Then we will not have an Attorney General until 2009.

But, according to his interpretations, the president --and, I assume, the VP--aren't bound by any laws or strictures so can't be prosecuted for anything.

My gut tells me the waterboarding issue, while important, is a bit of a distraction. Mukasey's already disqualified himself by voicing his opinion that the President can violate the law in pursuit of "national security." His nomination shouldn't be allowed to hinge on whether he can find a sufficiently mealy-mouthed answer to the waterboarding question. He should be voted down now.

We are witnessing the ugly side of democracy.........subjective interpretation of law.
A Supreme Court that continually renders 5-4 decisions on our laws and prohibitions does nothing to reassure me that we as citizens and small business owners have lost the battle to the 1% that control 90% of the wealth in OUR Nation.

Mukasey already said torture is illegal. If he says waterboarding is torture, he will in effect be saying that the admin. that sanctioned the practice violated the law. No Bush nominee is going to do that.

Reject this weasel, and be prepared to reject anyone else Bush nominates.

I keep dreaming about the day that everyone from Bush to Tommy Franks is arrested and tried and their assets frozen.

Halliburton and the like banned from ever again getting a U.S. government contract.

Chalabi gets extradicted to Jordan to serve his 22 years of hard labor.

United States is restored as a democracy and the Constitution matters.

Fake News Channel ordered out of business just as Pravda was.

FEMA and other government agencies regain the positive image they had before Bush appointees unleashed their brand of domestic terrorism -- through performance and not PR gimmicks.

I know... keep dreaming...

Dennis Kucinich remarked that there's either there's something wrong with Bush, or there's something wrong with us.

I'm starting to get the feeling that both are true.

Not only do we have a president/vice-president who have rationalized torture to themselves, we have elected representatives who seem incapable of calling out the hypocrisy of an attorney-general nominee who can't answer a direct question.

Bullwinkle @ 5:

My gut tells me the waterboarding issue, while important, is a bit of a distraction. Mukasey's already disqualified himself by voicing his opinion that the President can violate the law in pursuit of "national security." His nomination shouldn't be allowed to hinge on whether he can find a sufficiently mealy-mouthed answer to the waterboarding question. He should be voted down now.

I think both are a problem. And I think that the fact that he couldn't come right out and say waterboarding is illegal is disqualifying. Are they waiting for him to come out against it in a round about way? A first response is telling. By dancing around the answer to the question, he has given his answer. He is for a dictatorial president and for torture. If the dems vote him in, I will completely give up on this country.

xoites defends Constitution @ 6:

Bullwinkle @ 5:

My gut tells me the waterboarding issue, while important, is a bit of a distraction. Mukasey's already disqualified himself by voicing his opinion that the President can violate the law in pursuit of "national security." His nomination shouldn't be allowed to hinge on whether he can find a sufficiently mealy-mouthed answer to the waterboarding question. He should be voted down now.

The only problem with that is this Congress won't disqualify him for that.

Didn't say they would, just should. I don't want to abandon all hope that the Dems will show some spine some day. Dodd's started a small groundswell in the Senate on the FISA/telcom immunity issue; maybe Leahy will catch the wave. A moose can dream...

Mukasey is a willing stooge. The fact that he doesn't have the moral courage to answer the question is proof of his moral corruptness.

Sorry Mucousy, we don't need no stinking torturers.

-GSD

He’d have to prosecute those that hired him…

Yeah...so? It is quite simple. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Really, it is cheesy but true. Of course his bosses should be prosecuted for war crimes if they committed war crimes (ordering/approving of torture is a war crime in the context of war, a crime against humanity otherwise). What a ridiculous reason for some (GOPers and even some Dems) to defend his non-answers to a very simple, direct question. Fearing that you would actually have to BE the AG and prosecute crimes is in no way a defense for not declaring a crime a crime. What's the point of being AG if not to be the chief law enforcement officer in the country?

Sheesh.

navyswan @ 18:

Moe @ 10:

Outstanding hypocrisy. They want Mukasey to proclaim that Waterboarding is illegal while they refused to ban that method twice. How can you expect the executive branch to enforce a law that has not been put into law by Congress?

It has been banned for decades. It is banned under the geneva conventions. We have even tried other countries for war crimes for waterboarding (see Japan). Quit listening to right wing propaganda, it's bad for the brain.
(see also the constitution where it says international treaties, once signed, become the law of the land)

Indeed. What the wingers of the GOP fail to accept is that the Constitution clearly states that any and all treaties to which we are signatories are the law of the land. Full-stop. We have written (or helped write) treaties such as the Geneva Accords, that makes torture illegal. We signed on to that treaty PLUS the Treaty Against Torture, Abuse, and Inhumane Treatment (which is even more explicit and generally applicable, war or no). They are BOTH the Law of the Land. The President (and anyone else) that violates the words of these treaties are committing felonies (1) and violating the Constitutionally-declared Law of the Land. It is that simple.

