If you haven’t already, you absolutely must read this post at TPM. Why? Because in it David Kurtz asserts, rightly, that Attorney General Mukasey’s testimony on the Hill today tells us two very important things, one self-evident, the other revelatory: 1) The DOJ will not investigate the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding and warrantless wiretaps. 2) The rationale for this decision, that the DOJ previously signed off on those two policies, is utterly corrupt. Quoting Kurtz now:
We have now the Attorney General of the United States telling Congress that it’s not against the law for the President to violate the law if his own Department of Justice says it’s not.
It is as brazen a defense of the unitary executive as anything put forward by the Administration in the last seven years, and it comes from an attorney general who was supposed to be not just a more professional, but a more moderate, version of Alberto Gonzales (Thanks to Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer for caving on the Mukasey nomination.).
President Bush has now laid down his most aggressive challenge to the very constitutional authority of Congress. It is a naked assertion of executive power. The founders would have called it tyrannical. His cards are now all on the table. This is no bluff.
I’d like to echo one of Kurtz’s points and amplify another that seems implicit in his post. We have a tyrant in the White House. To argue otherwise is foolish. And we should be afraid. President Bush has nothing to lose: he’s comfortable with his 30% approval numbers; he’s a lame duck; he seemingly doesn’t care about his legacy or the GOP’s future; and he’s willing to shred the Constitution, with a smug grin on his face, in order to achieve his goals. This is a perilous time for the nation.
After the SOTU, I suggested that there were just a few moments in American history in which the state of the union could reasonably be described as having been worse than it now is. It turns out that I was being too optimistic. And, to be fair, several Democrats in the Senate must share the blame for this dire state of affairs.
(Update: A commenter, John B., asked an excellent question in the thread below. Beyond voting the right way, writing elected officials, staying on top of the news, and clutching one’s pearls, what can a person who cares about the rule of law actually do to make a difference? The great Katherine, from the great Obsidian Wings, suggests that the answer is: go to this site, run by the Center for Constitutional Rights. Or this site, run by Human Rights Watch. Both organizations have a wealth of information available to the public. And both can use help.)
(Update: Hilzoy does her thing here. And Urbino! puts up an awesome post here.)
75 comments
February 7, 2008 at 12:45 pm
John B.
Ari, I agree. But I have no idea what I can do as a citizen. I talk to others, family, point out articles that have been written by people seemingly smarter than I, write to my representation, write to the papers, etc…and all of it feels like it is of no avail. Especially when our “leadership” in Congrees has taken impeachment off the table for reasons thatare totally inexplicable to me.
This is one reasons I read “the blogs.” So I don’t feel so damned alone and impotent.
February 7, 2008 at 12:51 pm
PigInZen
Grab your pitchfork, John. If you don’t have one there’s a sale on ’em down at the local Lowe’s…
February 7, 2008 at 12:54 pm
John B.
Oh, I can find a pitchfork, and I might even know how to use it.
I might have some trouble knowing whom to poke. It seems like we’re all in this mess…
February 7, 2008 at 12:54 pm
lutton
My question: what are they now doing or planning to do that is predicated on this?
I find it difficult to believe that this is all just an exercise in politcal theory. There’s got to be something going on so big, so bad, to cause them to reach for this limitless authority.
February 7, 2008 at 1:05 pm
ari
My colleague, Kathy Olmsted, argues that Vice President Cheney is behind all of this. And that his rage/agenda stems from the Nixon/Ford years, when he saw Congress scale back executive authority. He believed, and believes, it seems, in a truly unitary executive. Scary stuff.
February 7, 2008 at 1:08 pm
drip
It is truly scary stuff and it will play right into the GOP storyline: Would you trust [fill in name of dem. candidate] with these powers. Elect McCain. It is really scary.
February 7, 2008 at 1:29 pm
bitchphd
Okay, I’ll concede that Dianne Feinstein is *not* on the “she’s a democrat, she’s a woman, she’s pro-choice, it’s okay if you want to vote for her” list.
