Comments (61)

Markinsanfran wrote on October 25, 2007 5:59 PM:

Good idea to get him on the record as opposing waterboarding. Then, when he inevitably approves it in secret and we possibly find out years later, we can say: "but you said...".

Just say no to Mukasey, period.

dhs wrote on October 25, 2007 6:04 PM:

I am delighted that Leahy, Durbin, and Whitehouse are standing their ground on this fundamental issue. I hope they do not back down again.

They need to know that they have plenty of support from their base for this position. This would be a great time for them to make the rounds of the Sunday news shows and carefully document the case against torture.

I hope the rest of the Democrats, and especially those who would be President, join them in their position. The Democrats need to show some real backbone here.

EH wrote on October 25, 2007 6:07 PM:

The thing that worries me about this controversy: what about the other forms of torture (and the "combination" rationale) that the US is using? So we axe one form, will that be tantamount to a wink about the others?

edshea wrote on October 25, 2007 6:18 PM:

please please please

anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 6:19 PM:

EH, that's my concern as well. But remember, The Decider completely loses it when *anything* he wants is challenged; he'd go to the mat over waterboarding even if the Dems told him he can personally torture any enemy combatant he wants in any other way. Which it appears the Dems are about to do.

JK wrote on October 25, 2007 6:22 PM:

EH:

I'd say that's the plan. Get him to commit on one particular - satisfying the "masses" - and then they'll all just ignore the rest of the issues.

theWalrus wrote on October 25, 2007 6:28 PM:

This is idiotic and insane. Leahy is pulling a fast one on us. Mukasey has given his testimony. Why is Leahy bending over backwards (is *that* torture?) with this? The guy wouldn't answer the question, period. He should not be confirmed, period.

Geez, where's their backbone??

sufi wrote on October 25, 2007 6:31 PM:

Markinsanfran is absolutely correct.

Jay wrote on October 25, 2007 6:32 PM:

The Walrus: Why is Leahy bending over backwards? Because he has no spine.

Jay wrote on October 25, 2007 6:32 PM:

The Walrus: Why is Leahy bending over backwards? Because he has no spine.

oh_please wrote on October 25, 2007 6:35 PM:

Oh now this is rich. Does anyone who's watched Leahy during the last few years have any doubt that he'll lie down at the end of all of this?

Of course he will, he always does.

Oh sure, Leahy will make some gruff, tough noise in the meantime, but when it counts he'll collapse like he'd just gulped down a pitcher of roofie-spiked martinis.

AG Mukasey, courtesy of Leahy & Co.

Bushie wrote on October 25, 2007 6:38 PM:

Regardless of Mukasey's response, our spineless wonders on Judiciary, Leahy, Specter and Feinstein, will bend over. Please pass the butter!

Sisyphus wrote on October 25, 2007 6:52 PM:

Someone on TPM staff said Mukasey's answers on this topic were so Gonzalez-like -- vague, dodging.

I suspect that waterboarding is widely practiced by our CIA "contractors" and Mukasey knows this and that's why he's dodging this issue. In other words, he has been briefed on at this that much.

Maybe I'm being conspiratorial, but I find this plausible.

p_lukasiak wrote on October 25, 2007 6:53 PM:

This is insane.

The Democrats are going to confirm someone who won't say that the President is not above the law, as long as he says that waterboarding is torture?

I am so ashamed of my party, I want to throw up. With a few exceptions, they are nothing but a bunch of posers and cowards

Marilyn wrote on October 25, 2007 6:53 PM:

This congress has shown itself to be totally spineless and has zero regard for the wishes of the American people. They all need new jobs, preferably working in the public sector, retail would be good.
They just approved another horrible conservative for a judgeship. They will roll over until we run them out of office. This is the most corrupt administration and congress this country has ever known.
Chris Dodd is showing some recognition of the mood of the American people on the spying issue, perhaps he can help wake these clowns, but I'm not holding my breath.
Edmund Burke said it best:
"Politicians are not born, they are excreted."

