pmthanks for that, rockyroad… but, why the slander?
what’s crack got to do with anything? … why be a jerk?
Comment by katy — October 17, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
I dunno, katy… seem like rocky might have just been teasin’ ya, ‘n not tryin’ to really slander ya. I got cornfused too. Ya said there were 77 comments and then there’s only 29 or so. Indeed, must have been a nasty trool infestation going on. TP has been pretty good of late about cleanin’ up the mess on Aisle 5, so to speak. Jes’ sayin’…
October 17th, 2007 at 10:21 pmwell, tros, what i said was “that the comment count above is 77″
and at that time it was… then it went over 100…
evidently the mess got cleaned up and the count reflects that…
… but “crack”? … that was unnecessary… and not funny…
October 17th, 2007 at 10:33 pmmy comment was self-explanatory…
…
Bigfoot is just talking nonsense.
The Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS applies to all prisoners in US jurisdiction. With an exception during a time of war, when Geneva Conventions are applicable to war prisoners. A very good legal argument could be made that the war ended when Bush made his mission accomplished speech on the USS Lincoln and that since then we have been occupiers. Another argument can be made that those at GITMO are not prisoners of war because they were either not fighting in an army of a state and/or were not picked up on the battlefield.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:12 pmKaty . . . sorry about the “crack” comment.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:19 pmI understand the principle of law. I don’t understand the application of law.
The Constitution establishes a hierarchy where the Constitution, including Amendments, are at the top of the food chain followed by Treaties that have been ratified, then Legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President or veto override by Congress.
The Geneva Accords is a ratified Treaty that establishes habeas corpus. It seem then that any efforts by Congress to pass a law repealing Habeas would be unlawful.
And here is where application of the law comes into play. Why is habeas corpus even being discussed in Congress as part of legislation or as part of confirmation hearings for Attorney General. How can the Constitution be ignored in this manner? It sure gives strict construction and original intent a new meaning.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:24 pmBigfoot,
You just can’t shut your trap.
The Constitution embodies the very foundation and best that America stands for. It not only embodies the rights to which every American is entitled, but our philophy about the manner in which all peoples must be treated.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”
Read . . . all men are created equal . .. Americans and residents of Darfur.
It’s our foundation . . . universal human rights . . . as a citizen of the universe, you have a right to be here, no less than the moon and the stars . . . don’t hate.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:27 pmBigfoot - jam that foot in your pie-hole.
“I challenge anyone here to attack a foreign nation, and when captured, demand your constitutional rights.”
Obviously, you’re a Bush man. I challenge you to explain why you so cavilarly discuss “attacking a foreign nation.”?
WTF. Yeah, every time we “attack a foreign nation”, we prefer to pepper them with salt, add a little lemon butter and then waterboard them.
Your arrogance negates any legitimacy. You are not just a big foot, you’ve got staph.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:39 pmBigfoot,
Must be that ingrown toe nail . . . you just stubbed your kickin’ toe and are now taking it out on us libs . . .
Yes, you damn libs, but for your crazy social policies, we wouldn’t have those streets and curbs . . . so when I stumbled out of my trailor and went huntin’ for a hub cab to frisbee at my pit bull (dog just won’t stop barkin’), I woulnnnt have stubbed my toe on the curb and passed out on the damn sidewalk. . . dog chewing on my ear.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:53 pmOh yeah, then Dick Cheney showed up with an 18 pack of Old Style, and in a valient effort to shoot the dog . . .
shot me in the face.
It wasn’t his fault. Fact is, it felt good, in an American kind of way. Gotta love those Fourth Amendment rights.
That’s what he keeps telling me . . . sorry, passing out.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:58 pmThat’s been your experience apparently.
I’ve travelled in foreign countries, but never been arrested. Generally, I try to obey the laws in the countries in which I travel.
Could you be a bit more explicit about your own travails?
October 18th, 2007 at 12:05 amOk, how about this: Get picked up in a foreign country for any crime whatsoever, whether you committed the crime or not, and then demand your U.S. constitutional rights. You’ll still hear the same laughing..
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 18, 2007 @ 12:02 am
If you’re held by the US, YEP, that’s the way it works! If Russia had you kidnapped from the streets in the US, wouldn’t you demand rights?
October 18th, 2007 at 12:08 amEver READ the Geneva Convention rulings? They apply to the uniformed members of the military of recognized nations.
They do not apply to non-uniformed, stateless terrorists.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 17, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
BAHAHA, LIAR, how stupid are you anyway? EVERYONE is covered by at least one provision of the court - dumbass!
October 18th, 2007 at 12:09 amI apologize to all dumbasses for comparing you to OBigfoot, it was unfair to you all to be compared to such a person!
