Since Mukasey seems to have a problem answering the question of waterboarding (which is obviously been illegal since 1947 when the U.S. prosecuted a Japanese officer for using it against an American not to mention that it appears in a Senate ratified treaty and again in the 2005 act passed by congress)...as a judge he really should know these things....what whill be his fate?

Will the Dems deny him an open vote? Will they show some character or fold to Mr. 27% again? Seems to me that anyone willing to bend the law...cannot serve as attorney general and Mukasey has certainly tried to morph it in the case of waterboarding because it would open the CIA and the administration up to liability.

As AG your job is not to protect the executive from liability, it is however to enforce the rule of law. If you cannot do that, with such an obvious softball like..."treaties, precedent and our own legislative acts define waterboarding as torture and make it illegal...how say you?"

Then he cannot be the Attorney General.

and I'll be writing a few e-mails this weekend

if they fold, I may too.

and you are spot on. this guy sounds more like he's applying for an executive atty. /Presidential Consul position than AG

Even if he eventually says it's illegal, would anyone believe that he actually would treat it as such after this? I don't see how you could trust him to uphold the rule of law even if he now decided to say that it is illegal.

Everyone should show some character in this case, not just the Democrats.

None of it matters. In a few weeks, Congress will go on recess and Bush is almost certain to appoint Mukasey Attorney General.

but don't roll on this

None of it matters. In a few weeks, Congress will go on recess and Bush is almost certain to appoint Mukasey Attorney General.

Not likely...he will either be voted on, or his name will be removed by then.

It would be nearly impossible for the president to recess an appointment of this stature. Not saying he wouldn't, just saying that it is very unlikely.

If there is the suggestion that he might. Congress should be called to an emergency session to make sure that he would not follow through.

There's a lot of stuff that we thought was unlikely that Bush has done anyway. What does he have to lose?

I don't think the Democrats will roll on this one. It's far easier to hang him out to dry, as he should be. There is no "other side" to support.

Since Mukasey seems to have a problem answering the question of waterboarding (which is obviously been illegal since 1947 when the U.S. prosecuted a Japanese officer for using it against an American not to mention that it appears in a Senate ratified treaty and again in the 2005 act passed by congress)...as a judge he really should know these things....what whill be his fate?

Will the Dems deny him an open vote? Will they show some character or fold to Mr. 27% again? Seems to me that anyone willing to bend the law...cannot serve as attorney general and Mukasey has certainly tried to morph it in the case of waterboarding because it would open the CIA and the administration up to liability.

As AG your job is not to protect the executive from liability, it is however to enforce the rule of law. If you cannot do that, with such an obvious softball like..."treaties, precedent and our own legislative acts define waterboarding as torture and make it illegal...how say you?"

Then he cannot be the Attorney General.

Perhaps you can clarify some things for me. In today's Wall Street Journal Opinion page, there is an editorial lambasting the Democrats for holding up the appointment. In the editorial, there is significant space devoted to the subject of waterboarding. Several things caused me concern:

1.Mr. Mukasey has declared that torture "violates the law and the Constitution, and the President may not authorize it as he is no less bound by constitutional restrictions than any other government official." But he refuses to say whether waterboarding meets the statutory definition of torture based only on "hypothetical facts and circumstances."

This seems fair enough given that he has not been briefed on any of the classified interrogation details (as top Congressional Democrats have been). It also seems wise given that, if confirmed, he will have to read and consider legal memoranda already approved by Justice Department officials on the same subject. How can he declare himself before he's read them?
How DOES he declare himself? If he does not, he is seen as supporting torture, If he does, he is rendering an opinion based on information he has never seen. I don't see how he can do this and retain any credibility.

2. If Democrats want to strip the CIA of this tool, then they ought to legislate it openly, not make law under the table through the confirmation process. Congress has twice had the chance to ban or criminalize waterboarding, but it declined to do so in both the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. And not for lack of trying: In debating the Military Commissions Act, Ted Kennedy offered a detailed amendment that specifically prohibited waterboarding, as well as other coercive interrogation methods; it lost on the Senate floor, 46-53.
Your post reaches what appears to be the opposite conclusion from the WSJ opinion. I fail to see how the act that you both refer to can outlaw a practice, as you have implied, and fail to outlaw the same practice, as the WSJ states. One of you is wrong. I hope you can enlighten me.

