Comments (6)

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 1:10 PM:

AG need to comment on the DOJ OLC memoranda which cites caselaw referring to waterboarding as torture. These memoranda are available in the public record; the DOJ OLC refer to open court records; and the cited case in the DOJ OLC memoranda refers to specific language in a case which explicitly states that waterboarding is torture.

The information before us suggests the AG is not being candid, has a view which does not comply with statute of Geneva, and is tainted: He appears to have not, as a judge, fully asserted his oath to defend all Geneva requirements; but appears to have given the Executive branch a free pass on issues of prisoner abuse, intelligence gleaned during this abuse; and did not, as required, fully assrt his oath to enforce Geneva.

Follow-up questions for the AG:

- What were the reasons, despite this DoJ OLC memoranda and the AG preparation for his senate confirmation, that he was not clear on whether waterboarding was or was not torture?

- Despite the DOJ OLC memoranda concluding waterboarding was torture, does the AG care to explain why he would have us believe this was "unclear"?

- Is it the plan of the AG, despite this _clear_ DoJ OLC memoranda, to assert that the "question of whether waterboarding was or was not torture is is deliberation" and that "those discussions are protected"?

- How does the AG explain the _clear_ DoJ OLC memoranda concluding waterboarding was torture; but the apparent ruse that the issues were "still being debated, and subject to the deliberative shield"?

- Is it the intent of the DOJ OLC and AG to assert "deliberative shield" on issues related to "is waterobarding torture", when, as it appears, this was not debatable, it was clear/understand, and outside the "deliberative shield"?

- Given the DOJ OLC _clear_ memoranda referring to _specific_ case law stating waterboarding _was_ torture, how does the DOJ OLC and AG explain the CIA asserting there was "deliberation whether to destroy the CIA tape" between 2002 and 2005? It appears there was no bonafide deliberation; but the issues were clear: Waterboarding was torture; and the JAGs well stated in 2002 going forward the ICC would have an interest in the issues of prisoner abuse.

- Could the AG comment on the issues of Geneva: How does he explain the issue of "is something torture or not" when Geneva prohibits _all abuse_: Whether something is or isn't torture is meaningless.

- The Court (civil case, denying compensation to former Guantanamo POWs alleging illegal abuse/mistreatment) stated all prisoner torture was "foreseeable" and not subject to debate. Could the AG comment why, despite this _certain_ and _foreseeable_ risk of _torture_ (going forward from 2001, as confirmed by the JAG's concerns in memoranda to DOJ OLC), we should believe there was any bonafide "deliberation" about what to do with the CIA Tape, or whether the ICC (as an outside entity) would or would not have an interest in that tape?

- Despite this "foreseeable" risk of torture (the court's words), could the AG explain why DoJ OLC would have us believe that there was reasonable "uncertainty" about what to do with the tape; that there was a "debate from 2002-2005" about the tape; or that the AG was "not clear" whether waterboarding was or wasn't torture?

- Did the AG review the DOJ OLC memoranda in re waterboarding; and has he read the case law the DOJ OLC memoranda refers to explicitly referring to waterboarding as torture?

- Does the AG still have "uncertainty" about whether waterboarding is or isn't torture?

- Why should we believe that this uncertainty -- whether waterboarding was or wasn't torture" at his Senate Confirmation, and now during this investigation and review of the CIA tape destruction -- is a bonafide position, and not just a ruse to create an allegedly false "dliberaative shield" to hide information which should be reviewed per FOIA and by the ICC?

- Is there a reason why, despite the DOJ OLC memoranda which cites this specific case law stating waterboarding is torture the AG would have us believe he's still "unsure" or "not willing to comment" or "still uncertain" whether it is or is not torture?

- When was the last time the AG reviewed the "Justice Trial" case notes of Nuremberg which found judges -- which did not fully enforce Geneva -- were adjudicated with war crimes?

- Does the AG understand that the ICC may call him as a witness or defendant to adjudicate his alleged failures to fully enforce Geneva, not just as the AG but as a judicial officer in US Court?

steambomb wrote on January 15, 2008 1:47 PM:

Good. Let's ask him if he has researched any case history on waterboarding. Aka drowning and reviving someone. If not why? It doesn't take much time to pull up case history does it? Aren't lawers reviewing case history all the time?

172 Pages to Senate wrote on January 15, 2008 1:53 PM:

The link "172 pages to Senate" includes several lines of questions for the AG. These are follow-up questions raised before we learned about the CIA tape destruction. The questions are related to a review of the 172-page pdf file which the nominee, now AG, provided to written questions from the Senate. It would be appropriate to reconsider the 172 pages of written responses in light of what we've learned.