October 18th, 2007 at 12:10 amI challenge anyone here to attack a foreign nation, and when captured, demand your constitutional rights.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 17, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
Like the US invading Iraq?
Your perspective is interesting perspective because, back in 2003, Pres Bush was “outraged” at the allegations of mistreatment of American POWs at the hands of their Iraqi captors. As a matter of fact, the US expected their prisoners to be treated humanely, and warned that they expected Hussein’s regime to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
Of course, now that the war is won, it’s ok to torture POWs and every other dimwit (that would be you) comes up with lame reasons to excuse the same behavior that used to be called “barbaric” by the Bush administration.
Then watch your captors laugh while they either execute you or toss you in a hole somewhere.
And this scenario was precisely why the Geneva Conventions were drafted in the first place: To make sure that all warring parties could be help up to some standard. Failing to meet that standard can amount to a war crime.
But now that the Bush administration has decided that those pesky treaties get in the way of a good ole’ oil grab, well, we are going back to the times when it was a free-for-all when it came to mistreatment of POWs. You can thank your Dear (mis)Leader for that.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:23 amGet picked up in a foreign country for any crime whatsoever, whether you committed the crime or not,
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 18, 2007 @ 12:02 am
I’ve never been arrested (whether in a foreign country or not), so maybe you should share your experience, and give us more specifics about your own arrest. It’s usually a bad idea to piss off the locals, you know?
And when arrested in any country, you are certainly entitled to protection under the laws of that country, as well as your human rights.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:28 amA year and the Democratic Congress has not repealed even one part of this devistating travesty to the Constitution and We The People.
Disgusting.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:40 amI am voting Anti-Incumbent in the primaries this time.
State and local.
Finals I am voting Anti-Republican.
Gregor,
Your comment actually frightened me. After much thought . . . bring it on. If you’re saying that I have in some way “pissed off the locals, you know” . . . you are an ass looking for a fight.
If you are in any way involved in law enforcement, you have just violated my civil rights.
Bring it on.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:54 amGregor,
My motto: I am patient. I have time.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:01 amComment by rockyroad — October 18, 2007 @ 12:54 am
The wha, with the wha?
I was replying to Bigfoot. Is it you?
October 18th, 2007 at 1:08 amHas anyone ever witnessed a more effeminate imbecile in their life than Lindsey Graham ?
I have never seen anyone as whacky as that dipshit ……….
October 18th, 2007 at 1:11 amSo Gregor,
I over reacted. I have been arrested in this country and my rights have been horribly abused. My fear of law enforcement is horrendous. I didn’t do any thing wrong and was treated abusively. No charges.
It makes me distrustful.
I am sorry for misreading your comment.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:12 amComment by rockyroad — October 18, 2007 @ 1:12 am
No problem, rockyroad.
I have family (by marriage) in law enforcement and the stories they tell me are enough to not want to have any run-ins with the law. So I understand your reaction.
Peace.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:17 amThanks, peace.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:20 amfor anyone who missed it last time, here is a picture of bigfoot, a man who complains us liberals dont have anything intellEgent to say:
http://z.about.com/ d/ politicalhumor/ 1/ 0/ n/ U/ moran.jpg
October 18th, 2007 at 2:20 amKnew he was trailor park trash . . . and a Cardinals fan to boot.
Go Rockies! Go!
October 18th, 2007 at 2:26 amGregor,
I feel so bad.
Sometimes when you’re on the receiving end . . . you (not you but me) become a bully.
Sorry.
I appreciate your posts.
The conversation is so important . . . thank you for following up.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:02 amComment by rockyroad — October 18, 2007 @ 3:02 am
Don’t worry, rockyroad.
I took no offense. There was no harm done.
It’s our (mentally) little friend o. footie we should all worry about: He is for the administration that promotes illegal detentions, secret prisons, torture, and the abrogation of habeas corpus.
These are all unacceptable in a country that -supposedly- is a first-world, industrialised democracy. Yet o. footie has no problem with the US being run a little more than a banana republic ruled by a military junta.
And there are more like him. Way too many if you ask me.
Peace.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:35 amIt would be even better if I proof-read my own stuff. I meant to say:
“Yet o. footie has no problem with the US being run a little like a banana republic ruled by a military junta.”
There. Better.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:42 amOur little in-grown toe nail is no more a problem than is the sonstitution of our Supreme Court.
What are we going to do about that? Hopefully, no one dies before the next administration takes the reigns.
That is a big hope . . .
How many months? 12-13, we need to be sending in veggies.
