Michael Mukasey’s Disingenuously Dangerous Defense of the Bush Torture Regime
It seemed like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales barely had two brain cells to rub together on the best of days, so his defense of the Bush torture regime was simple: Na-na-na-na-na! The president can do whatever he wants.
Michael Mukasey, who prepped for the job in the federal judiciary while Gonzales was the president’s lapdog, is a rocket scientist by comparison.
After hoodwinking the Senate into confirming him because he promised that he’d have to look into this torture stuff, Mukasey has gone to great lengths to defend its use while approving an “independent” investigation into the darkest of all the dark aspects of the Bush administration that is anything but.
The crux of Mukasey’s defense is that timid lawyering as a consequence of congressional investigations and reforms that grew out of the Iran-Contra affair and other intelligence scandals in the 1970s and 80s lulled the U.S. intelligence community into a state of somnambulence that contributed to the 9/11 terror attacks. And that criticizing John Yoo, David Addington and, yes, that Gonzo for throwing down the gauntlet is to ignore that the U.S. is more secure as a result.
Speaking at the Boston University Law School commencement, Mukasey declared that . . .
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House and here for an index and links to other posts on torture.
4 Responses to “Michael Mukasey’s Disingenuously Dangerous Defense of the Bush Torture Regime”
In a nutshell, Mukasey (and he is not alone) is saying that people don't bear any personal responisibility for theri actions, so long as a government approves of them. In turn, the government should extend the safety net of immunity as wide as possible to protect its policies
That's been the guiding principle of many a dictatroship, and while we still held on to our own principles, the US disapproved vigorously. We held ourselves to a higher standard.
The greed based corruption scandals in Washington are but a pimple on the morally corrupt face of the nation., when it buys into this rationale.
It's ironic that those who rail most about moral relativism are the staunchest defenders of obfuscation when it actually comes down to distinguishing right from wrong.
What did we expect from a Giuliani supporter? Everyone was in such a rush to replace Gonzo, that a jar of mayo could have done a better job.
Mucusey is just another Bush lapdog yes-man.
Blaming it on the “somnambulance” of the 80's is a weak hindsighted argument, then again most neocon fallacies are- and they wonder why they bump into so many things when they're looking at their keisters!
Anyone who believed that the Bush administration would nominate an AG who might later turn on them is hopelessly naive. Unfortunately, loyalty and the willingness to turn a blind eye has been the key qualification of any Cabinet member. Those who disagreed with W soon found their bags packed for home.
“Anyone who believed that the Bush administration would nominate an AG who might later turn on them is hopelessly naive.”
Or who still hopes, today? Blow that dust off the corpses of the vultures atop that dust atop that horse carcass before continuing to beat that horse carcass…[yawn]