Joe Lieberman Susan Collins Subpoenas Eric Holder, Robert Gates

Senators Joe Leiberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) issued subpoenas to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. This is a "whoa!" moment, friends. Lieberman and Collins and others on the Senate Homeland Security Committee are fed up with their requests for information on the Fort Hood massacres being shoved somewhere among all the opulence of the Department of Justice, where if Holder has his way, it will never see the light of day.

Department of Justice

Lieberman and Collins want Major Nidal Hassan's personnel records, and specifically those categorized as "For Official Use Only." Not an extraordinary request unless those in possession of the personnel files want to keep Islamic terrorism underwraps. Afterall, the Muslim soldier gunned down 14, including one unborn child, while shouting allahu akhbar.

Pentagon officials are reviewing the subpoena before determining their next step, spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters Monday.

The Defense Department, he said, believes that it has responded to requests from Congress, "in keeping with the need to protect the integrity of the criminal prosecution and longstanding privacy practice.

The White House has not referred the killings an act of terror. In late February 2010, however, five-plus months after the shootings, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano finally went on the record and called it what it was: "violent Islamic terrorism....", but that was about the end of it. Now we have a ban on using the words Islamic terrorists, Islamic terrorism, and Obama

When the Pentagon report on the massacre came out, it failed to mention 'Islamic Terrorism' as the motivation for the killings:

[Lieberman] I was startled and really upset that in the whole report that Secretary [Togo] West and Adm. [Vern] Clark did on this Ft. Hood massacre, they never used ther tems radical Islamist extremism or violent Islamic terrorism."

The Homeland Security Committee wants to know who Hasan's superiors were, and what they knew about Hasan's radical beliefs. Rep. John Carter (R-TX) represents Texas' 31st Congressional District which includes Fort Hood. Carter said the Pentagon report was "sanitized."

People are afraid to speak out and label someone because they'll be accused of being a racist or accused of profiling or being prejudiced against a certain religion or race of people," Carter told Politico. "But in a time of national crisis, which I believe we are in, all identifiers must be be discussed.

How sad is it that the first subpoenas of the Obama administration are delivered to the U.S. Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense?

Eric Holder: Hundreds of Terrorists Imprisoned by Federal Courts: Guess Not!

It all depends on what the meaning of "Terrorist" is. Remember Attorney General Eric Holder claiming the Feds had imprisoned "hundreds" of terrorists through civilian court trials? Apparently not. The press release came late on Friday as everyone exited Washington, D.C. for Easter break (or "time off" for non-believers).

Eric Holder

First, this summation from Andy McCarthy demonstrating just how deep the perversion and deceit in the Department of Justice goes:

The problem is not simply that Justice's numbers are bogus, just like Dana Perino, Bill Burck, I, and others said they were. It is that Justice's purpose is fraudulent.

Andy McCarthy at NRO's The Corner: (emphasis mine)

Finally today, after months of delay, DOJ officials released what they claim is the back-up for Attorney General Holder's oft-repeated and outlandish claim that there are "hundreds" of convicted "terrorists" incarcerated in federal prisons, which "fact" supposedly shows that civilian justice processes are our best method of trying, convicting and securely detaining terrorists.

The Friday data dump is a joke. No wonder they waited til everyone was headed out of town to dump it.

An honest disclosure would have said, "OK, you got us. There are not hundreds of convicted terrorists in custody. That was an exaggeration. The critics were right when they said we were rigging the numbers and inflating our count with hundreds of cases that did not involve terrorism convictions — as well as other cases which, while colorably related to terrorism, are not in the same league as cases involving alien enemy combatants like the 9/11 plotters." 

But that's not what Justice did. Instead, it leaked its disclosure to friendly media (see, e.g., here) which dutifully spun the story to say Justice was "calling the bluff" of its critics. Plainly, Holder & Co. are trying to shape the narrative before anyone actually reads the underlying data. (After watching the media's shoddy coverage last week of the CBO report on Obamacare, who could blame them for figuring they'd get away with it?)

