Here they go again. On Monday, Bush's Attorney General, Michael  Mukasey, called on Congress to take dramatic steps to subvert the  Constitution.

Mukasey is demanding that Congress issue a new declaration of war that  would make the entire globe -- including the United States itself --a  "battlefield" where the president decides who will be locked up  forever.

Instead of ending the Bush system of injustice, he wants Congress to  make it permanent.

Tell Congress to reject the Bush/Mukasey plan to subvert the  Constitution. Go to:  http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=kIpgJGN_SJx7aE4Y4fak6g..

Not only has Bush's Attorney General called on Congress to issue a new  declaration of war, but he is also asking Congress to:

1. Gut habeas corpus -- the freedom that protects people from being  thrown in prison illegally -- with no help, no end in sight and no due  process.

2. Cover up the Bush administration's systemic torture and abuse of  detainees. Judges would not be allowed to see evidence of torture and  abuse and would instead simply have to trust that a president is  holding the right people as "enemy combatants."

With only five weeks left in the congressional schedule and only six  months left in the Bush presidency, Mukasey's power grab should be  laughed out of town. But, given this Congress' track record, the  Mukasey proposal is no laughing matter.

Tell Congress to reject the Bush/Mukasey plan to subvert the  Constitution:  http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=iOfRiP_JbQFnY0Xjo_rRNA..

Too many times, we've seen Congress cave in to the most outrageous  Bush demands for out-of-control powers: The Patriot Act. National  Security Letters. The Military Commissions Act. The Protect America  Act. And, most recently, the congressional sell-out on FISA.

Four times the Supreme Court has rejected the Bush administration's  efforts to design a war on terror system of injustice that defies the  Constitution and mocks the rule of law. In the past, the administration has responded, not by respecting the Constitution, but  by counting on Congress to legitimize its indefensible conduct.

There is no way we can let that happen this time. Even as the House  Judiciary Committee investigates whether high-level Bush White House  officials may have committed crimes of torture and abuse, the Bush  administration has the arrogance to ask Congress to give it the power  to detain people without trial and hide torture and abuse from the  courts.

Tell Congress to reject the Bush/Mukasey plan to subvert the  Constitution:  http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=_kK0vDCsW8KnpxZdZonzwA..

We can't take for granted that Congress will reject the Bush/Mukasey  plan. We have to meet this outrageous proposal with an immediate wall  of protest that says to Congress: "Don't you dare."

I urge you to join defenders of freedom all across the country in  raising your voice against Attorney General Mukasey's dangerous  proposal.

Thanks for speaking out,

Caroline Fredrickson, Director

ACLU Washington Legislative Office

P.S. You can read a blog post from Christopher Anders, ACLU Seinor  Legislative Counsel, on the Bush/Mukasey plan to subvert the

constitution here:

http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=T75iFG_G3F7OjUHNuPfWMg..

--

***************************

THERE'S MORE !!!!!

Along with other past and present administration officials, Attorney General Michael Mukasey supports lawlessness and police state justice. Weeks after the Supreme Court\'s landmark (June 12) Boumediene ruling, he addressed the conservative, pro-war American Enterprise Institute (on July 21) and asked Congress to overrule the High Court - for the third time. His proposal:

-- subvert constitutional and international law;

-- authorize indefinite detentions of Guantanamo and other "war on terror" prisoners (including US citizens designated "enemy combatants"); and

-- deny them habeas rights, due process, and any hope for judicial fairness.

Since June 2004, the (conservative) High Court made three landmark rulings. Twice Congress intervened, and Mukasey wants a third time. In Rasul v. Bush (June 2004), the Court granted Guantanamo detainees habeas rights to challenge their detentions in civil court. Congress responded with the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005 subverting the ruling.

In June 2006, the Supreme Court reacted. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it held that federal courts retain jurisdiction over habeas cases and that Guantanamo Bay military commissions lack \"the power to proceed because (their) structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions (of) 1949.\"

In October 2006, Congress responded a second time. It enacted the Military Commissions Act (MCA) - subverting the High Court ruling in more extreme form. In its menu of illegal provisions, it grants the administration extraordinary unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate, torture and prosecute alleged terrorist suspects, enemy combatants, or anyone claimed to support them. It lets the President designate anyone anywhere in the world (including US citizens) an \"unlawful enemy combatant\" and empowers him to arrest and detain them indefinitely in military prisons. The law states: \"no (civil) court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever....relating to the prosecution, trial or judgment of....military commission(s)....including challenges to (their) lawfulness...."

On June 12, 2008, the High Court again disagreed. In Boumediene v. Bush, it held that Guantanamo detainees retain habeas rights. MCA unconstitutionally subverts them, and the administration has no legal authority to deny them due process in civil courts or act as accuser, trial judge and executioner with no right of appeal or chance for judicial fairness.

