Mukasey? Hell No!!!

Get real People!

This is the same weasel like answers we heard from Alito and Roberts during their confirmation hearings and look where that got us!

No nominee for AG who will not say what the rest of the world knows to be torture is torture should even be considered for the post.

Bush and Cheney have dragged the good name of this nation through the mud and destroyed the moral high ground that we once stood for as a nation. They have made torture the "Great American Past-time" in the eyes of all the other nations on this planet.

It is time we took back our good name and stopped this despicable behavior now... right now! Draw the line with Mukasey!

Pick up the phone and call your Senators and tell them hell no on Mukasey!

AG nominee won't say if waterboarding is torture

Excerpts:
Attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey left open the possibility that a controversial technique alleged to be used by CIA interrogators could be considered Constitutional, when he refused to say one way or another whether water boarding is torture.

During the second day of his Senate confirmation hearings, Mukasey was asked if he believed water boarding "was Constitutional."

"If water boarding is torture, torture is not constitutional," Mukasey said, claiming that he was not familiar with the specifics of the process.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) called that answer a "massive hedge," and he explained the specifics of the practice -- strapping down a detainee and pouring water over his face to simulate drowning. He asked if that practice would be considered constitutional.

"If it amounts to torture it is not constitutional," is all Mukasey would say.

Whitehouse scolded Mukasey, saying he was "very disappointed" in his "very semantic answer."

"Sorry," Mukasey mumbled.

The former federal prosecutor and district court judge is expected to be easily confirmed, but he has seemed reticent to outline specifics on controversial administration programs such as detainee treatment, the prison at Guantanamo Bay and warrantless wiretapping.

http://rawstory.com/...

Mukasey Endorses Expansive Presidential Authority

Excerpts:
Nominee Says Bush Entitled to Ignore Federal Surveillance Law
Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey suggested today that the president could ignore federal surveillance law if it infringes on his constitutional authority as commander in chief.

Under sharp questioning about the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Mukasey said there may be occasions when the president's wartime powers would supersede legal requirements to obtain a warrant to conduct wiretaps.

In such a case, Mukasey said, "the president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law. . . . The president doesn't stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution."

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he was "troubled by your answer. I see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

•  If he won't enforce contempt...

  Than shrub needs to try try again.

  by manwithnoname on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:18:00 PM PDT

  •  We have heard this stuff before...

    We got the same type of parsed answers during the Alito and Roberts hearings and we let SCOTUS get screwed by neocons for a generation!

    No more bullshit nominees... this guy is a bought and sold "company man" and should be sent packing.

    by Flint on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:22:08 PM PDT

•  No More whining about not enough votes...

  Dems... take a stand on principle for once in your frickin' careers and stand for something!

  Stop the bullshit whining... some fights have to be fought even if you lose!

  by Flint on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:18:53 PM PDT

•  Its way past time to stop this despicable

  behavior. We need some people with spine on the hill. When I say 'we' I mean America.

  by pickandshovel on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:21:08 PM PDT

•  Post 2008.

  Democrats have the White House, 60 seats in the Senate and 250 seats in the House.

  Democratic president nominates AG, Republicans raise holy hell, demand someone less "liberal", Democrats roll over until the Republicans get who they want. Or Republicans filibuster if they have to and use every parliamentary trick in the book to get what they want.

  Same is going to happen with federal judges or supreme court justices.

  Republicans will be calling the shots and controlling everything from nominations to legislation even if there is an overwhelming Democratic majority.

  I have no doubt.

  by Rex Manning on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:33:41 PM PDT

•  I'm sending my Senators a message

   If they vote yes for this weasel wording nutcase -- then I will strongly suspect that they are being blackmailed by the bush gang. They are being forced to vote against their own moral values.

   I'm working on the wording --- but I do believe that if we started merely suggesting -- asking -- implying that perhaps BLACKMAIL is behind their votes -- then perhaps they might grow a spine??

    Wishful thinking?  

  by Carib and Ting on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:37:34 PM PDT

•  why doesn't someone point out that the

  POTUS is only Commander in Chief of the MILITARY. Constitution does not say CIC of nation as a whole.

  This is disgusting. Schumer is disgusting. America is --  well you know.

  by samddobermann on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:39:12 PM PDT

•  He Will Be Approved Easily.

  He has impressive credentials.

  He is not just an Orthodox Jew, but he is a hardcore Zionist who has helped keep the lid on court cases in SDNY concerning the 9-11 attacks.

  They owe him.

  Voting him down would be denounced as anti-Semitism.

  All he has to do is sound smarter and less completely in Bush's pocket than Abu Gonzo, who owed his entire fucking career to Bush.

  He's a terrible selection and a bad man, but his confirmation is as sure as the sunrise.

  by Kargomania on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:20:21 PM PDT