February 7, 2008 at 1:31 pm
bitchphd
what are they now doing or planning to do that is predicated on this
Getting rich as shit and making sure they don’t have to answer to anyone.
February 7, 2008 at 1:43 pm
urbino
I read the TPM post, and, while I welcome them to the party, I have to ask what’s really so new. All Mukasey has done is say in a few short sentences, all at once, what the administration has been saying just as explicitly but in scattered parentheticals for years. Many people have been connecting the dots and crying “foul!” for years.
(Here are some of my own rantings about it, going back to 2005:
Cervantes, Dickens and You
A Giant Sucking Sound
Candidates on Executive Power
A Litmus Test)
Congress has done nothing. The people, it seems, could not possibly care less, as long as “American Idol” is on and the local Ford dealership is offering a rebate. Like John B, I’m not sure what to do, at this point.
February 7, 2008 at 1:44 pm
John B.
ari says:
My question: what are they now doing or planning to do that is predicated on this?
Stacking the deck…etc…more greed, more corruption, more unlimited power unchecked by Congress and the will of the people…
February 7, 2008 at 1:50 pm
ari
Urbino, you blog? And you never told us? I call shenanigans. Seriously, man, that’s totally uncool.
As for what’s new: Mukasey, supposedly, was going to check some of the erosion of the rule of law. Because he’s a serious law man. Not. That’s what’s new. Nothing will improve with Mukasey. The Democrats who voted to confirm him got rolled (okay, that’s really old news).
February 7, 2008 at 1:56 pm
ari
Honestly, though, even the post admits that this isn’t new. It’s just that we’re hearing about it again, unvarnished in any way, right on the heels of the revelations about waterboarding. Even if this isn’t new, it forces my gag reflex again. And scares me again.
February 7, 2008 at 2:00 pm
urbino
Fair enough. (And I’ve linked to blog posts of mine, before. You just didn’t notice. sniff)
February 7, 2008 at 2:02 pm
bitchphd
I didn’t notice either. Now that I’m aware, though, I have to say that not only is that an awesome blog title, but the header image is gorgeous.
February 7, 2008 at 2:06 pm
urbino
Thanks. We used to be “Desperate Houseflies,” on a different blog site; we re-invented ourselves when we moved.
It’s basically just a bunch of people who grew up in the same odd place, plus a few others we’ve met along the way.
February 7, 2008 at 2:07 pm
ari
God, I can hardly wait to troll on that site. What’s a good pseud? Anyone?
February 7, 2008 at 2:11 pm
urbino
Let’s see . . . you ended up as Butch, right?
(Be gentle with us. It’s a diverse group in nearly every possible way (race being the major exception), and we’ve reached a somewhat precarious modus vivendi.)
February 7, 2008 at 2:13 pm
ari
Too late. You should never have admitted you have a blog. What were you thinking?
February 7, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Galvinji
Nothing will improve with Mukasey. The Democrats who voted to confirm him got rolled (okay, that’s really old news).
Well, one could hope that Congress decides to do its job and starts impeaching. They will then offer ponies for all, and order a replay of the ninth inning of the seventh game of the 1997 World Series.
My guess is that the (cowardly) Democratic leadership is waiting for January 2009; why raise a stink when these people will be out of office in a year, and, with impeachment off the table, it’s not as if the Bush administration would stop breaking the law anytime soon, as long as the minority of GOP senators collaborates with the White House. This is the sort of calculation that led to people like Schumer voting to confirm Mukasey on the grounds that he is the best we are likely to get from the Bush Administration. Of course, that assumes that any incoming president would be inclined to walk these claims back, which is not likely at this point.
I wonder why no one ever asked any GOP congressperson whether they would support these same claims if President Hillary Clinton would make them. That way we could find out if they are really fascists, or just Republicans first and Americans second.