But the claim that there are 403 terrorists in custody is absurd. DOJ arrives at this figure by counting what it describes as two categories of case. The first involves real terrorism charges. Sounds fair enough, but what types of "terrorism charges" are they counting? Well they include, for example, convictions under statutes barring "Animal Enterprise Terrorism," "Narco-terrorism," "crimes against internationally protected persons" (which can be terrorism-related but are not necessarily), hostage-taking (ditto), and offenses like harboring terrorists and material support to terrorism (which are surely terrorism-related, and involve assistance provided to terrorists, but are charges generally brought against facilitators, not actual terrorists).

Read the entire article at The Corner (linked above). More at Hot Air.

Linked by Storm'n Norm'n - Thank you Norm!

Robert Gibbs Jason Mattera on Constitutionality: Steny Hoyer and Jason Mattera on Tax Cheats

Two videos. In the first, Robert Gibbs has an encounter with a young conservative reporter, Jason Mattera at Jason Mattera.com. Gibbs tries to compare approval of Bush tax cuts with passing the mammoth health care monstrosity. Great example of Liberal math: Give people more money in their pay checks, help businesses make their payroll, and it's the equivalent of snatching liberty and privacy out of the hands of parents and grandparents,  and hijacking the futures of coming generations with health care mandates, against the will of the people

[Gibbs] The spending in health care is less than the $1.3 trillion Bush health cut.

[Mattera] Do you ever feel dirty inside defending this administration's deceits and deceptions?

In the second video Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House Majority Leader meets Jason Mattera. A snippet:

"How do you have the stones to tax Americans for not purchasing healh care when you have tax cheat Charlie Rangel writing legislation and tax cheat Tim Geithner enforcing it? You left-wingers have made hypocrisy an art form."

Great job Jason. Talk about stones! Jason has written a book: Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed my Generation. Buy it at JasonMattera.com

Linked by The Lonely Conservative - Thank you Karen!






Robert Gibbs Meets Jason Mattera on Health Care (video)
Steny Hoyer meets Jason Mattera on Tax Cheats (video)

Eric Holder: Loss of Intel and Security is an Acceptable Risk

In 2004, current Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that the Department of Justice is limited on the amount of intelligence the government may be able to extract from a terrorist, as opposed to the intelligence gained by military sources. He said the lost intelligence, and the security risk to the U.S. is an "acceptable risk." Message to Holder: There is no acceptable risk that can avoided.

Bill Burck and Dana Perino have a comprehensive article about this at National Review Online. A question for Holder: would you put one of your family members in the acceptable risk pool?  Of course you would not. Did you cross your fingers while swearing to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution?

h/t FOX Nation 

Others talking about Holder's lame idea of national security:

WeaselZippers 

Eric Holder Lindsay Graham: Eric Holder Jon Kyle: Holder Senate Questioning on 9/11 Civil Trials

Attorney General Eric Holder spoke in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee today, saying he wanted to address his controversial decision to try the mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York City. See a video below.

Eric Holder

Holder told the mother of a man who died aboard Flight 93 which crashed into a Pennsylvania field near Shanksville, PA that "there was evidence, not yet made public, that makes federal court the best place to try Mohammed."

I guess what I'm saying is trust me," the attorney general said quietly, as reporters and security staff crowded around the pair.

I will trust you. I will defer judgment," said Hoagland, though she added she still has serious doubts about his plan. 

Here are some of the "highlights" of Holder's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee today:

(1) The 9/11 attacks were both an act of war and a violation of our federal criminal law

(2) There are more than 300 convicted international and domestic terrorist currently in Bureau of Prisons custody. Including those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in the attacks -- embassies in Africa.

(3) In fact I expect to direct prosecutors to seek the ultimate and most uncommon penalty.

(4) I know that we are at war. I know that we are at war with a vicious enemy who targets our soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan and our civilians in the streets here at home.

(5) Prosecuting -- 9/11 defendants in federal court does not represent some larger judgment about whether or not we are at war. We are at war. And we will use every instrument of national power civilian military.

(6) I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial, and no one else needs to be afraid, either,” Holder said.

(7) We need not cower in the face this enemy.

 No. 6 is pure elitist arrogance, bathed in contempt and disdain for the country and the citizens. The American people are not "scared," are not "afraid," of what KSM has to say. What the animal has to say is irrelevant. How much more demeaning of the American people can a public service get?