Terry wrote on October 25, 2007 6:55 PM:

I agree that his answers such as they were to the torture questions should disqualify Mukasey in any sane world, but after almost 7 years of Dumbya this plainly is not a sane world. I am hardly concerned that the Democrats will get a meaningless answer from Mukasey on waterboarding and then confirm him without further investigation because I am betting that the Democrats will cave on that too. They have caved on every single battle over terrorism or Iraq or what had been our Constitution despite having a majority and the public opinion behind them. The sad fact is that the battles between Democrats and Republicans are all about who stays in the majority and can get the most graft--no one on either side cares about this country or its citizens--but then I tend to take an optomistic view.

me wrote on October 25, 2007 6:56 PM:

If he won't answer, either it's because he's not familiar with the technique, or does not want to answer it.

Leahy could kill two birds with one stone with a simple demonstration.

biggerbox wrote on October 25, 2007 6:57 PM:

What a sad state of affairs we are in when it is news that some Senators might vote against an Attorney General nominee that can't actually admit that a method of interrogation viewed as torture since, oh, what, the Spanish Inquisition, is, in fact, torture.

YouCanAllJustKissMyA.. wrote on October 25, 2007 6:59 PM:

The whole process of politics these days is torture.

Mary wrote on October 25, 2007 6:59 PM:

So if it is torture, then under the classification, nothing about it can be classified, right? Illegal activities cannot be classified.

spinozista wrote on October 25, 2007 7:03 PM:

This simply cannot be a hard problem.

(1) Mukasey agrees completely with Bush about everything and says so. REFUSE TO CONFIRM.

(2) Mukasey agrees completely with Bush about everything but refuses to say so. He is lying to the Senate. REFUSE TO CONFIRM.

(3) Mukasey disagrees with Bush about something (anything) and says so. Mukasey will be as frozen out, powerless and clueless as Powell ever was. REFUSE TO CONFIRM.

(4) Mukasey disagrees with Bush about something (waterboarding = torture, for example) but refuses to say so. He is lying to the Senate. REFUSE TO CONFIRM.

(5) Mukasey was picked by Bush. Which of (1) to (4) do you think Bush thinks is the case? REFUSE TO CONFIRM.

And of course they will confirm him. And of course they will do it for free. Because people will say mean things about them if they don't.

Bloix wrote on October 25, 2007 7:08 PM:

I wouldn't give up on Leahy yet. I don't think Mukasey can say it's torture because torture is a crime. I don't think he can say that CIA and Defense Dep't operatives are criminals. It would shake the secret world to its foundations.

TheraP wrote on October 25, 2007 7:17 PM:

Good point, Mary!

Steve in Seattle wrote on October 25, 2007 7:18 PM:

Markinsanfran has it right. Mukasey is not troubled by this type of torture and will find a way rationalize waterboarding by some legalistic fashion.

I can see his testifying that Americans did not torture the prisoner that was done by the citizens of the black prison site. Americans watched the video of the interrogation to observe for human rights violations and not to get information so the torture statutes don't apply.

The bottom line is Mukasey is garbage who will allow torture and should not be appointed with the consent of the Senate.

Cy Guy wrote on October 25, 2007 7:27 PM:

I think this argument is pretty irrellevant unless the Dems put impeachment back on the table. Until the Dems have the spine to impeach Bush for authorizing waterboarding, it doesn't matter what the AG says as bush can and will pardon anyone who uses waterboarding for interrogation.

The Dems have to get it into thei skulls that unless they are willing to impeach Bush, anything that Bush says is Constitutional is legal.

Modesto wrote on October 25, 2007 7:37 PM:

Leahy and his cohorts need to use the current focus on this issue to explain that torture produces bad intelligence, which means it is not an effective tool in the war on terror, and that torture does not make Americans safer.

They need to stress to weak, fearful conservatives that:

(1) America's word is its bond, and when we say we don't torture, we aren't using some secret, narrow interpretation of Mr. Yoo;

(2) America is not afraid. We are courageous and principled, so we don't stoop to torture. The ends don't justify the means (quote the Good Book if you must);

(3) Nothing is more deplorable than lawyers manipulating linguistic loopholes, and politicians distorting or distracting with Orwellian doublespeak (think Alberto Gonzales). Torture isn't like pornography..."I know it when I see it." It is obvious, even to us common, lay folk, so speak plain and give straight answers.