February 7, 2008 at 2:21 pm
urbino
I got all worked up about this rule of law business, and lost my head.
Actually, any and all commentary welcome. We’ve been trying to get more voices and discussion for, like, evah.
February 7, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Ben Alpers
The Democrats who voted to confirm him got rolled (okay, that’s really old news).
Evidence for this view? Isn’t it just as likely that at least some Democrats like the idea of an executive with essentially unlimited powers, especially since they will in all likelihood get to control it starting next year? If the question is “Dianne Feinstein: authoritarian or dupe?,” my money’s on the former.
February 7, 2008 at 2:26 pm
urbino
I’m inclined to agree. Likewise for Dems like Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor.
February 7, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Ben Alpers
FWIW, I’ve done some research on the Rumsfeld/Cheney wing of the Ford White House, and I suspect Kathy Olmsted is 100% correct in her view of this.
February 7, 2008 at 2:26 pm
urbino
(Who aren’t on the Judiciary Cmte., obviously, but nonetheless have consistently voted on the wrong side of this issue.)
February 7, 2008 at 2:27 pm
ari
That way we could find out if they are really fascists, or just Republicans first and Americans second.
Clearly, you mean not “fascists” but “liberals.” It’s the new math.
And I would add to your justifiable hand-wringing over why Pelosi, especially, took impeachment off the table my own about why Reid has basically tabled the filibuster. That said, I’ve been arguing forever that it’s all about not taking risks because the political terrain is so favorable for the Dems in the coming election. I assume that the argument must be something like: “It worked for us in the mid-terms, after all, so why shouldn’t we project those gains forward. If the Constitution is fed into a $19.95 paper shredder from OfficeMax in the interim, what can we do? We’ll fix things after November.” That has to be it.
February 7, 2008 at 2:28 pm
urbino
Yes. Cheney has never exactly kept his views of the executive a secret.
February 7, 2008 at 2:28 pm
ari
She is, Ben; she has the documents to prove it. She’s just too busy doing final edits on her manuscript right now for me to ask her to post something. Plus, she hates me. And this blog. And all of you.
February 7, 2008 at 2:30 pm
urbino
Which brings me to this question: assuming the next executive is a Dem, will s/he investigate apparent lawbreaking by the Bush admin?
February 7, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Galvinji
And I would add to your justifiable hand-wringing over why Pelosi, especially, took impeachment off the table my own about why Reid has basically tabled the filibuster. That said, I’ve been arguing forever that it’s all about not taking risks because the political terrain is so favorable for the Dems in the coming election. I assume that the argument must be something like: “It worked for us in the mid-terms, after all, so why shouldn’t we project those gains forward. If the Constitution is fed into a $19.95 paper shredder from OfficeMax in the interim, what can we do? We’ll fix things after November.” That has to be it.
I agree that the D leadership in Congress is likely following this strategy, but even with the current political trends would you want to bet on Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain? I don’t. I also don’t think President H. Clinton would be interested in undoing many of these claims.
I do not think, however, that a $19.95 paper shredder would be sufficient; you need one of those cross-cutting things that can destroy CDs and credit cards. Fortunately, the Chinese central bank is willing to lend us money to buy a fancier model.
February 7, 2008 at 2:46 pm
ari
Please note the update to the post, in which I’ve tried to answer John B.’s question. By, you know, going to someone who actually knows something.
February 7, 2008 at 3:18 pm
bitchphd
assuming the next executive is a Dem, will s/he investigate apparent lawbreaking by the Bush admin?
I fear the answer is almost certainly no.
February 7, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Ben Alpers
She is, Ben; she has the documents to prove it.
It turns out that the Ford Administration was a good deal more consequential than everyone thought at the time.
Of course, that bar was set pretty low…
February 7, 2008 at 3:26 pm
ari
B, I hope the answer is yes, but suspect that it will hinge on the size of the Dem majorities in the House and Senate and the popularity of the president. And Ben, that made me laugh.