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) asked Holder how a civil trial could be better when KSM had already tried to plead guilty before a military commission"

How can you be more likely to get a conviction in a (civilian) court than that?" pressed Kyl, to applause from some in the hearing room.

Holder's non-answer to a very direct question was that the decision to try KSM in New York was not based on the whims or the desires of KSM - "he will not select the prosecution venue. I will. And I have." The question was, why would you think a conviction in civil court will easier than in the military commission - where KSM wants to plead guilty?

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) asked Holder to name one enemy combatant (now known legally as an "unprivileged enemy belligerent") captured on a battlefield and tried in a U.S. civil court. Holder could not name one, and Graham pointed out that there are none. Graham accused Holder of "making bad history," and said "I think you've made a fundamental mistake here."

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said: "I believe this decision is dangerous. I believe it's misguided. I believe it is unnecessary." Holder boasted that 300 terrorists are currently held in U.S. prisons. Sessions asked for a list of those terrorists, and after a slight pause, Holder said he would get the list for the Senator.

In the meeting, Senator Jon Kyl mentioned a previous request from Senator Charles Grassley, who has asked Holder for list of DOJ attorneys who have previous ties to terrorists. Holder indicated he would think about it. Here is what Grassley says on his website:

I plan to ask the Attorney General about potential conflicts of interest within the department related to political appointees working on detainee issues.  Media reports have highlighted certain political appointees at the department and their prior advocacy on detainee issues.  I would like to know more about these appointees and the work they are currently doing at the department.  Any prior representation on the other side of these issues could raise potential conflicts of interest that should be fully disclosed as part of basic transparency and accountability at the department. 

The video below is excellent. Listen as Senator Lindsay Graham tells Holder, your actions "are a perversion of the justice system.




 Eric Holder and Lindsay Graham (video)

Indymedia DOJ: Eric Holder subpoenas IP address of visitors

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally ordered Indymedia to turn over a list of all readers on a specific date, and was told the order could not be revealed without the authorization of the Attorney General. Update 11-10-09.

The order was issued via a grand jury supoena, according to this CBS report today.

U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded:

...all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.

Kristina Clair provides server space for Indymedia.us. She was, not surprisingly, shocked.

Under long-standing Justice Department guidelines, subpoenas to members of the news media are supposed to receive special treatment. One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that "no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general" - that would be current attorney general Eric Holder - ...

Here's the rest of the story:

U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison's office says the subpoena has been withdrawn, but look at this, Kristina Clair was threatened:

Morrison replied in a one-sentence letter saying the subpoena had been withdrawn. Around the same time, according to the EFF, the group had a series of discussions with assistant U.S. attorneys in Morrison's office who threatened Clair with possible prosecution for obstruction of justice if she disclosed the existence of the already-withdrawn subpoena -- claiming it "may endanger someone's health" and would have a "human cost."

 Update 11-10-09:
Clair requested that Electrontic Frontier Foundation (EFF) look into the legality of the subpoena. They found that the text of a sample subpoena from the DOJ had been altered and the demand for IP addresses, dates, times, etc. was added.  EFF says this:

...it plainly violated the SCA's [Stored Communications Act] restrictions on what types of data the government could obtain using a subpoena.

EFF also confirms that a subpoena cannot order a person to keep the subpoena a secret.

EFF responded to U.S. Attorney Morrison and "invited" his office to seek a court order under a specific statute of the SCA. There were no takers on the court order, but a voicemail left for EFF agreed that Katrina Clair's "silence" was not "compelled," through prior action, but would be followed up with a request for a gag order that very day.

No gag order was sought. The next day, February 25th, EFF received a fax stating that the subpoena had been withdrawn. Read the whole story at EFF, which is very interesting, here.

Some discussion of unconfirmed informaton: Supposedly, a subpoena of this type cannot be issued without the approval of the U.S. Attorney General. Via television today, I heard that Holder had not signed-off on this subpoena, and perhaps that is why it was withdrawn. I can find no confirmation of Holder's approval needed, or if needed, him doing so, or that it was withdrawn because he needed to approve, but did not.


Thanks to wide-awake conservative, and master sculptor David Lemon. Visit him at Clay to Bronze.

