Skip to main content

Mukasey's answer on waterboarding is finally in to the Judiciary Committee, and he attempts to punt, refusing to say that the practice is torture, and while it is personally "repugnant to him," the question as posed to him was "hypothetical":

Hypotheticals are different from real life and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical.

This should be enough to scuttle this nomination. None other than Senators Leahy and Graham have said that his answer to this question would determine whether they would support him. Leahy's responded to Mukasey's hedge:

Based on an initial review of his response to the letter, I remain very concerned that Judge Mukasey finds himself unable to state unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and below the standards and values of the United States.

I would hope that Senator Leahy's concern can be transmuted to full opposition, not only because of the waterboarding question but because of the troubling responses he gave to the committee on theories of a unitary executive, as Kagro outlined yesterday.

As a reminder, Yale law professor Jed Rubenfeld wrote about this aspect of Mukasey's testimony in a New York Time's op-ed. When asked the simple question of whether the President is required to obey federal statutes, Mukasey answered:

"That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."

Rubenfeld continues:

But before voting to confirm him as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, the Senate should demand that he retract this statement. It is a dangerous confusion and distortion of the single most fundamental principle of the Constitution — that everyone, including the president, is subject to the rule of law.... What he said, and what many members of the current administration have claimed, would radically transform this accepted point of law into a completely different and un-American concept of executive power.

According to Judge Mukasey’s statement, as well as other parts of his testimony, the president’s authority "to defend the nation" trumps his obligation to obey the law. Take the federal statute governing military commissions in Guantánamo Bay. No one, including the president’s lawyers, argues that this statute is unconstitutional. The only question is whether the president is required to obey it even if in his judgment the statute is not the best way "to defend the nation."

If he is not, we no longer live under the government the founders established.

This, to quote Sen. Dodd from yesterday's conference call, "is about as fundamental as it gets." It indicates that Mukasey would carry on the Gonzales' tradition of a unitary executive functioning outside of the bounds of the Constitution. That Mukasey, a federal judge, could hold this opinion is deeply troubling. Senators Dodd, Clinton, and Obama have vowed to oppose his nomination if it gets out of committee (as does Edwards, but he unfortunately doesn't get to vote on this one).

Mukasey's non-answer on torture and his troubling statements on an executive above the law should be enough to scuttle this nomination in committee. The knowledge that the major presidential contenders in the Senate--our de facto leaders--are opposing him just adds more weight.

Call Senators Leahy (202-224-4242) and Specter (202-224-4254) and other members of the Judiciary Committee and tell them that we don't need another torture apologist or lackey for a president who thinks he's above the law as the nation's Attorney General. We've already had that, and look where it got us.

Update: All the Senators running for president have weighed in. Biden has announced his opposition, and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, arguably has some sway. Keep those calls going to the Judiciary Committee. Maybe we can inject enough spine in them to reject both Mukasey and telecom amnesty.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:05 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Not to worry, folks - Leahy is "very" concerned (7+ / 0-)

    Which means he'll be firing a harsh SWL (sternly worded letter) very soon to go along with him being very concerned.

    Lawrence, KS - From ashes to immortality

    by MisterOpus1 on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:07:20 PM PDT

  •  Agree to serve in the Bush Administration, (6+ / 0-)

    and you forfeit a lifetime's reputation for honesty and adherence to constitutional law.

    It's a simple equation, proven again and again.

    •  The whole signing in blood thing... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JoeW, dave1042

      ...should send anyone running the other direction screaming.

      Anyone who stays and signs their soul away deserves the tainted Medal of Freedom they will earn with their incompetence and dishonesty.

    •  While I agree about the forfeiture of honesty and (5+ / 0-)

      adherence to Constitutional law, I am stumped to name one..yes..ONE... person Bush has appointed who has such a reputation to "forfeit."

      If you believe in honesty and the adherence to Constitutional law you wouldn't accept an appointment to work in this "administration."

      Criminals hang out with criminals...

      Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

      by willyr on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:16:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mukasey had such a reputation (6+ / 0-)

        just last week...until he started waffling on waterboarding.

        Though I guess your point is true: The minute he agreed to become AG, he demonstrated that his reputation was fraudulent.


        •  If the President say so=It Must be right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          That's the rule of accepting a presidential appointment...especially in this administration.

          To say you can maintain "independence" is just ludicrous.

          Name me an Attorney General...other than Elliot Richardson ( extension..William Ruckelhaus) who ever defied a president and stood by the Rule of Law.


          Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

          by willyr on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:34:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I remember that night... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            willyr, creeper, Mary2002

            Government officials willing to stand up to their corrupt active, aggressive, questioning press...and a belief that we, the people, had power over our government, power to make things right once again.

            Who on earth would have believed in 1974 that we would ever look back on those events as the Good Old Days?

            •  Actually, I did. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Cuz I expected Ol' Nixxie to be marched out of the Awful Orifice in handcuffs and that after that a Generation of Peace, Love, Happiness and Equal Justice for All would prevail.

              Well..didn't quite happen, thanks to Gerald (Pardon Me) Ford, and his minions Rumsfeld, Cheney and others.

