He didn't know what it (water-boarding) is. He said torture was unconstitutional and had 3 amendments for backup of his position.
Posted by peter at October 18, 2007 09:43 PMOf course it's torture.
Every aspect of this corrupt/inept administration can be found in either a George Orwell story, a Mel Brooks movie, or an episode of the Twilight Zone.
Next they will tell us that Torquemada was a Walmart greeter.
Posted by TIKI AL at October 18, 2007 10:03 PMThis is not World War II when you have nations engaged in warfare tactics to achieve a mission to take over another nation...today we have individuals and groups set out on no clear objective to destroy http://www.enewsreference.com
Posted by eNews Reference at October 18, 2007 10:22 PMdebating which tortures are acceptable..this country has come an awful long way in 7 years
Posted by dennis at October 19, 2007 04:07 AMpants-pissing peter: "He didn't know what it (water-boarding) is."
Jebus, where has this guy been?!?!?!?
eNews Reference: "This is not World War II when you have nations engaged in warfare tactics to achieve a mission to take over another nation...today we have individuals and groups set out on no clear objective to destroy http://www.enewsreference.com"
do you need to go change your urine soaked pants? I am so tired of these right-wing STUPID EVIL COWARDS
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 19, 2007 04:42 AMGood morning. Oh, and what Gay Vet said.
Posted by Sharkbabe at October 19, 2007 05:11 AMThis is not World War II when you have nations engaged in warfare tactics to achieve a mission to take over another nation...today we have individuals and groups set out on no clear objective to destroy --enews
But today, just as during WWII, a human being is a human being. Torture is torture, period.
Enews, is your argument that during WWII we couldn't torture the soldiers because it was their country that we were at war with, but now we are at war with individuals and it is okay to do whatever we want to those individuals?
It all reverts back to the morality of the nation. The right-wingers love to talk about the moral imperative to bring freedom to the world. It is morally wrong to torture, but by us torturing individuals, we lose any moral high ground we may or may not have had to begin with. Secondly, it sends the message that if our soldiers are captured, we have no problem with you waterboarding them because, afterall, it isn't torture.
Posted by the professor at October 19, 2007 05:39 AMThe sound byte I heard all yesterday was Mr. Whitehouse asking the nominee "Is waterboarding torture?". I did not hear if he set it up---i.e., did he first say it was regarded as torture under the Geneva Convention and was prosecuted as such in WW2 war crimes trials? I hope so, because it would have a) framed the issue tightly for the nominee's understanding of the question's scope and b) reduced the amount of weasel room the nominee might seek for cover.
But generally I agree: this nominee should already know the terms, the issues, and his point of view if only because he did reasonable and customary briefing in advance of his committee appearance. That he persists in giving Bush the edge tells us all we need to know. He is not being asked to serve on the Supreme Court. He cannot say "I'd have to rule on that in its proper context in court".
He is a weasel.
Posted by gtash at October 19, 2007 05:55 AMFrom the LA Times today:
Mukasey told Leahy yesterday that he believed there might be times that the president, in order to defend the country, can ignore laws that Congress enacts. That authority, he said, is embedded in the Constitution.
"Can a president put somebody above the law by authorizing illegal conduct?" Leahy inquired.
"The president doesn't stand above the law. But the law starts with the Constitution," Mukasey said.
Leahy: "I'm troubled by your answer. I see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through." Sen. Russ Feingold called Mukasey's view "alarming."
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 19, 2007 06:07 AMMukasey follows a familiar Bush Admin appointee pattern. One day he makes statements that show a reasonable, rational, sensible approach to the law and the Constitution. He goes home and everyone says he was fine. He shows up the next day and doesn't remember worldwide news items (waterboarding) and gives hedges on important questions and worrisome answers (i.e. the Bush line) on others. Its almost like he got a phone call overnight......
Posted by T2 at October 19, 2007 06:08 AMI have no doubt that the Dems will approve this guy. Anyone disagree.
Posted by JohnT at October 19, 2007 06:13 AMone other quick note: the local paper here referred to the failure of the House to override Bush's SCHIP veto as a "GOP victory". Ah, the power of Media Control.
Posted by T2 at October 19, 2007 06:13 AMJohn T, yes, he'll be approved, probably unanimously. When the predecessor is Al Gonzales, anyone following him this side of Goebbels would be approved. And I'm sure Bush wouldn't hesitate to nominate Goebbels if he was available, he'd fit right in with this bunch.
Posted by T2 at October 19, 2007 06:18 AMdo you need to go change your urine soaked pants?
Ya know, for a guy who seems to have wet himself constantly for the past week over his belief that Hillary Clinton either unleashed the dogs of hell on Iran already or will do so immediately upon assuming the office of the presidency I'm surprised you don't see the irony in your constant "pants pissing" references directed at others.
Posted by snark at October 19, 2007 06:25 AMHe didn't know what it (water-boarding) is.
Thanks for reinterpreting that for us. LOL, anytime we need to know what a GOP nominee means all we have to do is ask the pant-pisser!
Posted by Seven of Six at October 19, 2007 06:31 AMHonestly, I don't think you're gonna get any more acceptable nominee than this guy.
But at this point if I were one of the Dems I'd vote against him.
Posted by snark at October 19, 2007 06:38 AMThe dems are hopeless. They should have impeached Gonzales and set the stage for any new appointees.
Anybody who says they are not sure about whether waterboarding, stress positions, etc are torture should experience these treatments for a single 24 hour period, then the question should be asked again.