Democrat Congress Defends CIA on Ft. Hood Murders: Pete Hoekstra Accuses Obama of Withholding Info

There is a different tone coming out of the House of Representatives today. Speaker Pelosi called the CIA liars a few months back, offered no proof, then managed to sweep the controversy under the rug. Today as House Republican Pete Hoekstra calls for an explanation and the preservation of documents, he also accused Obama of withholding "critical" information. The House Intelligence Committee, chaired by a Democrat, dismissed Hoestra's concerns. See an astonishing video below. See update below.

Pete Hoekstra

Rep. Hoekstra went even farther and effectively said the President was not truthful when he claimed that Hoekstra and other intelligence committees had been "briefed:"

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) is blasting President Obama for withholding from the Congressional intelligence committees information on the Fort Hood killings suspect, while at the same time acknowledging the leaders of those panels -- including Hoekstra himself -- have indeed been briefed on Nidal Malik Hasan.

In his statement, Hoekstra repeated Obama's plea that we not "jump to conclusions" about Nidal Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood killer:

...but the administration is in possession of critical information related to the attack that they are refusing to release to Congress or the American people," Hoekstra said

Hoekstra said he was concerned that more information had been provided, piecemeal, to the news media by anonymous sources than had yet been provided to the Committee. He criticized the Obama administration for not being more immediately forthcoming with details and specifically requested information, and for restricting the limited information provided so far to the so-called "Gang of Eight."

So perhaps the Gang of Eight is the problem? No. Hoekstra is a member of the Gang of Eight. Members are Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Silvestre Reyes, Pete Hoekstra, Diane Feinstein and Kit Bond. So what is going on? Was Hoekstra appropriately briefed as Obama claims or was he not? And how about Pelosi and Reid? What do they know?
 
This is the height of hypocrisy - the culmination of evil. The administration and Democrats are salivating over Eric Holder's investigation into CIA so-called torture of Guantanamo prisoners - after promising the Bush administration that they would drop that atrocious idea.

But today, with the Fort Hood memorial tribute still on the calendar, they have no concern that intelligence and the U.S. Army may have put troops side-by-side with a radical jihadist - with red flags flaring.

Democrats know Americans are fed up with their politically correct posture - that we know Americans are dying in this country, in Afghanistan and still yet in Iraq because military fears the wrath of Congress, and the administration loathes any attempt to profile or point a knowing finger at an extremist. In the video below, Hoekstra speaks about preventing terrorism and keeping soldiers safe...February 2008. Listen as he talks about homegrown terrorism. Democrats told him the "threat is not real."






Pete Hoekstra "threat not real" (video)

Update 11-10-09:

Michelle Malkin is talking about the presentation Hasan gave at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as a student, and she is calling for the entire presentation to be released. From Hasan:

The title of Hasan’s power-point presentation was “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.” It consisted of 50 slides. In one slide, Hasan described the presentation’s objectives as identifying “what the Koran inculcates in the minds of Muslims and the potential implications this may have for the U.S. military.”

FOX News is reporting that it was the FBI "that blew off" Hasan's many emails to Anwar Al-Alwak. This report says the FBI "knew for nearly a year berfore his murderous Fort Hood rampage" that he had repeatedly contacted al-Qaeda:

...they simply chalked up the chilling e-mails between Hasan and a radical imam and other terror-tied Islamic figures to his "research" as an Army shrink.

Black Panthers Win: Voter Fraud Wins: Voter Rights Lose

Philadelphia voters just lost their voter's rights. The Black Panthers have won. Voter Fraud won. The people of Philadelphia - that City of Brotherly Love, those coveted Voter Rights - lost. If you think this only matters in Philadelphia, think again. Armed thugs standing outside your poll precinct is coming to a polling place near you.

Black Panthers Win

The home of the liberty bell and Ben Franklin just had the long-arm of Obama Law reach out and smack hard the city and it's voters. Barack Obama's justice department has decided it is okay to have members of the New Black Panther party deciding who does what inside and outside a polling precinct. DOJ attorneys were told to stand-down and dismiss the case:

The civil suit filed Jan. 7 identified the three men as members of the Panthers and said they wore military-style uniforms, black berets, combat boots, battle-dress pants, black jackets with military-style insignias and were armed with "a dangerous weapon"and used racial slurs and insults to scare would-be voters and those there to assist them at the Philadelphia polling location on Nov. 4.