On July 21, Mukasey responded, and immediately the ACLU reacted in a same day press release headlined: \"Attorney General Wants New Declaration of War Allowing Indefinite Detention and Concealment of Torture.\" It called Mukasey's speech \"an enormous executive branch power grab....authoriz(ing) indefinite detention(s) through a new declaration of armed conflict.\" He asked Congress to redefine habeas through legislation "that will hide the Bush administration\'s past wrongdoing - an action that would undermine the constitutional guarantee of due process and conceal systematic (lawless) torture and abuse of detainees."

Like his two predecessors, Mukasey mocks the rule of law and supports harsh police state justice. He wants Congress to \"expand and extend the \'war on terror\' forever\" and let the president detain anyone indefinitely without charge or trial. ACLU's Washington Legislative Director, Caroline Fredrickson, called this \"the last gasp of an administration desperate to rationalize what is a failed legal scheme\" - that the Supreme Court thunderously rejected three times.

Mukasey proposes lawlessness and cover-up, \"but there is no reason to think that Congress will assist him.\" It \"won\'t fall for this latest (scheme) to (suppress) its wrongdoing.\" Besides, the House Judiciary Committee is now investigating whether high-level administration officials authorized torture and abuse. Mukasey wants to hide it and is asking Congress to \"bury the evidence.\"

The ACLU is righteously outraged by this latest attempted power grab. It rejects Mukasey\'s lawlessness and states there is \"no need to invent yet another set of legal rules to govern the detention and trial of prisoners held on national security grounds, and the rules that (Mukasey) is proposing are fundamentally inconsistent with\" constitutional and international law.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) Responds

After Mukasey\'s September 17, 2007 nomination for Attorney General, CCR issued the following November 1, 2007 statement:

\"Michael Mukasey is not fit to be Attorney General because he supports torture, illegal spying on Americans, and limitless powers for the Executive Branch.\" As the \"country\'s highest law enforcement official,\" he\'s obligated \"to enforce the law\" - not make excuses for the government when it\'s in violation. CCR stands \"firmly against Mukasey\'s nomination....Our country cannot afford to make compromises to our laws, our morals, and our humanity any longer.\" The Senate must reject Attorney General candidates who\'ll \"undermine American justice and shred the Constitution.\"

CCR expressed equal outrage on July 21. Its Executive Director, Vincent Warren, denounced Mukasey\'s proposal in the following excerpted statement:

\"What Mukasey is doing is a shocking attempt to drag us into years of further legal challenges and delays. The Supreme Court has definitively spoken\" in Boumediene v. Bush and its two prior rulings. \"For six and a half years,\" the administration and Congress \"have done their best to (deny due process) and prevent the courts from reviewing the legality of the detention of the men in Guantanamo. Congress should be a part of the solution this time by letting the courts do their job.\"

For the past six years, CCR litigated for Guantanamo detainee rights and continues to do it. It organized and coordinated over 500 pro bono lawyers for everyone held there illegally. Most recently, it represented plaintiffs in the landmark Boumediene v. Bush case - argued on December 5, 2007 and ruled on June 12, 2008.

The Wall Street Journal Reports and Editorializes

Its July 22 article states: \"Mukasey Seeks Law on Detainees - Congress Is Urged to Limit Rights of Terror Suspects....in light of a rebuke by the Supreme Court.\" It quotes Mukasey wanting:

-- legislative \"principles\" for \"practical\" limits on the right of detainees to challenge their incarceration;

-- Congress to give the administration freedom to detain combatants "for the duration of the ('war on terror') conflict;\"

-- a "reaffirmation of something that was enacted in legislation after September 11, 2001" (a menu of harsh repressive laws);

-- no "enemy combatants\" released in (or brought to) the US (even to appear in civil court);

-- no intelligence (or harsh interrogation) methods revealed (so evidence of torture and abuse is suppressed), and

-- military officers (and intelligence officials) to be excused from testifying (because what they know is damning).

On its editorial page, the Journal is supportive. It called Mukasey\'s proposal \"modest\" on a "difficult" issue over which "different judges even on the same court will disagree." Mukasey wants congressional "guidance" because there's risk of \"inconsistent rulings and considerable uncertainty."

According to the Journal, Mukasey "was right in stepping forward to say that someone has to take responsibility for the consequences of the Supreme Court\'s 5 - 4\" Boumediene ruling. It wants \"Congress (to) give one court jurisdiction over (all detainee) cases\" and not let the process \"bog down into a Babel of conflicting procedural and legal rulings.\" Mukasey is \"right\" to ask Congress to settle the issue, (regardless of three landmark High Court rulings). In other words:

-- constitutional and international laws don\'t apply;

-- judicial fairness is a dead letter;

-- presidential power is supreme; and

-- Congress must support the executive and overrule the highest court in the land....A \"modest (police state) proposal\" according to the Journal and one it clearly supports.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net .

"No country and no people can be free and ignorant at the same time."

- Thomas Jefferson

From:  ihc@mt.net