Posted by angel at October 19, 2007 07:08 AMI can agree with snark, why not just oppose anyone sent up by Bush? screw him for a change. Although whomever is confirmed will only be with us for a little more than a year, there is no limit to the damage to the Constitution Bush could do in a year with another willing accomplice like Gonzo.
Posted by T2 at October 19, 2007 07:10 AMWell, Snark, like I said yesterday, he has a pulse, and he doesn't answer every question with "I don't recall." He obviously knows that waterboarding is torture, but like T2 says, he got a nice talking to Wednesday night. The members of the hearing even asked him that yesterday and Mukasey denied it.
Oh, ok, Judge, whatever you say.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 19, 2007 07:10 AMMight as well make bu$h do a recess appt. At least a no vote has some integrity!
Posted by Seven of Six at October 19, 2007 07:18 AMWhile I'm not disagreeing with anyone who says the Beltway Dems will fall all over themselves to confirm, there is absolutely no reason to do so. Not only is he a total Federalist Society card carrying, firebreathing, right wing tool/fool, and disingenuous at best under testimony, he is firmly in the camp of the unlimited, WARTIME! UNITARY! presidency.
He will NOT allow Cheney's precious (any executive branch evidence/documents, emails, or lunch menus) get out to the oversight committees, he will work to uphold the bloated expressions of executive privilege and fight Congress just as hard on all these issues as Gonzo himself.
Just because he has a little integrity, the Dem leadership is swooning with relief. In no reality-based universe would such an ideological hack as this be considered even remotely worthy or safe to install as Attorney General. WHEN they confirm this bastard, they confirm the end of oversight for the next 15 months. Apparently, for some of them, this doesn't even rate a hesitation or a pause for thought. Disgusting!
Posted by DeminNewJ at October 19, 2007 07:25 AMoh,oh, wait snark, we all know Bush would NEVER use a congressional act to attack a country
sorry snark, but I live in the reality-based community
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 19, 2007 07:29 AMI know, DemNJ, when I was researching that post from yesterday, most of the articles said something like, "Mukasey, sure to be nominated," or "Mukasey, whose nomination is inevitable."
It's disgusting.
sorry snark, but I live in the reality-based community
And you're pissing your pants about Bush attacking Iran.
Posted by snark at October 19, 2007 07:38 AMgo to Kos now and read Kagro X's comment on the Mulkasey thing. He nails it.
Posted by T2 at October 19, 2007 08:44 AMFrom the roof deck of my condo building in DC, from which I could see the top of the White House, I watched the smoke rising from the Pentagon on 9/11. I didn't piss my pants then and I didn't piss my pants when Hillary insanely voted for Kyle-Lieberman.
Sen. Dodd put a hold on (and is threatening to filibuster) the FISA bill and telecomm immunity. I'm truly curious, what about Obama? Hillary? Biden?
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 19, 2007 10:03 AMGV, Obama came out and gave his support for Dodd's actions yesterday. Not sure of the others, haven't really checked.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 19, 2007 10:08 AMLooks like everyone doesn't see Obama as a profile in courage: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/18/all-hat-no-cattle-2/
where's Hillary? Biden?
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 19, 2007 10:20 AMFrom the roof deck of my condo building in DC, from which I could see the top of the White House, I watched the smoke rising from the Pentagon on 9/11. I didn't piss my pants then...
Wow. Talk about a profile in courage! I'm sure it got pretty hairy up there on the roof deck of your condo from which you could see the top of the White House!
...and I didn't piss my pants when Hillary insanely voted for Kyle-Lieberman.
Hard to believe with all your carrying on.
Posted by snark at October 19, 2007 10:30 AMSorry snark but you confuse me with a spineless Democrat. Too bad if you take offense by me pointing out Hillary's mistake in voting for Kyle-Liebermann
in regards to Mukasey (from Chris Floyd):
"...Mukasey would not have been nominated unless the regime knew he would toe its authoritarian line. If he had in fact been opposed to torture, tyranny and the subversion of all government into a base, partisan tool of the Leader's arbitrary will, then he would not have accepted the nomination in the first place. We cannot stress this enough: anyone who signs on with the Bush Regime at this point becomes a willing accomplice to evil. No person of honor or integrity would associate themselves with such a criminal enterprise. Whatever moral credit Mukasey has earned in the past (a matter of some dispute, given some of his rulings), however great his admiration for stalwarts of freedom like Justice Robert Jackson and George Orwell, he has forfeited all of that now by not only joining the Bush Regime but publicly defending some of its filthiest practices. And the government is literally crammed with such people now, in every department and agency, appointed by Bush (or picked by Bush appointees) to serve only Bush, and the cut-throats and cranks he represents...."
Too bad if you take offense by me pointing out Hillary's mistake in voting for Kyle-Liebermann.
No offense taken. Sorry if you take offense at me pointing out that your pants-pissing about Kyl-Lieberman sounds just as pants-pissy as all the stuff written by the people you accuse of being pants-pissers.
I am glad you managed to keep it together on the roof deck of your condo from which you could see the top of the White House and beyond the smoke from the Pentagon. Way to buck up!
Posted by snark at October 19, 2007 11:00 AMLeaders of alternative newspaper chain arrested in Phoenix after running story on subpoenas...
Don't mess with Sheriff Joe!
Maricopa County a little police state haven.
Posted by Seven of Six at October 19, 2007 11:31 AMoh yeah snark, not like Dear Leader didn't use another congressional act to invade a country
oh, wait a minute, there's Iraq
since you're so gullible I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas I want to sell to you
Posted by gay veteran at October 20, 2007 09:36 AM