The complaint said the three men engaged in "coercion, threats and intimidation, ... racial threats and insults, ... menacing and intimidating gestures, ... and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote." It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would "continued to violate ... the Voting Rights Act by continuing to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters, by again deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country."

To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.

Inexplicably, the government did not enter the affidavit in the court case, according to the files.

"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

The defendants, New Black Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson - for five months REFUSED TO APEAR IN COURT. What would happen to you or I if we so blatantly flipped off the Federal court? As late as May 5th, the DOJ considered "judgments or sanctions" against the three men because of their failure to appear in court.

But 10 days later, the department reversed itself and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal from the complaint for Malik Zulu Shabazz and Mr. Jackson.

Black Panthers (Photo)

Malik Zulu Shabazz is a Howard University Law School grad and a resident of Washington, D.C. Jerry Jackson is credentialed to be at a the polling place as he is a 14th Ward Democratic Committee member.

According to the complaint, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a Howard University Law School graduate, said the placement of King Samir Shabazz and Mr. Jackson in Philadelphia was part of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members at polling locations on Election Day.

Ironically, The Voters Rights Act under Section 5, said that jurisdictions covered by these special provisions could not implement any change affecting voting until the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the change did not have a discriminatory purpose and would not have a discriminatory effect.

This is part of the "change" Obama promised us, I guess. The Attorney General has sanctioned the change and decided that we will pay a poll tax in the form of voter intimidation. The Black Panthers tending your polling place, wielding weapons and trash talking - perhaps about your ethnicity, the color of you skin and your choice of candidate, is okay by Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. It's payback time.

There is an interesting editorial at The Washington Times. You can read it here. The first video shows the Black Panthers telling a reporter at a Philadelphia poll that he is "security." As you listen to the second Black Panther speak, remember the testimony of Bartle Bull above. Shades of Bill Clinton: One Black Panther says there are "no night sticks" at the polls. When the reporter says, but yes, there was a man with a night stick here, the Black Panther says "I don't care about what was. I care about what is."

Black Panthers - Voter Fraud Wins (Video)

Voter Rights Lose (Video)

In the Glare of a New Administration, Mukasey Defends America's Counter-Terrorism

U.S. Attorney General, Michael Mukasey

Michael Mukasey, the current U.S. Attorney General, stepped to the podium at a meeting of the Federalist Society to defend Bush 43's strategy to keep America safe after the 9/11 attacks - "a remarkable achievement," he said, despite the "relentless criticism" in the media, in Congress and the "legal academy." This important speech never really reached the light of day as General Mukasey, in a frightening and dramatic moment, slurred his words and fainted on the stage. It was perhaps, only a faint, not a stroke or heart attack, caused by the late hour, the hot lights, and maybe the fact that a Washington State Supreme Court judge yelled loudly from the audience, "Tyrant. You are a Tyrant." Mukasey, obviously unsettled by the shouts, hesitated and then went on with his speech. Richard Sanders, the distinguished judge, was described on The Factor as a "self-styled Libertarian and anti-war activist. This rag-tag activist Judge, one of many bloating our Courts today, confronted Mukasey during a formal invitation-only event. This man had avenues to get his message to Mukasey, but he chose to employ his base, rude and ugly self, obfuscating the right of all to hear an invited speaker. Mukasey's speech, only a portion of which was delivered, touched on many important issues for the future of America. I'm sure he has delivered equally direct speech on terrorism and counter-terrorism in the past, but I know I've seldom, if ever, seen one reported widely in the press. This one deserves to be heard. My highlights below: (Read the entire speech here) Mukasey challenges the critics and speaks of the irony of our successful seven year defense of this Nation:

In some measure, those criticisms rest on a very dangerous form of amnesia that views the success of our counterterrorism efforts as something that undermines the justification for continuing them. In an odd way, we have become victims of our own success. In the eyes of these critics, if Al Qaeda has not struck our homeland for seven years, then perhaps it never posed much of a threat after all and we didn’t need these counterterrorism policies.

