Laughably called, "A Vote For Justice," today Chuck Schumer offers a weak defense for his upcoming vote for Michael Mukasey as George Bush's latest torture-enabling Attorney General.
And what a hypocrite Schumer shows himself to be. In one sentence he says:
I deeply oppose this administration’s opaque policy on the use of torture — its refusal to reveal what forms of interrogation it considers acceptable.
On Friday, he personally made clear to me that if the law were in place, the president would have no legal authority to ignore it — not even under some theory of inherent authority granted by Article II of the Constitution, as Vice President Cheney might argue. Nor would the president be able to evade a clear pronouncement on the subject from the courts. Judge Mukasey also pledged to enforce such a law.
Get that? Mukasey made it clear to him personally, as in, Schumer was assured in a private meeting, not during Mukasey's public testimony. Because what Mukasey said publicly when asked if George Bush was required to obey the law was:
That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country
It depends. So much for opposing opaque policy.
I understand and respect my colleagues who believe that Judge Mukasey’s view on torture should trump all other considerations. For the Senate to make a bold declaration about torture and waterboarding by rejecting him is appealing.
Yes, isn't it appealing for the United States Senate to say unambiguously that that torture is wrong. Wow, what a concept. But apparently not appealing enough for Chuck Schumer.
The vote is to be held in the next couple of hours. Why don't we spend that time calling his office to let him know what we think of his version of justice?