BTW, I'm not meaning to target you specifically - but I see this a lot where the opposition party is held to a much, much higher and absolute black-and-white standard than the party we individually tend to support.
when he said he didn't know details about water boarding. either that is lying or reckless for someone who wants to head the justice department post gonzo in the era of torture and renditions authorized by the US. you said everything you had heard about him was reasonable and independent. i was pointing you to other viewpoints. its not about agreement. he thinks the president is above the law. he's subscribing to yoo's unitary executive theory basically. he believes torture is not torture unless the president thinks its torture. the head of the justice department thinks the president can do anything he wants as commander in chief. and given this time of terrorism...we are in a period of indefinite war allowing the commander in chief to do anything he wants without supervision outside of his administration. that is not disagreeing 'with congress on every viewpoint'. that is not believing in the check of powers that our system must have. she has said she won't. but for me personally torture isn't negotiable. however given that my state is not up for taking, my vote is irrelevant so it doesn't matter. now if i was in ohio or florida and it was hillary or rudy? i don't know. i sincerely think rudy might irreparably damage america. we need someone competent after bush to fix up the damage. hillary might be the devil, but she's competent. i would probably overlook it. but thats not because i won't denounce it. i just want better for america than rudy.
I could be wrong, but I believe he essentially said it would depend on the details. Fair enough. I don't consider that a particularly unbiased source, though. Except he's never said anything of the sort. In fact, he's said the opposite. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/18/mukasey.hearing/ During the previous day's testimony, Mukasey said he does not believe the president has legal authority to approve torture techniques for use on terror suspects, something former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to say. Mukasey disavowed a memo written by former Justice official Jay Bybee that justified certain harsh techniques. "The Bybee memo, to paraphrase a French diplomat, was worse than a sin. It was a mistake. It was unnecessary," he said. I agree with this - I understand criticizing someone for the viewpoint and have no qualms with that. I just think that while a Dem might hold McCain to a standard of "I could never vote for him because he supports this", if they would hold a Dem to the same stnadard. The same applies the other way. Hardcore Republicans will say they could never vote for Hillary because she supports abortion rights or gun limits or whatever, but then if a GOP member supports it, they'll vote for him anyway. This is what we are seeing with Giuliani. The reality is that they won't support her because she's a Dem - which is fine - but its just easier to pretend its her positions that cause them to be anti-Hillary.
If you can't see the difference, I'm not sure what to tell you. The biggest absurdity in politics, in my opinion (well, one of them), is the idea that "they are all alike!" They are not! And the idea that a third party is going to make a difference in the foreseeable future is also absurd. All it does is get the party due to be defeated a chance at winning. And that applies to both major parties. D&D. Attempt to be civil! Impeach Bush for Promoting Torture.
i might have over-stated. it might not be lying. but its definitely not being honest and truthful with the congress during confirmation hearings after (i presume) taking an oath. what details? either its torture or if not. torture by law is illegal. its not dependent on whether it would REALLY REALLY REALLY help. its illegal. and the methods of 'water boarding' are well known and certainly not something secret. the memos have been leaked. the manuals are out. i'll dig up the quotes, in a bit, on the second day of his testimony when he did say the president is above the law of the congress because the ultimate law is the constitution which gives him plenary power (he didn't use the term plenary but that was the effect).