Is it the intent of the Senate hearings to review the 172 pages of written responses and reconsider his written responses to the Senate on all issues; or are they planning to do something else, narrowly focusing on the CIA tape destruction?

Dennis wrote on January 15, 2008 4:15 PM:

When all is said and done and Mukasey has exited the door, it will be shown that he too, protected George W. Bush and the misdeeds of the Oval Office, and not the Constitution of the United States.

Not only that, but the Democrats, presuming they win as big as it appears they might, will appoint another DOJ head who will drop all of these investigations that presently lead into the White House, and the rational given will be that "We need to put all of this behind us and move on", thus leaving the door open to let it all happen again, and the freedoms that were lost by the American people under the regime of George W. Bush will remain lost forever.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

chisholm wrote on January 16, 2008 11:38 AM:

When all is said and done Mukasey is going to make John Mitchell look like Thomas Jefferson.

alabama wrote on January 16, 2008 3:51 PM:

WHAT MR MUKASEY SHOULD BE ASK AT THE SENATE HEARING IS AS FOLLOWS; IS MARC MUKASEY WHO WORKS FOR GIULIANI YOUR STEP SON? WHAT CASES IS MARC MUKASEY HANDLING THAT YOU ARE INVOLVED IN AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE? MR MUKASEY DOES YOUR STEP SON MARC MUKASEY OWN 'AN INTEREST IN GIULIANI PARTNERS SINCE HE WORKS AT GIULIANI'S LAW FIRM AND IS GIULIANA'S LAWYER? MR MUKASEY HOW CAN YOU BE ASKING AND SPEAKING ABOUT PHONE COMPANIES GETTING IMMUNITY IF VERIZON IS A CLIENT OF YOUR STEP SONS FIRM DO YOU NOT SEE THAT AS A CONFLICT? MR MUKASEY IF YOUR STEPSON IS A LAWYER FOR ONE OF THE GOP CANDIATES FOR PRESIDENT AND WE KNOW HE IS BECAUSE HE REPRESENTED GIULIANI ON KERIK CASE DOES THAT NOT POSE A POLITICAL ETHICS ISSUE FOR YOU BECAUSE OF YOUR FAMILY'S CLOSE POLITICAL CONNECTION TO THE GOP RNC WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE PARTY THAT YOUR STEPSON IS HELPING A POLITICAL CANDIATE FOR PRESIDENT IN AND SHOULD YOU NOT EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM ALL CASES INVOLVING THE RNC AND GOP AND APPOINT INDEPENDENT COUNSEL. fURTHER MR MUKASEY DOES YOUR STEP SON REPRESENT MR ULLMAN ONE OF THE WITNESSES AGAINST THE DC MADAM AND IS THAT NOT A CONFLCT FOR YOU AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SIR? DO YOU NOT THINK THAT WOULD APPEAR TO THE NORMAL CITIZEN TO BE A CONFLICT? MR MUKASEY MR FIEGER IS CHARGED WITH MAKING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO JOHN EDWARDS ILLEGALLY AND YOUR STEP SON REPRESENTS A REPUBLICAN MR GIULIANI WHO IS RUNNING AGAINST MR EDWARDS IS THAT NOT A CONFLICT? MR MUKASEY AS A RESULT OF YOUR STEP SON REPRESENTING MR GIULIANI WHAT EFFORTS HAVE YOU MADE SINCE GOING INTO OFFICE TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH ALL GIULIANI LAW FIRM CLIENTS AND WITH ALL GIULIANI PARTNER CLIENTS AND LAST BUT NOT LEST WHY HAVE YOU BECOME SUCH A VOCAL SUPPORTER OF BILLS TO GIVE TELEPHOE COMPANIES IMMUNITY WHEN YOU KNOW IT INFRINGES AMERICAN CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS COULD IT BE BECAUSE OF GIULIANIS REPRESENTATION OF VERIZON COULD IT BECAUSE OF YOUR SONS TIES TO GIULIANI. WHAT OTHER CASES HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN WHICH YOU SHOULD NOT BE WHICH HAVE UNDISCLOSED CLIENTS BY GIULIANI PARTNERS. ISN'T THERE A RULE MR ATTORNEY THAT YOU SHALL BE REMOVED FOR ETHICAL REASONS IF YOU UNDERTAKE CASES WHICH YOU KNOW YOU HAVE A CONFLICT IN FROM THE BEGINNING PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU HAVEN'T GOT OUT OF ALL THESE CASES? EVERYONE SHOULD READ 28 USC 528 IT LOOKS LIKE YOU SIR MAY HAVE POLITICAL, PERSONAL,FINANCIAL AND ETHICAL CONFLICTS ALL AROUND YOU AND HOW CAN WE EXPECT YOU SIR TO CURE THE PROBLEM IF SOME OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE. SIGNED AMERICAN REBEL