A Republican to vote NO on
by Duckman GR
Josh, the inimitable, the hard working, Marshall, raises this question about this man up for confirmation as Deputy Attorney General of the United States:
Why is this guy's nomination not dead in the water?
Democrats, got any answer to that? Because, do we really want a guy who writes this in response to Senatorial questions (my bolds):
In further written responses to additional questions of Senator Durbin, Flanigan emphasizes that to say "humane" is not susceptible to a succinct definition "is not to say that the term lacks meaning or that the Department of Defense cannot provide service men and women with appropriate guidance in the context of particular facts and circumstances." Oh, well that's reassuring. Flanigan goes on to write that the White House has not provided guidance specifically on the question of what is "humane," and that he's not able to say whether -- as DoD has concluded -- "degrading and abusive" treatment can be humane.
In essence, parsing the meaning of humane so as to allow torture. And torture for no purpose, against people who shouldn't even be imprisoned, let alone tortured. Torture sanctioned or assented to by the lack of control, supervision, consideration, or concern.
How long, Sen. Feingold, does the President deserve to have the people he chooses? At what point, Sen. Leahy, does reprehensible become actionable? Where is the line, Sen. Durbin, before intent becomes a cause?
This one seems like a powder free confirmation, Senators, so how about it, shall we step on decorum and do the RIGHT thing for a change. Because I'm sick of having torturers and their enablers representing me to the world, and failing in their duties and obligations and responsibilities through incompetence, ignorance (see Mike "Heckava Job" Brown), and greed.