(4) First and foremost, the next attorney general needs to be a brilliant, loyal and true to the Constitution and the laws of the land. Any indication that a nominee defers to Bush, Cheney or Addington means they are unworthy of the honor.

dfong63 wrote on October 25, 2007 7:53 PM:

they should also treat as a make-or-break issue Mukasey's answer to the question of whether the president is subject to the law, even during times of war and in matters of national security?

Disputo wrote on October 25, 2007 7:55 PM:

Haven't the Dems figured out the MO of these assholes yet?

Mukasey will declare that he believes that WB is torture, and then as AG will define a new technique -- Waterboarding-Lite -- and will define that as not being torture.

JoshB wrote on October 25, 2007 8:26 PM:

So are we FINALLY going to start acting like the party that is actually the majority in Congress???? If not, wake me when we get there.

steve duncan wrote on October 25, 2007 8:30 PM:

Oh please, the Dems will fold like a cheap lawn chair on this and any other issue of import.

JubleJohnson wrote on October 25, 2007 8:46 PM:

But during terse questioning by Whitehouse, Mukasey said he did not know if waterboarding is torture because he is not familiar with how it is done.

*******Are you kidding me.A nominee for AG of the US don't know if waterboarding is torture?
Ask him if he would recommend the waterboarding procedure to be done on his wife or son or his relations.If it's not torture then why is not being done at your local police stations ?
This idiot(mukasey)is just like Alberto Gonzo.He should not be AG .

poggy wrote on October 25, 2007 9:06 PM:

More weak talk from Leahy and the other wimpocrats. In the end, they'll capitulate to King Bush/Cheney and vote Mukasey in.

Mukasey shouldn't even have hearings yet. The white house has ignored all of demands of the Judiciary Committee, yet Leahy caved in again.

F****ing spineless wimps.

poggy wrote on October 25, 2007 9:09 PM:

As bad as torture is and that Mukasey is willing to let Bush define what it is, it's worse that the wimpocrats consider this issue more important than Mukasey saying that the president is above the law! WTF! That makes him king! Goddamn spineless wimps.

chuckie wrote on October 25, 2007 9:12 PM:

The Big Bad Democrats will just huff and they'll puff, and the pigs will hide behind the the brick wall, or stone wall.

rylly wrote on October 25, 2007 9:31 PM:

Spinozista's got it.
The man showed his stripes the second "viewing" and we don't need to waste more time, choose another candidate.

Just don't settle for less than best, what have we got to lose?
If we hasten and get another bushie, he can get right to work...giant sucking sound.
If we wait until we get someone ACCEPTABLE, really acceptable we at least buy time.

Mukasey has already made his stripes. (He was the Judge that gave Silverstein the 2 X $3.4 Bil for the Towers after 9/ll.)
Imagine that bad luck, where you buy the WTC for $150 Mil and the next week, even tho the president's brother has the Security Contract, they fall kaput, a total loss?

Legalize wrote on October 25, 2007 9:52 PM:

Duh. This is simple. He knows what waterboarding is; he was briefed on it before hand. Solution? "What's waterboarding"? He knows what it is; we all do; he's lying; bury him.

Likely outcome: Dems put on their panties and properly launder their skirts.

Mike M. wrote on October 25, 2007 10:18 PM:

I know everyone's said this but... they've made a stand here and they'd better not back down or they'll look like fools. Come on guys, stand your ground. Impress me for once. Not only should you make him say that waterboarding is torture, you should call him back in 6 months to explain why he hasn't prosecuted anyone for doing it.

capitalistimperialistpig wrote on October 25, 2007 10:22 PM:

Congress really should authorize itself to use all measures short of torture to get answers out of these guys. A few minutes on the waterboard would permit Mukasey (Gonzalez, etc.) to make more informed decisions on this key legal point.

JimBob wrote on October 25, 2007 10:34 PM:

I agree that Mukasey should be clear on this issue. On the other hand, he seems like a decent, independent jurist and perhaps he has to "play the game" at this point. Can Bush withdraw his nomination? I guess I'm so starved for honesty and integrity in high places, I'm more willing to give him the BotD than I should be...

dhs wrote on October 25, 2007 10:53 PM:

"Why is Leahy bending over backwards (is *that* torture?) with this? The guy wouldn't answer the question, period. He should not be confirmed, period."