November 1, 2007 Editorial Torture and the Attorneys General Consider how President Bush has degraded the office of attorney general. His first choice, John Ashcroft, helped railroad undue restrictions of civil liberties through Congress after the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Ashcroft apparently had some red lines and later rebuffed the White House when it pushed him to endorse illegal wiretapping. Then came Alberto Gonzales who, while he was White House counsel, helped to redefine torture, repudiate the Geneva Conventions and create illegal detention camps. As attorney general, Mr. Gonzales helped cover up the administration’s lawless behavior in anti-terrorist operations, helped revoke fundamental human rights for foreigners and turned the Justice Department into a branch of the Republican National Committee. Mr. Gonzales resigned after his extraordinary incompetence became too much for even loyal Republicans. Now Mr. Bush wants the Senate to confirm Michael Mukasey, a well-respected trial judge in New York who has stunned us during the confirmation process by saying he believes the president has the power to negate laws and by not committing himself to enforcing Congressional subpoenas. He also has suggested that he will not uphold standards of decency during wartime recognized by the civilized world for generations. After a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Mr. Mukasey refused to detail his views on torture, he submitted written answers to senators’ questions that were worse than his testimony. They suggest that he, like Mr. Gonzales, would enable Mr. Bush’s lawless behavior and his imperial attitude toward Congress and the courts. In a letter to the 10 Democrats on the committee, Mr. Mukasey refused to say whether he considered waterboarding (a method of extracting information by making a prisoner believe he is about to be drowned) to be torture. He said he found it “repugnant,” but could not say whether it is illegal until he has been briefed on the interrogation programs that Mr. Bush authorized at Central Intelligence Agency prisons. This is a crass dodge. Waterboarding is torture and was prosecuted as such as far back as 1902 by the United States military when used in a slightly different form on insurgents in the Philippines. It meets the definition of torture that existed in American law and international treaties until Mr. Bush changed those rules. Even the awful laws on the treatment of detainees that were passed in 2006 prohibited the use of waterboarding by the American military. And yet the nominee for attorney general has no view on whether it would be legal for an employee of the United States government to subject a prisoner to that treatment? The only information Mr. Mukasey can possibly be lacking is whether Mr. Bush broke the law by authorizing the C.I.A. to use waterboarding — a judgment that the White House clearly does not want him to render in public because it could expose a host of officials to criminal accountability. Mr. Mukasey’s letter to the Senate committee accepts the administration’s use of the so-called shocks-the-conscience test to determine the legality of interrogation methods, rather than the clear and specific prohibitions against torture, humiliation and cruel treatment embedded in American and international law. The administration’s standard is dangerously vague, invites abuse and amounts to a unilateral reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions. Would Mr. Mukasey approve of a foreign jailer using waterboarding on an American soldier? Mr. Bush’s policies increase the danger of that happening. There seems to be little chance that Mr. Bush will appoint the sort of attorney general that the nation needs, a job that includes enforcing voting rights laws and civil rights laws and ensuring that criminal prosecutions are done fairly. Still, senators with a conscience that can be shocked should insist that Mr. Bush meet a higher standard than this nomination. nyt editorial
BTW Major, I believe that Clinton has already come out and said that she would vote nay on the Mukasey confirmation.
Shumer also uses what I believe to be a false and nearly impossible hypothetical regarding the bomb about to go off in a major city.
And now the rest of the story. -- Undecided Schumer May Be Key to Mukasey's Chances Judiciary Chairman Endorsed Justice Nominee but Says He, Like Other Democrats, Is Concerned About Torture Question By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane Washington Post Staff Writer and washingontpost.com Staff Writer Friday, November 2, 2007; A03 As Democratic opposition builds over attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey, no Democratic lawmaker has found himself in a tighter spot than Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who had eagerly recommended the former federal judge as a consensus candidate. After Mukasey refused to say whether an interrogation technique called waterboarding amounts to illegal torture, Schumer has watched a growing number of his colleagues announce their opposition to the judge. Schumer, who has remained uncharacteristically quiet throughout the furor, said in an interview yesterday that he is now "wrestling" with whether to vote against a nomination that he was instrumental in bringing about. He compared the controversy to the 2005 nomination battle over Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "From this administration, we will never get somebody who agrees with us on issues like torture and wiretapping," Schumer said at one point, suggesting an argument in favor of Mukasey, who faces a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Tuesday. "The best thing we can hope for is someone who will depoliticize the Justice Department and put rule of law first." But Schumer said minutes later that his mind is not made up: "He's the best we can get, but that doesn't necessarily ensure a yes vote. I thought John Roberts was the best we could get, but I voted