[progchat_action] Michael Ratner: "We cannot depend on Democrats"
 
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:21:42 -0500 (CDT)

Michael Ratner on Michael Mukhasey

Democracy Now!
October 18.2007

******

AMY GOODMAN: Michael Mukasey, responding to questions from the Senate
Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy. Your thoughts on this issue?

MICHAEL RATNER: Just look at what this guy is saying. They're asking him
about the warrantless wiretapping program that clearly violated
constitutional law, and he actually says, well, there may be a gap between
the law and presidential authority that allows the President to do this
warrantless surveillance. So he's essentially saying this is OK.

At another point in the hearing, he said -- when they talked about the
electronic warrantless surveillance program, he says, quote, "I'm not
familiar with that program." How could someone living in today's America be
not familiar with the warrantless wiretapping program? So what you're
talking about here is somebody who is basically going to go along with this
administration, give it a little better face than Gonzales, but is
essentially -- is essentially one of them.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, the top news, Democratic and Republican leaders reaching
an agreement over a deal with the Bush administration over electronic
surveillance that would grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications
companies that gave information over to allow the surveillance of US
citizens.

MICHAEL RATNER: Yeah, I mean, look where we are, Amy. The Military
Commission Act in October 2006 granted retroactive immunity on the issues of
torture, and so now they're making a deal to grant retroactive immunity to
the telecommunications companies, because they cooperated illegally --
almost for sure illegally -- with the government in electronically
surveilling us without warrants.

AMY GOODMAN: So, where are the Democrats?

MICHAEL RATNER: Where are the Democrats? Right now, they're in a very, very
bad place, in my view. They're not a group that we can depend on to protect
fundamental rights, whether they're to do with torture, electronic
surveillance, enemy combatants, and certainly not to close Guantanamo at
this point. I mean, his answer on Guantanamo -- this is six years of
Guantanamo, never had anybody with a charge, and he says this is a difficult
issue, what are we going to do with the people. Well, the answer is, if you
have charges against people, you can try them in a regular criminal court.
If you don't, they have to be released. And whose responsibility is that?
That's our responsibility in the United States, and we ought to take those
people into the United States.

Now, Mukasey -- what's amazing is you have three bodies of knowledge to look
at. He's written op-eds in the Wall Street Journal. Those say, first of all,
that he wants terrorist courts, special courts to try terrorists. This is
the guy the Democrats are going to confirm. He attacked the National Library
Association for going after the PATRIOT Act. This is the guy they want to
confirm. Then he's a trial judge right here in the Southern District of New
York. And what does he do? He upholds Jose Padilla's enemy combatant status,
upholds material warrants. And in one of the most chilling -- really, one of
the most chilling things that reminds me of every dictatorship in the world,
the lawyer representing Padilla -- or, no, not Padilla -- brings this
Palestinian, Awadalla, in from the court -- it's on a material witness
warrant, it's a secret hearing -- and the lawyer says, "My client has been
beaten." The client is in a jumpsuit, orange jumpsuit. What does Mukasey say
from the bench? "He looks fine to me." This is after an allegation of
beating. This is the man that these Democrats want to put in as Attorney
General. No excuse for it.

Full at: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/18/1418244

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm