By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Sat Dec 15
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration told a federal judge it was not obligated to preserve videotapes of CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists and urged the court not to look into the tapes' destruction.
In court documents filed Friday night, government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy that demanding information about the tapes would interfere with current investigations by Congress and the Justice Department.
It was the first time the government had addressed the issue of the videotapes in court.
<...>
The administration has taken a similar strategy in its dealings with Congress on the issue. On Friday, the Justice Department urged Congress to hold off on questioning witnesses and demanding documents because that evidence is part of a joint CIA-Justice Department investigation.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey also refused to give Congress details of the government's investigation into the matter Friday, saying doing so could raise questions about whether the inquiry was vulnerable to political pressure.
moreBy MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The controversy over destroyed CIA interrogation tapes is shaping up as a turf battle involving the courts, Congress and the White House, with the Bush administration telling its constitutional coequals to stay out of the investigation.
The Justice Department says it needs time and the freedom to probe the destruction of hundreds of hours of recordings of two suspected terrorists. After Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused congressional demands for information Friday, the Justice Department filed late-night court documents urging a federal judge not to begin his own inquiry.
The administration argued it was not obligated to preserve the videotapes and told U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy that demanding information about them "could potentially complicate the ongoing efforts to arrive at a full factual understanding of the matter."
<...>
"We're going to find out if the trust Congress put in Attorney General Mukasey was well placed," said Pepperdine Law professor Douglas W. Kmiec, who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration. "It's hard to know on the surface whether this is obstruction or an advancement of a legitimate inquiry."
more:
I wish I could get outraged by all this, but I just can't sunmmon up the requisite energy. I feel the same way I felt when Roberts and Alito handed down their first opinions and, by golly, they turned out to be rabid wingnuts after all. Whoddathunk?
Michael Mukasey is a Bush stooge. He wouldn't have been nominated if he weren't. His job is to provide cover until the Bush's are out of office at which point he will join the cacophony of Villagers shrieking that the government must stop all the witch hunts and get on with more important business for the good of the country. And everyone who counts --- from Newt Gingrich to Ben Nelson to David Broder --- will agree that we've seen enough of this nasty partisan strife and it's time to heal the nation's wounds.
Scott Horton
December 15, 2007
This has been an important week in the torture debate in America. It has been the week of the President’s coming-out party. Up until this point, torture has been something that “a few rotten apples” do. When evidence of it erupted in the media, a few grunts were quickly rounded up and scapegoated. Never officers, mind you—after all, they generally knew where the orders came from, and if you prosecuted them, they might just tell.
<...>
Let me translate this for you from the legalese. Mukasey to judge pressing queries about tapes destroyed in defiance of his court order: “Drop dead.” The political bucaneer appearing for the Justice Department, Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, explains that if the Court starts looking into the matter, it might get in the way of the Justice Department’s preliminary investigation. Mr. Bucholtz is a certified “movement conservative,” a former clerk to Judge Alito, and a man who earned his Bush DOJ stripes by successfully arguing that Dick Cheney is immune to litigation and discovery, including of what he has lurking in that man-sized safe.
Note: same brush off used with Congress. Note: Mukasey refuses to conduct a real investigation. Won’t appoint an special prosecutor. Note: They launch their argument with a bald claim that the destruction was legal.
“Trust us,” they ask. And to that the answer must be, “why?” The reservoir of trust was exhausted five years ago.
Special Note to Senator Schumer:You’ve been out there telling your constituents, who are generally steaming at you over your decision to make Michael Mukasey the Attorney General (and it was
your personal decision), that they should take solace from the “facts” that David Addington and Alberto Gonzales opposed the Mukasey nomination. I think that is so. You are also busy telling people that you’re a “pragmatist.” We need pragmatists in politics, of course. Without them the system won’t work. Let’s just be sure that we don’t use political pragmatism to justify sending the Constitution to the shredder and institutionalizing a system of torture. There are some areas where being “pragmatic” is not an acceptable response—on that point, I’m solidly with Barry Goldwater and Bruce Fein. Show your constituents that you care about our national values. Push this probe as aggressively as possible. Don’t relent. Who knows, maybe your constituents will even forgive you for an excruciatingly bad judgment call. After all, I made the same mistake.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
