From your post: "Judge Mukasey's respect for the Constitution and the rule of law should not be overstated. As part of his ruling that Padilla was entitled to counsel and to contest the factual accusations against him, Mukasey also ruled, very dubiously, that President Bush had the authority to detain American citizens, even those detained on U.S. soil, as "enemy combatants," and that they need not be charged with any crimes. *He thus rejected Padilla's claim that, as a U.S. citizen, the Constitution barred his incarceration without criminal charges being brought and a conviction obtained in a court of law.*"

While I respect Judge Mukaseys' defense of Due Process, I can't help but wonder about the primise upon which it is based?

It seems to me Judge Mukasey is saying, in effect, U.S. citizens have the constitutional right to counsel/due process to express their 'claims', but Executive 'Authority', certainly in matters of national security, effectively over-rules that fundamental constitutional right?

As to your question: how do I think the next AJ should be dicidered?

In deference to reality: I hope the next AJ is chosen well. Someone who respects the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded.

In my opinion, Judge Mukasey is not that person...based on what I have read here today. I will agree, realistically, he may be the least worst option available at this time.

I would prefer Mukasey over the current acting AJ.

I hope this answered your questions and provided some explanation as to why I would oppose Judge Mukasey based on the information we are discussing?

regards,

bah.

Good post.

I'm just glad we may at long last have a consensus rule-of-law type AJ who is, as Bush declared, "clear-eyed about the threat our nation faces" and according to the NYT has gotten some 'unexpected support' from Bush Adm. critics like Glenn Greenwald. ...or maybe not, it's hard to tell from my perspective :)

With regard to Gen. Patraeus, Judge Mukasey or, as che pasa put it yesterday, any nominee or official of or within the Bush Adm.: Once Bitten Twice Shy (don't get fooled again) principle.

I think that's an understatement. Presently, I am going on the principle that if you are bitten three times in the face, You Can Be Sure It's Not The Dog's Fault ... principle.

sincerely,

bah.

LAWLESSNESS ...1,2,3.

another fine post, Glenn.

It seems to me, however, that the first line of defense against the Bush Adm.'s blatant Lawlessness (or anyone elses, really) is the 'Law' (ie. enforcement). In this case, the Attorney General.

I doubt the 'pending lawsuits against AT&T' would be 'one of the very few remaining avenues (though not the only one) for obtaining a court order ruling as to whether the NSA spying program - which President Bush ordered for five years at least - was illegal', IF there had been (or could be?) an Attorney General who considered such activities illegal.

Which brings me to the new AG nominee, Judge Mukasey. After a cursery review of his writings on the subject, especially his WSJ op-ed referenced in prior post, I think it's a mis-characterzation to suggest Judge Mukasey would demonstrate a 'willingness to defy the president' in such matters or consider it illegal. In fact, I suspect where the Bush Adm. is blatant and overt in its disdain for law and due process wrt 'the threat this nations faces', Judge Mukasey would grant the 'procedures' and sembalence of due process (albeit,with much stricter discloser rules) and then invalidate the result in deference to arbitrary exective authority in the name of 'national security'.

In short, even if FISA is revisted and due process restored, what will it matter if the AG is unwilling to enforce it?

As an aside, it's good to see you, BEbop-o! Glenn was beginning to bug me.

bah.

& somebody call the Law, Glenn.

bah.

Perhaps Feinstein is a good choice for the Democrat poster-person entrenched inside-the-beltway-beholden politician who has completely lost touch with the people she was elected to represent, Glenn.

OTOH, that would hardly explain the poll-popularity of the Democratic Presidential 'front-runner'(or, certainly one of two D-front runners) Sen. Clinton. If you happened to take a gander at Meet the Press Sun., Sen. Clinton was espousing foreign policy goals that, in my opinion, would make Dick Cheney proud.

In defense of her vote on AUMF in Iraq (and Sen. Levin's suggestion that it could have been contingent upon 'exhaustion of UN' remedies), Sen. Clinton usurped the words of John Bolton in declaring the UN should not have 'veto' power over U.S. foreign policy. Evidently, even when the U.N.'s assessment was clearly correct and the U.S. "intelligence failure" was clearly wrong concerning her support for AUMF in Iraq.

(*To be clear, it's not that I can't imagine 'circumstances' where the need for limited, short-term use of force, based on credible 'intelligence' and outside the auspices of a slow-moving UN mandate may be warrented. Iraq, however, was not - & is not - one of those circumstances imo.)

Thus, Sen. Clinton's ...uh, 'world view' is hardly distinguishable from the Bush Adm.s' lack of a world view, in my view. In Sen. Clinton's case, that would be a New Yorker ...and the rest of the world a little mud flat on the Jersey side, I reckon. (& btw. what the hell has happened to Bill? Lost his powers of speech... or what?)

Briefly, I fail to understand how any American (left/right or head up ass) with any sense of fair-play could even entertain the nationalistic extremism so painfully obvious in the [still] unjustified Iraq war that the Bush Adm. and Sen. Clinton clearly endorse? Since when did Sen. Clinton decide the U.S. should rule the world ... and unfairly at that!?

sugarloaf,

bah.