Michael Mukasey

In yet another example of politicizing terrorism in order to push political agendas, I present Attorney General Michael Mukasey (with a thanks to Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein):

Criminal syndicates, and in some cases even terrorist groups, view IP crime as a lucrative business, and see it as a low-risk way to fund other activities.

As pointed out on Computer World, Mukasey provided this claim without any evidence:

Mukasey went on to cite numerous cases in which the Justice Department has arrested those who pirate software, and in which the department has cooperated with other countries in investigations. He mentioned arrests in Florida, investigations in China, and warned about the Russian mob being involved in selling pirated software.

In not a single instance did Mukasey include a link to terrorism. Not one. You can be sure that if there were any links, Mukasey would make sure to get them on the nightly news.

And why? Well here is the policy that Mukasey wants to get pushed through:

So why is Mukasey trying to convince people there's a link between software piracy and terrorism, even though one doesn't exist? To force Congress to pass controversial intellectual property (IP) legislation that would increase IP penalties, increase police power, set up a new agency to investigate IP theft, and more.

Industry lobbyists have been pushing for it. And now Mukasey is trying to convince the country that the bill needs to be passed as a way to fight terrorism.

So the industry has been pushing this. I wonder if Sony is included in this industry. I also wonder if the U.S. will declare them a terrorist group since they recently got busted with tons of pirated software.

Pelosi was ready for Mukasey's refusal to enforce the contempt citations. Now the next step - court:

"By ordering the U.S. Attorney to take no action in response to congressional subpoenas, the Bush Administration is continuing to politicize law enforcement, which undermines public confidence in our criminal justice system.

"Anticipating this response from the Administration, the House has already provided authority for the Judiciary Committee to file a civil enforcement action in federal district court and the House shall do so promptly. The American people demand that we uphold the law. As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that."

Let's see how quickly this moves.

Chuck and Di's great pick for A.G. gives the administration another free pass on law breaking. Mukasey says he won't seat a grand jury to investigate Miers and Bolton refusing to show for Congres.

Even though federal law says they are to do just that. TPM has all the details. Again - thank you Chuck & Di for bringing us another Gonzales.

Anyone surprised? I want to again thank Chuck and Di for handing us this new AG - same as the old AG.

Seriousley - if this guy can't even decide if it is legal or not, then how can he decide if someone should be prosecuted or not? This is the great legal mind that Schumer and Feinstein delivered us? What a joke!

Thanks to our new Attorney General. Thanks to Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein!

Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to give Congress details of the government's investigation into interrogations of terror suspects that were videotaped and destroyed by the CIA. He said doing so could raise questions about whether the inquiry is vulnerable to political pressure.

In letters Friday to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees that oversee the Justice Department, Mukasey said there is no need right now to appoint a special prosecutor to lead the investigation. The preliminary inquiry currently is being handled by the Justice Department and the CIA's inspector general.

I'm so glad Schumer knew Mukasey was a good guy and would do the right thing. Now why don't he take Diane and they both just go to hell.

And now we have an Attorney General who is in lockstep with the White House:

In his second day on the job, Attorney General Michael Mukasey leaped into the political fray, telling a key Democratic senator he opposes his electronic surveillance plan and would recommend the president veto it if it is passed.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on the eve of crucial committee votes to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Mukasey was adamant in opposing Leahy's plan for changing the law.

Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell co-signed the letter released Wednesday night by the Justice Department.

"We strongly oppose the proposed substitute amendment. If the substitute is part of a bill that is presented to the president, we and the president's other senior advisers will recommend that he veto the bill," they said.

And what is it Mukasey is actually opposing? Well that would be Leahy's amendment to strip out immunity for the telecom companies. I guess we can thank Chuck and Di for this one also.

Glenn Greenwald highlights this little part of Schumer's speech last night during the confirmation of Mukasey:

[The most amazing quote was from chief Mukasey supporter Chuck Schumer, who, before voting for him, said that Mukasey is "wrong on torture -- dead wrong." Marvel at that phrase: "wrong on torture." Six years ago, there wasn't even any such thing as being "wrong on torture," because "torture" wasn't something we debated. It would have been incoherent to have heard: "Well, he's dead wrong on torture, but . . . "

Now, "torture" is not only something we openly debate, but it's something we do. And the fact that someone is on the wrong side of the "torture debate" doesn't prevent them from becoming the Attorney General of the United States. It's just one issue, like any other issue -- the capital gains tax, employer mandates for health care, the water bill -- and just because someone is "dead wrong" on one little issue (torture) hardly disqualifies them from High Beltway Office.]

That's right - minor little things like torture shouldn't stop someone from being our top law enforcement officer. Hell I bet old Chuck is heading down to Gitmo to join in some good old waterboarding. Talk about a man who has become a disgrace to his party, office and country.

I used to really like Chuck Schumer. Those feelings have changed in recent history. He is not a man of principal - he is a man of covering his own ass. In today's New York Times, he has authored an Op-Ed explaining his reason for supporting Mukasey:

I AM voting today to support Michael B. Mukasey for attorney general for one critical reason: the Department of Justice — once the crown jewel among our government institutions — is a shambles and is in desperate need of a strong leader, committed to depoliticizing the agency’s operations.

The department has been devastated under the Bush administration. Outstanding United States attorneys have been dismissed without cause; career civil-rights lawyers have been driven out in droves; people appear to have been prosecuted for political reasons; young lawyers have been rejected because they were not conservative ideologues; and politics has been allowed to infect decision-making.

A strong leader like someone who won't say if water boarding is illegal? Does Schumer really consider that a strong leader? I would like to see what a weak leader is if that's the case.