February 7, 2008 at 3:29 pm
bitchphd
I really think it’s no, regardless. Partly on “heal the nation” grounds and partly because politically it strikes me as really dangerous (fucked up as it is, it would just be too damn easy for Rush Limbaugh and friends to paint it as payback for Clinton’s impeachment).
February 7, 2008 at 3:36 pm
ari
The difference, though, is that Clinton was very popular both before and after the impeachment. Whereas Bush is hugely unpopular now and Cheney even more so. But I understand the cautionary note you’re sounding. I’m just not sure that the analogy holds.
February 7, 2008 at 3:47 pm
bitchphd
Oh, it totally doesn’t, but that surely doesn’t mean they won’t try. And they might succeed. I mean, I’m clearly on the “who cares about the blowjob, but Cheney and Bush are evil criminals” side, but the prospect of another massive investigation into the president’s bad behavior really does just make me tired. I’d rather just repeal all his bullshit and move on.
Of course, I wouldn’t *mind* if Bush and Cheney disappeared in some kind of freak, global-warming induced hurricane or what have you.
February 7, 2008 at 4:04 pm
ari
Dude, shhh! The Secret Service will hear about your Weathernator (patent pending). And then our plans for global conquest will be foiled.
February 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm
urbino
but the prospect of another massive investigation into the president’s bad behavior really does just make me tired
I hear you, but: this isn’t really a case of a president’s bad behavior; it’s a case of the government’s bad behavior. There’s nothing personal about it, unlike with Clinton. Bush directed and approved the government’s bad behavior, certainly, but the bad acts extend way beyond him.
I’d like to see all of it investigated, and not by some special counsel’s office (unless it’s really necessary), but through the normal, criminal investigation process.
If that’s not possible, I’d at the very least like to see some kind of “Truth & Reconciliation” investigation. Give everybody amnesty if they’ll just tell us what the hell they did, when, and on whose authority, so we can try to put structures in place to prevent it happening again.
February 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm
bitchphd
I’ll go along with the “Truth and Reconciliation” thing.
And again, I know the difference between this and the Clinton thing. I’m just talking about how it would play, and how my lazy ass feels (irrationally, I realize) about the prospect of the partisan shitstorm that would ensue.
February 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Dick Cheney has a long history of thinking that the president should have unfettered power, so long as the president is a Republican. « The Edge of the American West
[…] 7, 2008 in Uncategorized by ari [Editor’s note: Because of the revelations from the hearings today on the Hill, at which Attorney General Mukasey basically said that the […]
February 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm
ari
I didn’t mean to tar you with thge false analogy brush, B. I know that you know the difference. And I suspect that you’re right; the popular appetite for sweeping investigations might not match my interest in such a thing. But Urbino may be onto something.
February 7, 2008 at 4:46 pm
urbino
the prospect of the partisan shitstorm that would ensue
Unfortunately, I think we’re in for that, pretty much non-stop, by sheer virtue of the presence of a Dem in the WH. The GOP has become the party of the partisan shitstorm. It’s all they know how to do, anymore. Even their failed presidential candidates can’t bow out without saying they were forced to by the traitorous weakness of the Democrats.
I don’t say that — that the partisan shitstorm is all the GOP knows how to do, anymore — as an accusation from someone on the other side. I say it resignedly, as an observation on the data. The GOP used to know how to be the GOP without constant, immediate recourse to scorched earth. Unfortunately, they no longer do.
Now, with a Democrat (probably) taking the WH for the first time since 9/11, I think we can expect a non-stop partisan shitstorm for the duration. Still, I take your point that criminal investigation of lawlessness during the Bush admin. would trigger a particularly nasty one.
February 7, 2008 at 4:56 pm
bitchphd
Ari, I wasn’t being pissy. Just trying to be clear. I had no idea in my mind that you were painting me with anything.