Justices, including Scalia, Alito and Thomas can be empeached, seeing that Pelosi doesn’t have the wherewithall to empeach the disaster that’s in office, chances are slim to zero that any justices may be shown the door.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:10 amInrestinal fortitude . . . that should be the qualifying question for leadership.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:12 amIntestinal would be the word. Have you got any. Neither Pelosi nor Bush demonstrate any.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:13 amI just can’t type worth beans.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:15 amVERY expensive beans.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:58 amCapitalist coercsion can be a powerful force.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:01 amI did not write that.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:02 amOnly the most evil of governments make people disappear.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — October 17, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
I agree with you Marcus. If someone being held at Guantanamo is guilty of a crime, let him be held accountable by a court of Law. Keeping people in prison for a number of years without even the right to appear before a judge is 18th century thinking. Are we back to that period under W? I’m afraid so.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:03 amis 18th century thinking. Are we back to that period under W? I’m afraid so.
Comment by foreyes — October 18, 2007 @ 5:03 am
that’s the basis of modern conservatism; everything was better “in the old days”. In this way, Republicans are no different from the taliban or the Muslim extremist rightwingers, which is why the Bush regime is so very busy destroying our Constitution and rolling back all the protections that women, choldren and minorities have gained with the help of progressives throughout the history of the United States. When I call rightwingers unAmerican, I am being quite serious.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:12 amHELP — A VC’s invaded and seeks to change my lib ways! help. . . but he’s sooooo cute.
YEAH. Go away.
She’s signing off.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:13 amThe Republicans believe that you have to destroy our rights to save them. That philosphy is even more than Bin Laden could have hoped for. Who needs Bin Laden, when you’ve got people like Graham and his party working to destroy America and what she once stood for.
When Bin Laden hears Graham and his cohorts speaking, I’m sure he’s sitting in a cave laughing his ignorant azz off, at how stupid they are. They are systematically destroying our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. I would have never thought the Republicans would be the ones who destroyed our freedoms. Their hero Ronald Reagan must be turning over in his grave.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:51 am#40 — The Geneva Convention does, indeed, include how civilians in a war zone are to be treated. Try googling geneva convention civilians and read it. It is accurate to say that the Geneva Convention addresses how ALL people, military or civilian are to be treated during times of armed conflict.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:36 amWhat scares me is that our president can have anyone declared an “enemy combatant”, and he believes that he is the ultimate decider in these situations. If citizens protesting by wearing a “No Bush” t-shirt can be arrested, is it too far a stretch to think our government could detain other peaceful citizens who don’t agree with its policies?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:15 amO. Bigfoot: I most sincerely hope that you get what you’re asking for.
I hope that one day, you dial a wrong number on your cell phone that connects with an alleged “terrorist suspect.” I hope that the CIA, the NSA and/or the FBI then follow up, by first monitoring all your phone calls and emails. I hope they then “sneak and peek” in your house and your private possessions, not to mention your computer hard drive - where they’ll find that you regularly participated in seditious, anti-American websites (such as TP).
I hope they then detain you indefinitely without counsel for “suspected terrorist activities” - or maybe even render you to someplace very scary.
And then, I hope they waterboard you thoroughly to get the information about the terrorist attack you’re planning on America.
I hope that you’ll think back on all this - as they pour water over your cloth-covered face and you’re gasping painfully for every breath - and remember that this is what you WANTED America to be, and thank GOD that you’re being kept safe from terrorists.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:57 pmWhy would we give Habeas Corpus to unlawful enemy combatants? The right to Habeas Corpus is an American right. The people in Guantanamo are unlawful enemy combatants, not enemy soldiers, so the Geneva Convention does not apply to them, they are not Americans, so American rights don’t apply to them, and they are not on American soil so American laws do not apply to them. These people want us dead and will do anything they can to make it happen. I have to agree on one point, however. We should not detain U.S. citizens and we should not detain anyone else without just cause or reasoning. Now, that leaves only the true unlawful enemy combatants. We should use whatever means are the most effective in getting reliable information about terrorist activities from these people. If they are truly innocent, then we will find that out pretty quickly. If they are guilty, then we do whatever is necessary to protect freedom and democracy. If that requires psychological manipulation (not torture) such as water boarding, sleep deprivation, or disinformation, then so be it. We must do whatever is necessary in order to stop these people. I suggest we use the most effective way, which is psychological manipulation. Torture is entirely different. Torture is physical harms, damage, or destruction in order to get a desired result, but torture is often unreliable. Psychological manipulation works. You do not force people to talk; you make them unable to retain secrets. When you are tired or mentally stressed, you tend to give out more information than normal. That is the plan behind psychological manipulation. Do you see the difference?
October 20th, 2007 at 12:01 am