If you could clarify your statements in light of the statements from the WSJ, I'd certainly appreciate it.

probably some Dems will vote for him, mainly the southern Blue Dog members, but if anyone's gonna fold, talk tough about voting against him, but when it comes down to it they'll vote for him, it'll be the repubs, guys like Spector and Hatch.

best chance to block him is to have it shot down in committee.



but it's funny how his first day of testimony went so well, he said all the right things about rule of law, accountability, torture and our international treaty obligations. suddenly , the next day, he can't call waterboarding torture, nor can he say what restrictions there might be on a president's actions under the laws.

someone got taken to the woodshed overnight.

Perhaps you can clarify some things for me. In today's Wall Street Journal Opinion page, there is an editorial lambasting the Democrats for holding up the appointment. In the editorial, there is significant space devoted to the subject of waterboarding. Several things caused me concern:

1.
How DOES he declare himself? If he does not, he is seen as supporting torture, If he does, he is rendering an opinion based on information he has never seen. I don't see how he can do this and retain any credibility.

2.
Your post reaches what appears to be the opposite conclusion from the WSJ opinion. I fail to see how the act that you both refer to can outlaw a practice, as you have implied, and fail to outlaw the same practice, as the WSJ states. One of you is wrong. I hope you can enlighten me.

If you could clarify your statements in light of the statements from the WSJ, I'd certainly appreciate it.

The Wall Street Journal has their opinion and I have mine.

Best not to cite editorials...in my opinion. They tend to be written with a framework, just as mine was.

If he declares it as torture (which it is) then the U.S. has been breaking the law, treaties duly enacted by Congress (possibly an impeachable offense) etc.. The Wall Street Journal, is arguing semantics not reality. They are hoping that people like myself will stop thinking..."JHChrist...are we really at a point in our country where torture is on the table as a debatable topic?"

And instead make it a "definition of is is"...we all no that waterboarding to any moral indicator that our country strives for is torture. We have prosecuted it as a crime as such and have outlawed it, because of what it is. To backslide on the moral relativism of torture should be confined to actions that can inhibit or hurt the internal organs of a human body...is really a sad state that we as a nation find ourselves in.

Dems will bluster and fuss and then do the right thing and confirm him, as they should.

The Wall Street Journal has their opinion and I have mine.

Best not to cite editorials...in my opinion. They tend to be written with a framework, just as mine was.

If he declares it as torture (which it is) then the U.S. has been breaking the law, treaties duly enacted by Congress (possibly an impeachable offense) etc.. The Wall Street Journal, is arguing semantics not reality. They are hoping that people like myself will stop thinking..."JHChrist...are we really at a point in our country where torture is on the table as a debatable topic?"

And instead make it a "definition of is is"...we all no that waterboarding to any moral indicator that our country strives for is torture. We have prosecuted it as a crime as such and have outlawed it, because of what it is. To backslide on the moral relativism of torture should be confined to actions that can inhibit or hurt the internal organs of a human body...is really a sad state that we as a nation find ourselves in.

and the AG has chosen to protect the admin vs. defend the law. that pretty much shows where his lean is. Funny how the so-called party of 'absolute-morals' takes such relativistic stances on something as horrific as torture.

yes, tis a sad day in US History that we even have to discuss this

The Wall Street Journal has their opinion and I have mine.

Best not to cite editorials...in my opinion. They tend to be written with a framework, just as mine was.

If he declares it as torture (which it is) then the U.S. has been breaking the law, treaties duly enacted by Congress (possibly an impeachable offense) etc.. The Wall Street Journal, is arguing semantics not reality. They are hoping that people like myself will stop thinking..."JHChrist...are we really at a point in our country where torture is on the table as a debatable topic?"

And instead make it a "definition of is is"...we all no that waterboarding to any moral indicator that our country strives for is torture. We have prosecuted it as a crime as such and have outlawed it, because of what it is. To backslide on the moral relativism of torture should be confined to actions that can inhibit or hurt the internal organs of a human body...is really a sad state that we as a nation find ourselves in.