Urbino, I worry about partisan shitstorming too. I hope that if we get Obama in the White House *and* get control of Congress maybe the fuckers will be reduced to seething ineffectively on the sidelines and the shitstorm won’t be on the front page of the NYT every morning. Vain hope, I’m sure.
Of course, if we get Clinton in the White House, we’re in for four to eight years of unremitting shit hurricanes.
February 7, 2008 at 5:02 pm
urbino
I hope that if we get Obama in the White House *and* get control of Congress maybe the fuckers will be reduced to seething ineffectively on the sidelines…
Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening unless the Dems get better leadership in the Senate. (Chris Dodd, a nation turns her lonely eyes to you. Woo woo woo.) One of the reasons I support Obama is that I think he will be better able to overcome the shitstorm, by appealing directly to the American people.
February 7, 2008 at 5:55 pm
urbino
Just for giggles, I checked the CNN and MSNBC websites for this story. Good luck finding it in either place. CNN has half a story about Mukasey refusing to investigate past waterboarding, but nothing about his claim to be the real Supreme Court.
I’d check FOX, but I can’t tolerate the idea of giving them a web hit.
February 7, 2008 at 6:37 pm
ari
Yeah, I did this earlier. Andt that’s why I put the post up, thinking that the intertubes might get the word out. But nobody’s linking, which, I think, proves your point from upthread: this is old news. Which leads me to a pretty obvious argument: this is what tyranny looks like in a republic. The tyrant wears down the people. Embed enough venal and horrd behavior in the everyday discourse, and people will stop noticing what’s happening. Well, that’s depressing.
February 7, 2008 at 6:44 pm
urbino
I think you’re exactly right. Outrage Fatigue sets in, and people just tune out whatever doesn’t directly, immediately affect them.
February 7, 2008 at 9:18 pm
CharleyCarp
When he took the job, it was clear enough that Judge Mukasey would have to choose between being a pariah in this Administration and totally trashing his reputation. He’s chosen the latter.
That said, it’s always been clear that the purpose of the torture memos was exactly to make it impossible to prove the appropriate mens rea to get a conviction for war crimes. I expected, from the time the memos were revealed, that the answer when we got here would be ‘we won’t be able to get a conviction, therefore there’s no reason to investigate.’ I was thinking small, and the AG has come up with a much better excuse — one that implicates the next Administration as well: ‘if we start second-guessing OLC opinions, and prosecuting people for relying on them, we undercut all future OLC opinions no matter what they say.’ Genius. Evil genius.
February 7, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Vance Maverick
This is not the first time I’ve seen the suggestion of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to expose what’s been happening in the executive branch, and clear the air for a return to the rule of law. You historians, is there any precedent for such a thing? The South African case seems a bit different — a transition between distinct regimes.
February 7, 2008 at 10:07 pm
ari
Blanket pardons after the Civil War. But, because Lincoln was dead, Johnson subverted the whole process. And so there was no truth, just what passed for reconciliation.
February 7, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Vance Maverick
Maybe the Pendleton Act?
February 8, 2008 at 10:54 am
urbino
The perversity of the Bush/Cheney and now Mukasey claims about the rule of law is that, if they stick to their guns (or, once they’re out of office, if the new executive doesn’t wholly disown their guns), they would never recognize the legitimacy of a T&R Commission.
In their minds, trading the facts of what they did for amnesty is a doubly invalid (apologies to Hank) bargain: because, a) neither congress nor the people are entitled to know the facts and, indeed, revealing them would be Dangerous; and b) they don’t need amnesty, since they haven’t done anything illegal; accepting an amnesty would imply otherwise.
February 8, 2008 at 11:50 am
ari
I think President Bush is going to issue a lot of pardons that will somewhat complicate your otherwise correct formulation, Urbino.
February 8, 2008 at 1:14 pm
eric
Has nobody told Ari not to use a colon after a preposition?