Not so fast. This is an excellent opportunity to get the issue out in the open and allow the American people to deal with it directly. The Democrats should require Mukasey to state that waterboarding is torture under the Geneva conventions. If he is willing to state that waterboarding is torture, they should vote immediately to confirm him.

This will establish that waterboarding IS torture, and that anyone who authorized it or carried it out can be prosecuted for crimes. This will put the Administration on the spot.

If Mukasey refuses to say that waterboarding is torture, the Democrats should not confirm him. They should then draft a bill saying precisely what procedures constitute torture under the Geneva conventions, and bring it to the floor in both houses of Congress. Then the public will have a written record as to where various members of Congress stand on matters of torture.

It would be a good thing to have this out in the open. Then the issue will have been put plainly to the American people as to what their true values are. It would be especially interesting to see how the various "values" voters come down on this matter.

It would be especially interesting to see how the Jews and Christians who pushed for the war in Iraq and are pushing for attacking Iran come down on the moral issue of torture.

John Forde wrote on October 25, 2007 11:24 PM:

BUSH is responsible for waterboarding. He know's it is being done bt his subordinates.

If Mukasey says it is torture, it makes it all that much easier to convict Bush.

stephen wrote on October 25, 2007 11:29 PM:

Any one who has close ties to Guilianni is suspect. Look at the record. Ewveryone affiliated with Goulianni has been a disaster and this hedge on "Torture" is symptomatic of the problem! Send him to the minors and be done with it. !

stephen wrote on October 25, 2007 11:29 PM:

Any one who has close ties to Guilianni is suspect. Look at the record. Everyone affiliated with Goulianni has been a disaster and this hedge on "Torture" is symptomatic of the problem! Send him to the minors and be done with it. !

stephen wrote on October 25, 2007 11:30 PM:

Any one who has close ties to Guilianni is suspect. Look at the record. Everyone affiliated with Goulianni has been a disaster and this hedge on "Torture" is symptomatic of the problem! Send him to the minors and be done with it. !

stephen wrote on October 25, 2007 11:30 PM:

Any one who has close ties to Guilianni is suspect. Look at the record. Everyone affiliated with Goulianni has been a disaster and this hedge on "Torture" is symptomatic of the problem! Send him to the minors and be done with it. !

hoppy wrote on October 26, 2007 12:19 AM:

The unsolvable problem we have is that anyone Bush would appoint as AG is going to prove unacceptable to any sane person. Bush will not appoint an honest person to that office. So, we are left with a very bad interim AG until Congress recesses, at which time the appointment will be made. I'm not going to sweat this. The result is inevitable.

Yes, the Congressional Democrats are mostly wimps, especially my own Senator Feinstein who deserves the contempt of all of us.

Marilyn In Texas wrote on October 26, 2007 1:23 AM:

Maybe a better question would be does he condone waterboarding? Ask him to describe it. Ask him if he would approve waterboarding when he is AG.

I don't think he thought he would have to get his hands dirty= lie down with dogs...

I like the idea of delaying any vote until after January 08. . . giving him or whoever Bush next appoints less time to carry Bush's water(boarding).

Marilyn In Texas wrote on October 26, 2007 1:24 AM:

Maybe a better question would be does he condone waterboarding? Ask him to describe it. Ask him if he would approve waterboarding when he is AG.

I don't think he thought he would have to get his hands dirty= lie down with dogs...

I like the idea of delaying any vote until after January 08. . . giving him or whoever Bush next appoints less time to carry Bush's water(boarding).

Larry White wrote on October 26, 2007 2:33 AM:

I wish someone would start talking about the fact that there are US government employees whose job it is to go into a room and torture people. CIA employees who are civil servants and get US govt paychecks whose job it is to make people suffer and scream in agony.
What happened to my country?

jimbo92107 wrote on October 26, 2007 4:11 AM:

Oh Leahy, you've already got your answer. Mukasey's another loyal Bushie, and he'll approve anything that keeps BushCo's game going and all those billions of dollars rolling in.

But you already knew that, didn't you, Patrick?

And so do we. And when you let Mukasey in, we'll all know whose side you're really on.

kozmik wrote on October 26, 2007 5:37 AM:

About time these confirmation hearings got serious and Congress remembered its Constitutional responsibilities. The AG is an important official and Justice depends on that person to uphold the law, which takes a spine. How did a lickspittle like Gonzo ever get confirmed?