I don't like to cite editorials as a source, but I do think its OK to cite the material they use to make their judgments. In this case, I wouldn't say that something is necessarily so because the WSJ Opinion page said it is, but I would say that they are a pretty reputable source of information when it comes to reporting.

Now to my question, which you are not answering.

The facts as stated by the WSJ are "Congress has twice had the chance to ban or criminalize waterboarding, but it declined to do so in both the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. And not for lack of trying: In debating the Military Commissions Act, Ted Kennedy offered a detailed amendment that specifically prohibited waterboarding, as well as other coercive interrogation methods; it lost on the Senate floor, 46-53."

You have stated that "Since Mukasey seems to have a problem answering the question of waterboarding (which is obviously been illegal since 1947 when the U.S. prosecuted a Japanese officer for using it against an American not to mention that it appears in a Senate ratified treaty and again in the 2005 act passed by congress)...as a judge he really should know these things....what whill be his fate?"

Is the Act you referenced the same as the one referenced by the WSJ? Is it that the Act refers to "torture" and you have defined waterboarding as "torture" whereas Congress rejected that definition?

This isn't a question of the WSJ having their opinion and you having yours. I am not arguing the opinion, but rather the facts that are used to support that opinion. You say that waterboarding is outlawed. The WSJ says that Congress specifically and intentionally did NOT outlaw waterboarding.

What say you?

moneyman, by now, we all know what waterboarding is. Mukasey doesn't have to be briefed and see confidential information to know what it is. He knows. He knows because he has been prepared for these hearings by the administration, and the subject certainly came up. Not answering harms his credibility not because he would be commenting on information he has never seen, but because we all know he doesn't want to answer.

He can't answer the question because of the questions that would follow. He was a judge, after all, and he recognizes this as a trap. He knows that saying waterboarding is torture is going to lead to a series of questions that culminates in "If the President or Vice President ordered the torture, does that make them criminals?" And his answer will have to be "Yes."

It's really rather a simple question. The US has prosecuted people for waterboarding, so by definition the US considers it a crime. If Mukasey knows nothing else, he should know at least that. And that, without any briefings or confidential information, should be his answer. It's a very simple answer based in precedent, for a very simple question.

So you can wrap it in whatever false meaning and motives that you want, but come on. You know better. You wouldn't accept a non-answer like that from someone who worked for you, or who wanted to marry your daughter.

moneyman, by now, we all know what waterboarding is. Mukasey doesn't have to be briefed and see confidential information to know what it is. He knows. He knows because he has been prepared for these hearings by the administration, and the subject certainly came up. Not answering harms his credibility not because he would be commenting on information he has never seen, but because we all know he doesn't want to answer.

He can't answer the question because of the questions that would follow. He was a judge, after all, and he recognizes this as a trap. He knows that saying waterboarding is torture is going to lead to a series of questions that culminates in "If the President or Vice President ordered the torture, does that make them criminals?" And his answer will have to be "Yes."

It's really rather a simple question. The US has prosecuted people for waterboarding, so by definition the US considers it a crime. If Mukasey knows nothing else, he should know at least that. And that, without any briefings or confidential information, should be his answer. It's a very simple answer based in precedent, for a very simple question.

So you can wrap it in whatever false meaning and motives that you want, but come on. You know better. You wouldn't accept a non-answer like that from someone who worked for you, or who wanted to marry your daughter.

It's not a simple answer to a simple question. If, as the WSJ reported, Congress declined to specifically address waterboarding as torture, it appears that they did so for a particular reason, i.e., that they either don't consider it torture or that it is an effective method of getting information from reluctant people and that they - Congress - don't want to take it away from those who use it. Either way, it has not been specifically outlawed, and it is debateable as to whether or not it is, in fact, torture.

I'm no lawyer, and I'm not well-versed on the facts of this Act that the WSJ and TMB referred to. I would be happy to admit that Mukasey should answer the question if Congress had actually outlawed the practice. But if the Senators are asking Mukasey to make a legal judgment based on hypothetical circumstances, in essence asking for a ruling without any arguments from opposing parties, he should decline to answer.

