Comments (9)

theswan wrote on November 2, 2007 2:22 PM:

Nice to see he is a patriotic defender of the lost constitution. He ought to watch his back.

Alguien wrote on November 2, 2007 2:30 PM:

It's nice to see he FINALLY decided to follow the exemplary stand of his Independent, "neigbor", Bernie Sanders who dared to speak up against this farce a week ag, while everyone else was cautiously pondering!

jimijazz wrote on November 2, 2007 2:33 PM:

Thank you, Senator Leahy. You have done a great thing for this country. Now we'll see what Schumer and Feinstein do.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 3:10 PM:

"No American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture,"

You wouldn't think this is something that would have to be pointed out.

Utopia wrote on November 2, 2007 3:52 PM:

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 3:10 PM:

"No American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture,"

You wouldn't think this is something that would have to be pointed out.

==

However, it is succinct and to the point.

Mukaskey has said "waterboarding, as it has been described to, is repugnant". Why can't he simply say "waterboarding, as it has been described to me, is illegal"? It has nothing to do with classified programs and who's been read in or not. It's a simple declarative statement based on what he's been told by some of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee and, doubtless, other people as well. I'm starting to wonder if maybe he *does* know something about those classified programs that has convinced him they are doing exactly what has been described to him.

U

Tom wrote on November 2, 2007 4:34 PM:

I think we'll get Mukasey (or worse) one way or another. We had John Bolton at the UN through a recess appointment and, my guess is, we'll have Mukasey via the same method even if the Senate Judicial Committee doesn't approve him. My mantra: 01/20/09 - The Last Day Bush is in Office.

JNagarya wrote on November 2, 2007 5:05 PM:

Mukaskey has said "waterboarding, as it has been described to, is repugnant". Why can't he simply say "waterboarding, as it has been described to me, is illegal"? It has nothing to do with classified programs and who's been read in or not. It's a simple declarative statement based on what he's been told by some of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee and, doubtless, other people as well. I'm starting to wonder if maybe he *does* know something about those classified programs that has convinced him they are doing exactly what has been described to him.

U

And all of that is beside the point: the LAW prohibiting torture also defenies it. The LAW states that waterboarding is illegal. Mukasey is alleged to be a judge, which means, first, a lawyer, who is to know the law, and base his iews on the law, not instead avoid the law by political parsing.

Good: put in an AG who will flatly state that the law defines waterboarding as torture, and get on with enforcing that law against all who violated it.

Remember: treaties to which the US is signatory are part of the law of the land. The "law of the land" is the Constitution. Neither Congress, not the Executive, nor even both with the approval of the Judiciary, can change the Constitution. That means all the fig-leaf statutes on torture, including most pointedly the _ex post facto_, enacted by the Republican't-be-American Congress to protect the war criminals are unconstitutional, null-and-void--each a blatant, knowing effort--are you listening lawyer/JAG Lindsey Graham?--to deceive We the People in order to protect the enemies of our country and of the rule of law on which founded from the justice of requisite and necessary prosecution.

elsie wrote on November 2, 2007 5:06 PM:

Feinstein and Schumer just announced they will vote yes.

Joseph Conrad wrote on November 4, 2007 12:20 AM:

The man who spoke up to restore Habeas Corpus speaks the truth. Mukasey is a lying, deceitful, disingenuous churl - like his, sadly, soon-to-be boss, BUSH.
Same womb, different dates...But both evil spirits hiding such in rhetoric.