Billy Pilgrim wrote on October 26, 2007 9:31 AM:

Larry White

Simple answer to your question:
"What happened to my country?"

Far too many Americans have become prostitutes for money. The innocence this nation was once proud of is in diminishing supply.

moondancer wrote on October 26, 2007 10:01 AM:

Short of facing removal from office, Bush will NOT appoint anybody who's not going to tow the line. Schumer pissed me off. I understand that Mukaseys an improvement over fredo, but so would a rabid baboon.
I would make Bush pay the proverbial pound of flesh to get anything at justice.

Anonymous wrote on October 26, 2007 10:30 AM:

JubleJohnson wrote on October 25, 2007 8:46 PM:

"Ask him if he would recommend the waterboarding procedure to be done on his wife or son or his relations..."

I totally agree but I think the SJC should try waterboarding Mukasey during the hearings.

That way they can establish:

a) How well it works as a "harsh interrogation technique".

b)If, in Mukasey's opinion, it is indeed torture. That should increase his "familiarity" with it...

After all, first hand experience is the best way to learn...

nicteis wrote on October 26, 2007 11:05 AM:

Bush doesn't care what he gets at Justice, so why would he ever pay even an ounce of flesh?

The book on Mukasey appears to be that he is a wholehearted believer in an imperial presidency, including rendition and torture and permanent detention without charges or lawyers, on all matters concerning national security. And that he is forthrightly opposed to using the DoJ to advance the electoral fortunes of one political party over another, or to override the professional judgment of US Attorneys.

Yes, anyone who fits the first description is manifestly unfit to be Attorney General. But Gonzales was also a lackey on the second set of issues; and so is the guy who is acting AG. We all know that, no matter how many nominees are shot down, Bush will never nominate anyone who is not manifestly unfit on one or both counts.

And the AG has very little influence over detentions and torture, in the overseas venues where they have been almost exclusively applied. He has massive influence over politicization of the Department. Therefore he has massive influence over whether Rove's and Gonzales's plans to use the DoJ to steal the next round of elections will be carried out.

Do we want an acting AG who will carry through on those plans, or a confirmed AG who, fascist ideologue though he may be with respect to the "War on Terror", is very unlikely to? And is it worth one more, more serious, round of corruption of the electoral process in order to make a symbolic statement to the world that the Senate will not sanction anyone who sanctions torture, a statement which everyone knows will have no actual effect on the actions of the torturers?

The symbolic statement may well be worth the sacrifice of the DoJ to partisanship, It may well be worth the potential loss of the Senate and perhaps the loss of the White House to Rudy, who will torture with still greater enthusiasm and abandon. But the decision confronting Leahy doesn't look to me like the same no-brainer all these comments seem to assume it is.

Bob wrote on October 26, 2007 11:20 AM:

How about waterboarding all the Republican presidential candidates who are unsure if it is torture? We could cover their faces with small American flags and John McCain could wield the bucket. This might finally spark interest in their unwatched debates.

If this is too much for some sissies, we couild put them in small cells and keep them awake by playing their own campaign speeches tothem again and again and again...

Ah, just a dream.

vansteph wrote on October 26, 2007 11:59 AM:

The saddest part of this is that they want an answer. A few years ago his first answer of 'i don't know.' would have immediately disqualified him on the grounds that torture is illegal and non-negotiable.

dafodilkemmy wrote on October 30, 2007 3:09 AM:

Free Razr plus free shipping with activated service plan.Choose from AT&T, Nextel, T-Mobile, Verizon, and more.

[url=http://digg.com/gadgets/Get_Free_Razr]Click here[/url]

careybagsbon wrote on November 18, 2007 6:50 PM:

Greetings to all.

Prompt the best online shop on sale of Books.

winstoun wrote on November 27, 2007 12:37 AM:

Very nice this blog =)

Lester wrote on November 27, 2007 11:28 AM:

I am so ashamed that I wasted my vote on George Warmonger Bush and his evil daddy Satan Cheney. Why did I let my rednecked republican loyalty to the republican party get in the way of exercising sound personal thought when I entered that voting booth???

Farewell and thanks for all the corrupt memories GOP. I'm now a left winger.