Sure, I'm dreaming, but I'd love to see some Congressman on the committee bring in waterboarding apparatus and tell Mukasey that since it isn't torture, HE'S going to be waterboarded until he gives a yes-or-no answer. What a great statement that would make!

IgnoranceIsNotBliss @ 26:

Praedor Atrebates @ 23:

navyswan @ 18:

Moe @ 10:
It has been banned for decades. It is banned under the geneva conventions. We have even tried other countries for war crimes for waterboarding (see Japan). Quit listening to right wing propaganda, it's bad for the brain.
(see also the constitution where it says international treaties, once signed, become the law of the land)

Indeed. What the wingers of the GOP fail to accept is that the Constitution clearly states that any and all treaties to which we are signatories are the law of the land. Full-stop. We have written (or helped write) treaties such as the Geneva Accords, that makes torture illegal. We signed on to that treaty PLUS the Treaty Against Torture, Abuse, and Inhumane Treatment (which is even more explicit and generally applicable, war or no). They are BOTH the Law of the Land. The President (and anyone else) that violates the words of these treaties are committing felonies (1) and violating the Constitutionally-declared Law of the Land. It is that simple.

Then how in the hell are they able to get away with the crap they are pulling? Signing Statements? Lousy Congress? Jeez I'm sick of this Administration.

It's easy to get away with. Domestically, no one says anything and no one prosecutes. Internationally, we hold veto power at the UN. So, even if the UN were to try to prosecute us for international crimes, we would veto it.

The Democrats will vote "Yes" on Mukasey. When have they ever defied Bush?

liberalNmoderation @ 30:

navyswan @ 27:

IgnoranceIsNotBliss @ 26:

Praedor Atrebates @ 23:

Then how in the hell are they able to get away with the crap they are pulling? Signing Statements? Lousy Congress? Jeez I'm sick of this Administration.

It's easy to get away with. Domestically, no one says anything and no one prosecutes. Internationally, we hold veto power at the UN. So, even if the UN were to try to prosecute us for international crimes, we would veto it.

Would that, then qualify the US as a rogue nation?

That's a good question. In my opinion, based on the actions of the Bush administration over the last seven years, I would say yes.

Dr. Acula @ 32:

Any chance of a recess appointment of Mukasey?

Of course. Bush could recess appoint virtually anyone unless Reid (yeah, riiiiight, like Reid would do anything substantive to stop this Prez from doing ANYTHING) takes steps to ensure that, for all practical purposes, there is no recess (simply having shifts of a few congressmen and women stick around throughout the recess would do the trick) then Bush can (and likely will) do whatever his sociopathic mind tells him to do.

Any chance of a recess appointment of Mukasey?

If the Dems had any guts they'd keep the congress in session until Bush is out of office to preclude this. Just rotate enough people to keep a quorum during the Holidays.

Eric Jaffa @ 34:

The US Attorney General doesn't have to prosecute every crime he's aware of.

Prosecutors have discretion.

The Attorney General doesn't have to prosecute anyone, for any crime. At least not in this day and age.

Bush cheney the whole crew should be prosecuted - their denials don't stand up ... and will be condemned by history

Eric Jaffa @ 34:

The US Attorney General doesn't have to prosecute every crime he's aware of.

Prosecutors have discretion.

Ah, so you admit there's a crime.

Your defense, counselor?

Shadowgm @ 41:

Eric Jaffa @ 34:

The US Attorney General doesn't have to prosecute every crime he's aware of.

Prosecutors have discretion.

Ah, so you admit there's a crime.

Your defense, counselor?

Republicans commit their crimes in pursuit of a greater good.... the ends justify the means, even if the ends are never achieved, or pursued.

Moe @ 44:

ashton @ 36:

I am still not clear as to how those who authorized water-boarding will not be held to account through international courts given the fact that the US tried foreignors in the past for water-boarding. It is rather difficult to argue that your arguments in the past were somehow incorrect yet correct today.

The US tried foreigners for Water-boarding peaceful Civilians, not terrorists.

In this war, terrorists are civilians that we paid million dollar bounties for.

Imagine a remote Afghanistan village. The US Marines pull in, everyone is scared that they may be killed. They are offered a million dollar reward for terrorists. So they grab a couple young men accused of stealing goats and turn them over. Now the US Marines are leaving and the village has a million dollars.

waterboarding 'isn't' waterboarding if you call it something else.
Don't you know?

Didn't John the Baptist waterboard Jesus?

Moe @ 44:

The US tried foreigners for Water-boarding peaceful Civilians, not terrorists.