If Mukaskey says it is torture, than every law the U.S. has written and every treaty that it has ratified prohibiting torture...means that the administration has allowed, condoned and determined that it was a "no brainer" to break the law.

Everything hinges on that definition...a definition so clear, that any moral man or woman has to see it what it is...torture.

Perhaps I was unclear in my initial post, but that is the reason he cannot say it is torture, because the administration has all but admitted (cheney in an interview) that it has used the practice. In the backlash that followed his handler had to backpedal and say that he was talking about an interrogation technique that didn't include torture.

But we all know that that is a lie.

It's really rather a simple question. The US has prosecuted people for waterboarding, so by definition the US considers it a crime. If Mukasey knows nothing else, he should know at least that. And that, without any briefings or confidential information, should be his answer. It's a very simple answer based in precedent, for a very simple question.

So you can wrap it in whatever false meaning and motives that you want, but come on. You know better. You wouldn't accept a non-answer like that from someone who worked for you, or who wanted to marry your daughter.

because it would criminalize the admin as these directives came from them

was like Bush's speech to the heritage foundation

what he was actually saying was (if you interpret what he said to what we know)

"It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to gather vital intelligence from captured terrorists"

we want a guy that will allow us to continue to torture

"It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to intercept information from terrorists about potential attacks on the United States of America"

translation: no time to stop, illegal, warrantless wiretaps

"Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"

Bin Laden (the guy I said I don;'t give much thought to, is awfully useful for bluster and intimidation.

" When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden..."

like I failed to do with the 2001 'Bin Laden determined to strike"

He IS a lawyer, and a judge. He should know about the legal precedents. In 1902, the US convicted five Army officers for waterboarding Philippine prisoners. In 1947, the US convicted several Japanese officers for waterboarding American and Philippine prisoners. There are other cases as well. In the past, the US has considered it torture, and a crime worthy of prosecution, and did so without asking Congress to declare it illegal.

Okay, let's say he wasn't up on the legal precedents when he was questioned. Well, he has had enough time now to do the research and read the cases. As a judge and lawyer, based solely on legal precedent, he should now be able to give a legal answer to the question. It would be a great gesture if he opened the next hearing by saying he had done the research, and he now has the opinion that it is illegal. Or, what the hell. As long as he has done the research, he can even say it is legal if that's how he feels. Either way, we need an answer.

If Mukaskey says it is torture, than every law the U.S. has written and every treaty that it has ratified prohibiting torture...means that the administration has allowed, condoned and determined that it was a "no brainer" to break the law.

Everything hinges on that definition...a definition so clear, that any moral man or woman has to see it what it is...torture.

Perhaps I was unclear in my initial post, but that is the reason he cannot say it is torture, because the administration has all but admitted (cheney in an interview) that it has used the practice. In the backlash that followed his handler had to backpedal and say that he was talking about an interrogation technique that didn't include torture.

But we all know that that is a lie.

it's like the Express lane to articles of impeachment for the Pres and VP.

but what is lame is everyone knows it and nobdoy is doing anything about it other than trying to trap the AG applicant into admitting it.

again, why it is such a sad time for America

Everything hinges on that definition...a definition so clear, that any moral man or woman has to see it what it is...torture.

I agree. The problem is that Mukasey isn't answerable to morals unless they are codified. Nobody would want him enforcing laws based on what his morals are, and I think you would agree with that. This is a question that needs to be answered by Congress, and they have declined to do so. To ask Mukasey to do something Congress lacks the will to do themselves, i.e., define "torture", is political chicanery and weakness. The question is a straw man, and we all know it.

I agree. The problem is that Mukasey isn't answerable to morals unless they are codified. Nobody would want him enforcing laws based on what his morals are, and I think you would agree with that. This is a question that needs to be answered by Congress, and they have declined to do so. To ask Mukasey to do something Congress lacks the will to do themselves, i.e., define "torture", is political chicanery and weakness. The question is a straw man, and we all know it.