February 8, 2008 at 1:22 pm
ari
Dude, have you never read David Foster Wallace?
February 8, 2008 at 1:26 pm
eric
Dude, if you start writing at the length of David Foster Wallace, you can have this blog.
February 8, 2008 at 1:40 pm
ari
you can have this blog
Both threat and promise, I imagine.
Anyway, I was just playing around with the conventions of narrative and the English language. But I do have a 617,000 word post that I’m planning on putting up later. I worked on it with JJ Abrams.
February 8, 2008 at 1:49 pm
ari
More seriously, how would you have done the hard pause, the gathering of breath that lasts two full beats, that my colon above represents?
February 8, 2008 at 1:59 pm
bitchphd
Em dash.
February 8, 2008 at 2:03 pm
urbino
IYI, here’s my take on Mukasey’s testimony. More or less.
February 8, 2008 at 2:32 pm
urbino
I think President Bush is going to issue a lot of pardons that will somewhat complicate your otherwise correct formulation, Urbino.
I’m sure he would if he could, Ari, but I’m not sure how it would work. For one, pardons are for people who’ve broken the law; I don’t see how Bush could issue pardons and at the same time insist no law was broken. More practically, you can’t issue prospective pardons. (The new Bush Doctrine: preemptive pardoning.) If nobody is even investigated for these acts during his administration — which is certain to be the case — then nobody will have been prosecuted and there will be nobody to pardon.
February 8, 2008 at 2:43 pm
ari
Really, a dash? That doesn’t convey the same sense of gravity for me.
And Urbino, I thought you meant if there were investigations. Why did I think that? I honestly can’t say. No, I can, but I won’t. Always leave ’em wanting more. That’s the motto of this blog.
February 8, 2008 at 2:47 pm
urbino
I thought you meant if there were investigations.
Well, I did, sorta. We were talking about a T&R kind of a thing. But, of course, by then, Bush would be out of office, and unable to issue pardons.
February 8, 2008 at 3:02 pm
eric
You want an ellipsis, there, Butch.
February 8, 2008 at 3:14 pm
urbino
If nobody is even investigated for these acts during his administration
My point would be clearer if I’d written, “If nobody is even investigated during his administration for these acts…”
February 8, 2008 at 3:30 pm
ari
I had one (an ellipsis) but changed my mind. I guess I’m no David Foster Wallace. Which means we’re still blogging partners, right Butch?
February 8, 2008 at 3:31 pm
ari
Wait, I said you could be Sundance, didn’t I? Crap. Okay: Which means we’re still blogging partners, right
ButchSundance?February 8, 2008 at 5:22 pm
ari
See what you made me do, Sundance?
February 8, 2008 at 6:17 pm
urbino
Seriously — any comments on the above linked post would be much appreciated.
February 8, 2008 at 6:44 pm
genesiawilliams
Ok I’m a little swamped by the amount of info here so a quick question…
was or was not listening to other people’s conversations (NIXON) we don’t really trust our presidents now?
I got stuck on that minor detail. I mean how could Clinton get impeached for getting a little extra trim and wiretaps are still an ok option? Shouldn’t, with that line of thinking, discount hook-ups be on the expense report?
February 8, 2008 at 6:48 pm
ari
Should there be a need for an Independent Counsel some time in the next few years, Genesia, you may not be at the top of the Republicans’ list.
February 11, 2008 at 8:12 pm
recontstructionists « along the wayside
[…] The comments to this post – and the subject of the post itself – reminded me of something I wondered about some years back […]
February 11, 2008 at 8:13 pm
andrew
I’m late to this thread, but I actually have a question for you historical knowledge knowers.
February 11, 2008 at 8:41 pm
ari
Nope, no prosecutions that I know of. I left a comment at your blog.
February 11, 2008 at 9:33 pm
andrew
Thanks. It was sort of an obvious answer, but I’m trying not to shy away from asking obvious questions anyway.