The Bush Administration has been wrong on just about every substantive prediction they've made in regards to Iraq and this 'War on Terror' clown-car act.

I have zero faith that they would actually recognize a terrorist if they caught one. Even the defense of 'enhanced interrogation' is replete with 'might have information' and 'might be a terrorist.'

Osama bin Laden is dredged up as a convenient boogeyman to support anything from 'we need to be in Iraq,' 'we're winning the war,' 'we need more surveillance,' and 'don't vote for Democrats, 'cause that's what they want.'

Weaseldog @ 24:

So if some folks in the US start waterboarding people for fun, they can't be arrested and prosecuted?

So if some folks in the US start putting people behind bars for fun, they can't be arrested and prosecuted? Close down all the prisons.

How can you expect the executive branch to enforce a law that has not been put into law by Congress?

Why do we need a law that says that we won't break the law? It's already illegal to violate the Geneva Convention; we signed it.

We convicted Japanese officers for using waterboarding after WWII. United States vs. Sawada at the Shanghai War Crimes Tribunal 1946 specifically has testimony and conviction for this type of torture. So that would seem to belie any questions.

I have yet to see anyone who actually has experienced this to say anything but that its torture. Thats the problem. Once it is unambiguous, the whitehouse is instantly filled with war criminals.

Moe @ 10:

Outstanding hypocrisy. They want Mukasey to proclaim that Waterboarding is illegal while they refused to ban that method twice. How can you expect the executive branch to enforce a law that has not been put into law by Congress?

Congress also hasn't specifically designated stretching someone on the rack, using electrodes on various parts of the body, lashing with a bull whip or slowly crushing fingers and toes with pliers or forceps as torture either. Sometimes common sense prevails or are you going to argue that those techniques should be legal?

Carmikl @ 60:

And how do you know that they're terrorists. They haven't had a trial so they haven't been convicted of anything. Of course, some have confessed after they've been tortured. I guess the logic here is if you can get them to confess as the result of torture, then it's ok to torture them because they've confessed to being terrorsts.

Reminds me of an old editorial cartoon from back in 2001, which showed John Ashcroft skipping along hand-in-hand with President Bush.

Ashcroft: "We wouldn't be detaining them if they weren't terrorists."
Bush: "They're terrorists, so we have to detain them."

The circular logic was so successful, the whole torture scenario is nothing but an encore performance.

Enough of this endless, nit-picking parsing of the definition of 'Torture', and 'Water-Boarding'.

Here's the reality.

'Water-Boarding', if done to you or me, is 'Torture'.

'Water-Boarding', or 'Torture', if done to The Dummy, The DickHead, or any of their supporters or cronies, is just the first, tiny step toward justice.

Phil @ 62:

There is a very basic conflict of interest in the fact that the President gets to appoint the AG. It is becoming very obvious. Our framers got this one wrong. It needs to change.

Actually, the system has worked for nearly two centuries. The confirmation process is supposed to be the safety valve, but has failed in light of 'the president deserves counsel he's comfortable with'.

Shadowgm @ 65 "The confirmation process is supposed to be the safety valve, but has failed in light of 'the president deserves counsel he's comfortable with'."

The AG is categorically NOT the president's counsel.

He has counsel -- and he is going to need a lot more before this over.

Fran Taylor @ 55 "It's already illegal to violate the Geneva Convention; we signed it."

Even more than that, USC 18 CHAPTER 118 § 2441 War crimes

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----...

Yes, the real question we need to have asked of this guy is:
"As the top law enforcement officer in the United States, and as one who is sworn to uphold the laws of this country as well as the constitution, will you actively prosecute people in and without the government, regardless of political affiliation, who have broken the laws you have sworn to uphold??

Now the Judge knows he can't admit he knows waterboarding is illegal. Why because he would be guilty of a crime. Playing dumb he can say he didn't lie under oath. Now Mike has been given his orders by Dick Cheney and will follow just as Gonzales did. Judge Mike will say " I don't know" to save himself from being charged with lying under oath. Now Judge Mike will have to explain to the United Nations when the charges are brought against the White House for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Most likely as a true loyal Republican he will use medial problems to get out of going to jail. When a US soldier is captured and the enemy does waterboarding watch how fast Americans and the White House cry foul. Yes the US can commit torture but no one else can under the New World Leaders Rule. Yes the new World Leaders are Bush/Cheney so they think.

OK, so Mukasey can't say waterboarding is illegal torture because if he did, he'd have to prosecute those who hired him. And Bush is saying (like the petulant child with all the marbles demanding that it's his way or the highway), "No Mukasey, no A.-G." Well, let's see if our spineless Demo congress will stand up to the bully in the White House. Wanna bet on it?