Congress can bring it to light as it is obvious that if they tried to pass any legislation it would never make it past the Up or Down Filibuster Squad. Come on MM, aren't you the least bit bothered by the FACT that your representation went from Zero to Absolute Hypocrisy on the notion of filibustering in 10 seconds flat?

here's the deal, we had 6 years of lawlessness and rubber stamping and now they are rounding uip the wagons and trying to stall out the 4th quarter. They all know what they have done, they are trying to protect the Presidency and what is left of their party.

Congress can bring it to light as it is obvious that if they tried to pass any legislation it would never make it past the Up or Down Filibuster Squad. Come on MM, aren't you the least bit bothered by the FACT that your representation went from Zero to Absolute Hypocrisy on the notion of filibustering in 10 seconds flat?

here's the deal, we had 6 years of lawlessness and rubber stamping and now they are rounding uip the wagons and trying to stall out the 4th quarter. They all know what they have done, they are trying to protect the Presidency and what is left of their party.

That is se;f serving and baseless rhetoric. Ask yourself why congress declines to make this definitive decision. It is a useful tool in crisis situations and nobody in authority with a sense of responsibility wants to make it a criminal offense to defend this country and it's people.

I agree. The problem is that Mukasey isn't answerable to morals unless they are codified. Nobody would want him enforcing laws based on what his morals are, and I think you would agree with that. This is a question that needs to be answered by Congress, and they have declined to do so. To ask Mukasey to do something Congress lacks the will to do themselves, i.e., define "torture", is political chicanery and weakness. The question is a straw man, and we all know it.

You are asking for it to be specifically mentioned, sequestered and singled out. But surely waterboarding falls under the auspices of the U.N. Conventions against Terror which was ratified by Congress.

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person..."


Not sure how many people here have had a near drowning experience but I have...once while paddling I was caught in a hydraulic that had already killed another paddler before. You have no idea the fear of thinking you are drowning...

One does not need to explicitly codify when it is obviously part and parcel of the above.

The Wall Street Journal is playing verbal gymnastics.

I think in the final analysis this administration has undermined our greatest weapon in the fight against radical Islam; the rule of law.

It's not a simple answer to a simple question. If, as the WSJ reported, Congress declined to specifically address waterboarding as torture, it appears that they did so for a particular reason, i.e., that they either don't consider it torture or that it is an effective method of getting information from reluctant people and that they - Congress - don't want to take it away from those who use it. Either way, it has not been specifically outlawed, and it is debateable as to whether or not it is, in fact, torture.

I'm no lawyer, and I'm not well-versed on the facts of this Act that the WSJ and TMB referred to. I would be happy to admit that Mukasey should answer the question if Congress had actually outlawed the practice. But if the Senators are asking Mukasey to make a legal judgment based on hypothetical circumstances, in essence asking for a ruling without any arguments from opposing parties, he should decline to answer.

both times while repubs held majorities. while I don't know if such a measure has been presented in the most recent Congress, you can bet if it was, that repubs filibustered it until it became a dead issue.

He IS a lawyer, and a judge. He should know about the legal precedents. In 1902, the US convicted five Army officers for waterboarding Philippine prisoners. In 1947, the US convicted several Japanese officers for waterboarding American and Philippine prisoners. There are other cases as well. In the past, the US has considered it torture, and a crime worthy of prosecution, and did so without asking Congress to declare it illegal.

Okay, let's say he wasn't up on the legal precedents when he was questioned. Well, he has had enough time now to do the research and read the cases. As a judge and lawyer, based solely on legal precedent, he should now be able to give a legal answer to the question. It would be a great gesture if he opened the next hearing by saying he had done the research, and he now has the opinion that it is illegal. Or, what the hell. As long as he has done the research, he can even say it is legal if that's how he feels. Either way, we need an answer.

but see, our waterboarding is much different than what those scumbag criminals did. our waterboarding is just like having your own personal shower massager. It's really kind of nice.

the terrorists love it. it's the first good bath they've had in years.

I think in the final analysis this administration has undermined our greatest weapon in the fight against radical Islam; the rule of law.

That's what so many of us have been saying all along. Precisely.

We are a nation of laws. Why bother if we can only follow them when it's easy to do so?

If so, Snake's wrong.