no." The outcome of Schumer's internal struggle could prove pivotal to Mukasey's chances, as a growing number of Democrats, including four other members of the Judiciary Committee, have announced their opposition to the nominee, as have all four senators who are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. ------- Republicans privately say that the nominee's prospects hang on a few votes, particularly those of Schumer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has broken ranks with her party in the past. Should Schumer and Feinstein side with other Democrats in opposition, Judiciary Republicans are likely to seek to forward the nomination with a neutral or negative recommendation to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. Schumer originally suggested Mukasey to head the Justice Department eight months ago, after the senator became the first Democrat to call for the resignation of then-Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales over his handling of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. Schumer, whose chief counsel is a former federal prosecutor in the Manhattan courts that were overseen by Mukasey, had also recommended him as a worthy Supreme Court candidate in 2005. But Mukasey, who was sailing to an easy confirmation, alarmed many Democrats on Oct. 18 when he repeatedly refused to say whether waterboarding is torture. The technique, which simulates drowning, has been used by the CIA but is barred by the U.S. military and has been widely condemned as torture by human rights groups. Mukasey tried to mollify Democrats by saying in a letter earlier this week that he found the technique personally "repugnant," but he reiterated that he could not determine whether it is illegal without being privy to classified details. Mukasey's response has been deemed insufficient by many Democrats and sparked an outcry among antiwar liberals who provided much of the political energy -- and financial contributions -- that propelled Democrats to the majority. Schumer, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, needs those supporters as he tries to expand the majority next year. One group, Democrats.com, began an e-mail campaign last night urging its supporters to withhold donations to Schumer if he votes for Mukasey. During yesterday's telephone interview, Schumer said that his decision will hinge largely on whether he believes Mukasey would be independent of the White House. He said that was "called into question" by some of Mukasey's views. "The question is whether he will show the requisite independence," Schumer said. "That's what I want to clear in my own head. . . . If Congress passes a law forbidding waterboarding, would he enforce that?" Schumer's colleagues are keenly aware of his awkward position. In announcing his opposition to Mukasey on Wednesday, Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said he could not predict the outcome of the close vote and noted the undecided posture of Schumer, with whom Durbin lives in a group house of Democrats. "I haven't polled my colleagues, including the one I live with," Durbin said. Some Republicans, meanwhile, are openly chortling at Schumer's dilemma. "Mukasey and Schumer, aren't they partners? Wasn't that the Schumer pick?" Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said yesterday. "It's become a problem for him." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/01/AR2007110102499_pf.html
as the post's editorial suggests i think the dems should approve mukasey, as he is justifiably a solid candidate for the position. and then ban torture (ie passing biden's national security with justice act.) this seems reasonable and effective given the situation. insane man, what do you want to happen realistically? reject mukasey then what.
Except that Bush would veto it. Bush wants torture. It's as simple, and complicated, as that. In my opinion, anyone who thinks differently is fooling themselves, with all due respect to whoever that is. D&D. Attempt to be Civil! Impeach Bush for Promoting Torture.
[rquoter] WASHINGTON - Sens. Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein say they will vote for Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey, which likely gives him enough support to pass the Senate Judiciary Committee. ADVERTISEMENT Their decision came shortly after the chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced he would vote against Mukasey, a former federal judge. "This is an extremely difficult decision," Schumer said in a statement, adding that Mukasey "is not my ideal choice."[/rquoter] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071102/ap_on_go_co/senate_mukasey_53
It is nearly impossible, because of all the variables that would have to line up perfectly. There would have to be only the one person(the one in custody) who knew how to stop the bomb. There would have to be no other way to find the bomb through other sources of intel. They would have to be sure that torture for some reason would actually work in that case. Here are parts from a paper on torture that deals with the hypothetical of nuclear bomb going off in a major city. So yes, it is nearly an impossible hypothetical. Somehow that the one captive they have would happen to be the only one who knew where and how to diffuse the bomb with there being no other way of stopping it is ludicrous, especially given the way that the war on terror has yielded suspects, and who's being caught. There is almost always at least more people who know about the bomb, and how to stop it. There are almost always other ways to find out about it. Also the piece I quoted from makes another good point. So why on earth would anyone approve any nominee, or legislation that approves torture now, based on a nearly impossible false hypothetical?
So a Senator that almost universally with the left should be shunned over one vote for an AG that will likely only be in office for a year? I think that is taking single interests politics a little far.