About the often discussed, and much misunderstood, rule of law:

Other critics question the premise—almost universally accepted following the September 11th attacks —that the United States is engaged in a war against Al Qaeda and other groups. Even more common is the casual assumption among many in media, political, and legal circles that the Administration’s counterterrorism policies have come at the expense of the rule of law. I am quite familiar with these criticisms, having heard them myself during my tenure as Attorney General. ...There is, understandably, passionate debate about where the legal lines are drawn in this new and very difficult conflict and, as a matter of policy, how close to those legal lines we should go. ...answering legal questions often involves a close reading and a critical analysis of a text—the Constitution, statutes, judicial decisions, and the like. Regrettably, this point is much too often lost in the public discourse on the subject. Newspapers, commentators, and even prominent lawyers often discuss critical questions about national security policies with barely any acknowledgement that the answers may depend on the language of, say, the Constitution or a statute. And critics of this Administration’s policies rarely draw distinctions between whether a course of action is permitted as a matter of law, and whether that course of action is prudent as a matter of policy.

As an example of how critics ignore the rule of law, Mukasey cites an unnamed lawyer's condemnation of:

...the oppressive, relentless, and lawless attack by our own government on the rule of law and our liberty.” According to this person, we live now in a -- “time of repression” where the “word ‘Patriot’ names a statute that stifles liberty,” and where we face “assaults by our government on constitutional rights, the Separation of Powers, and the Geneva Conventions.”

The lawyer cited not the Constitution, treaties or laws, Mukasey says, but rather:

...the author relied on such authorities as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New York Review of Books. This style of criticism can be called many things—provocative perhaps, or evidence that the author could be regarded by some as well-read —but what it cannot be called is a reasoned legal critique.

Of course, to those of us paying attention, this is no surprise. On accusations of assaults on the Geneva Conventions:

...you might expect some level of specificity in the charges. One cannot “assault” a treaty as an abstract concept; one can only violate the treaty by acting contrary to its words. The Geneva Conventions contain 319 articles, of which 315 are plainly addressed to armed conflicts among the nations that signed the Conventions. It is hardly surprising that the United States concluded that those provisions would not apply to the armed conflict against Al Qaeda, an international terrorist group and not, the last time I checked, a signatory to the Conventions.

One common article appearing in each of the four conventions, Article 3, provides rules that govern “conflicts not of an international character,” such as civil wars. The President concluded early on that the global war against Al Qaeda had a decidedly “international character.” In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a majority of the Supreme Court disagreed. This narrow legal dispute—again turning on an Administration interpretation that was both reasonable and, indeed consistent with text, history and precedent—hardly warrants the sweeping, dismissive, and entirely conclusory criticisms so frequently heard.

On the Obama Administration and the War on Terror:

In fact, this Administration has displayed a strong commitment to the rule of law, with all that entails and I suspect, and I admit it is a suspicion tinged with hope, that the next Administration will maintain far more of this Administration’s legal architecture than the intemperate rhetoric in some quarters would seem to suggest.

About the possibility that the new Administration will conduct a criminal investigation of the Bush Administration:

...in June of this year, 56 Members of Congress sent me a letter requesting that I appoint a special counsel to conduct a criminal investigation of the actions of the President, members of his cabinet, and other national security lawyers and intelligence professionals into the CIA’s interrogation of captured members of Al Qaeda. The Members who signed this letter offered no evidence that these government officials acted based on any motive other than a good-faith desire to protect the citizens of our Nation from a future terrorist attack. Nor did they provide any evidence or indication that these government officials sought to authorize any policy that violated our laws. Quite the contrary: as has become well-known, before conducting interrogations, the CIA officials sought the advice of the Department of Justice, and I am aware of no evidence that these DOJ attorneys provided anything other than their best judgment of what the law required. I remain concerned, however, when relentless criticism of this Administration’s policies moves beyond simply disagreement into a realm where critics, and even public officials, seek to invoke the criminal justice system to vindicate their policy views.

Mukasey ends his speech with the hope that America will continue to be on the offense, that the the new Administration will acknowledge "that despite any policy differences, the national security lawyers in this Administration acted professionally and in good faith and that the country was safer as a result," and that ongoing legal and policy debates will be debated responsibly, "in a way that does not chill the intelligence community and deter national security lawyers from making the decisions necessary to protect us." I can't imagine the angst of the outgoing Administration - knowing that lawsuits will likely raindown, promising the hope and change of bringing George W. Bush to his knees.