BTW, did it ever occur to the "but the Democrats should just pass a law prohibiting it if they don't like it so much" crowd that perhaps, like their predecessors the Dems don't actually want it outlawed. They want it quasi-outlawed so that they can beat the Admin over the head with the topic time after time. It's called Rovian politics. Geesh, you'd think you'd have learned something in the last 6 years.

bT

If so, Snake's wrong.

BTW, did it ever occur to the "but the Democrats should just pass a law prohibiting it if they don't like it so much" crowd that perhaps, like their predecessors the Dems don't actually want it outlawed. They want it quasi-outlawed so that they can beat the Admin over the head with the topic time after time. It's called Rovian politics. Geesh, you'd think you'd have learned something in the last 6 years.

bT

Actually, that is the point of pointing out the legislative possibilities. They not only want to beat the adminstration over the head, they want it available if and when a democrat adminstration needs it.

That's what so many of us have been saying all along. Precisely.

We are a nation of laws. Why bother if we can only follow them when it's easy to do so?

That is right. A liberal democracy where a government is free to choose which laws it does and does not want to obey...is not a liberal democracy, but something else.

With the rule of law compromised, the only thing standing between the people and tyranny is the good will of the government...and sometimes good men are not in power.

I think it is that simple.

Heard that Feinstein and Shumer just caved in to Mr. 27%...so we have a person as the new AG that has ruled that the pres can hold people indefinately without trial and doesn't know what waterboarding is without a briefing.

Thanks Dems...another reason I will be voting against you...next November.

But today I heard that Shumer and Weinstein (sp) both agreed to support him. this means a back room deal has been cut and now, it wouldn't surprise me if the Dems don't try to pass something specifically prohibiting it.

So I guess the do-nothing dems are gonna do something, huh?

bt

But today I heard that Shumer and Weinstein (sp) both agreed to support him. this means a back room deal has been cut and now, it wouldn't surprise me if the Dems don't try to pass something specifically prohibiting it.

So I guess the do-nothing dems are gonna do something, huh?

bt

Wouldn't that be a red letter day, but don't hold your breath.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071109/ap_on_go_co/senate_mukasey

Once again, Democrats bluster and stomp their feet and then................do the right thing. Of course, they were probably tricked into it. Most of them would probably change their votes today, given what they know NOW.

How long is that charade going to sell to the left? I'm sure Ken will add this to his list of "compromises" from Democrats to "give" the President what he asks for.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071109/ap_on_go_co/senate_mukasey

Once again, Democrats bluster and stomp their feet and then................do the right thing. Of course, they were probably tricked into it. Most of them would probably change their votes today, given what they know NOW.

How long is that charade going to sell to the left? I'm sure Ken will add this to his list of "compromises" from Democrats to "give" the President what he asks for.

They did the absolute, wrong thing.
But that is what people should expect from the Democrats...lies.

They did the absolute, wrong thing.
But that is what people should expect from the Democrats...lies.

I have been trying to get that message across all along, that they are liars? :)

I have been trying to get that message across all along, that they are liars? :)


I will disagree with the term liars. Now if you go with spinless, gutless, d-bags then I'm right there with you. :thumbsup:

playing deal makers when the other side gave up that game decades ago

"he'll just use a recess appointment to put in someone worse"

let him. then at least it ain't on your shoulders

I hope Feinstein and Schumer get booted in their primaries

we really need a good housecleaning on both sides

playing deal makers when the other side gave up that game decades ago

"he'll just use a recess appointment to put in someone worse"

let him. then at least it ain't on your shoulders

I hope Feinstein and Schumer get booted in their primaries

we really need a good housecleaning on both sides

I dislike Schumer intensely but have found some grudging and growing respect for Feinstein.

I dislike Schumer intensely but have found some grudging and growing respect for Feinstein.

She just announced support for granting immunity for telecom companies who illegally complied with Bush's request for private information. She might as well be a Republican now. I hope she loses her primary, too. I'd love to get rid of Boxer, too.

Dianne and Chuck backing each other's plays most of the time

Dianne is from the rich, entrenchged corporate wing of the Democrats. I'll do my damndest to remove her.

immunity? so private business is doing the govts illegal business and that is okay?

and we take another step toward fascism