              Nevertheless, it was nice to have a Congress (thanks, Peter Rodino) and a judiciary (thanks, Judge Sirica) that actually believed that the Constitution---and the rule of law-- MEANT something, and that law breakers at the highest levels were the ones who it was most important to bring to justice.

              We got rid of Nixxie, but not the Arrogance of Power that put him there.

              Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

              by willyr on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:49:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I worked for Elizabeth Holtzman (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                willyr, Mary2002

                that summer...I was seventeen, she was my Congresswoman, and I collected signatures for her re-election during the day and then watched her on TV with the Judiciary Committee at night. It was one of the most exciting summers of my life.

                She lost by a quarter of a percentage point to Al D'Amato in the 1980 election for the Senate, the year Ronald Reagan swept the country...mostly because Jacob Javitz refused to drop out and stole several percentage points from Liz.

                For the next eighteen years I got to see the results of that election in New York and nationwide.

              •  Interesting, isn't it? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                We got rid of Nixxie, but not the Arrogance of Power that put him there.

                While 1974 did prove that the President was not above the Law, we in a sense did fail because we believed that a unitary focus on the President would contain a unitary executive.  Its quite obvious that Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al learned a very different lesson from 1974.  

                Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                by a gilas girl on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:50:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Wait- is it just me or... (0+ / 0-)
            didn't those calling for Clinton's head in the 90s say that the WORST thing about his lying (about a trivial matter that was none of anyone's business outside of three people) say that the danger in letting him off the hook was the EXAMPLE he set for everyone else: if the President acted like he was above the law, then we were on the verge of anarchy! My, how times -- and ground rules -- have changed.

            We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14:

            by anastasia p on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 07:33:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Mukasey Has Traded a Lifetime (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cartoon Peril, JoeW

          of service to the law for an opportunity to add "Attorney General" to his resume'.

          All he needed to do was sell out every principle he has.

          Right the Wrongs...Gore in 08!

          by creeper on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:58:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  yes, he acted like he was on drugs. (0+ / 0-)

          Get a brain, morans! Go USA!

          by Cartoon Peril on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:01:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  This better be a topic during tonite's debate n/t (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deben, PBCliberal, JoeW, dave1042

    "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you" ~ Pericles

    by Chrispy67 on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:11:10 PM PDT

  •  What has happened to Republican moral (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JoeW, dave1042

    standards?  Have they all given in to the notion that there is only one rule--obedience?

  •  Another Empty Suit to Fill the Seat? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deben, dave1042

    Mukasey is only slightly better than Gonzo in that he can be described to be a "real judge" who is technically qualified to occupy the position.

    However, it is clear he will end up being just another arm of the CHENEY/bush White House.

    Dump him.  It's better to have nobody than another "President's Lawyer" at the DoJ.

  •  Frankly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deben, Mary2002

    I think to some degree the Pres. has been above the law since Ford pardoned Nixon. And I don't see this changing.

  •  Pretty damned simple question: (8+ / 0-)

    Is the president required to obey the law?

    Yes = confirmation.

    No, maybe, I don't know, it depends, etc. = Enjoy the private sector, chump.

    Nanotech can take CO2 and make diamonds & fresh air. I'm Lou--who are YOU?

    by Crashing Vor on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:13:24 PM PDT

  •  "I know it when I see it." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Porn, not torture.


  •  "it depends on who does it" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the mantra to be used by this administration on a wide variety of items when assessing accountability, if not criminality.

  •  When there is even a quaver about (4+ / 0-)

    torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions, then there is a systematic devaluation of every other written document including the Constitution.  This. is. not. the. guy. for Atty General. Period.

    I'll wait for Ted Olsen to come before Congress, and say the same thing.  

    If a dictator ever took over, the NSA "could enable [him] to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back." Sen. Frank Church

    by sailmaker on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:14:20 PM PDT

  •  Contempt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    david78209, creeper, dave1042

    Mukasey also ruled out prosecuting contempt citations on behalf of Congress.  Any Senator with respect for the institution of the Senate should oppose him on that basis alone.

    "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

    by Old Left Good Left on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:14:36 PM PDT

  •  So how many people have been alternatively (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    david78209, creeper, dave1042


    Please in the name of all goodness let shrub limp by on a Junior under flunky general for 400 some odd days they gotta be better than this clown in a brooks brothers suit.

    Be careful what you shoot at, most things in here don't react well to bullets-Sean Connery .... Captain Marko Ramius -Hunt For Red October

    by JML9999 on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:14:53 PM PDT

  •  Grounds for impeachment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mary2002, dave1042

    If he were still a Federal judge, I'd consider what he's said and refused to say grounds for impeachment.

    He apparently retired in 2006.

    We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is just a setting on the dryer.

    by david78209 on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:15:01 PM PDT

  •  Yes on Mukasey nullifies Constitution (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CunningBlogist, Mary2002, Nespolo, mystic

    If Congress confirms an Attorney General who says the President is free to break statutes and order cruel and unusual punishment, they might as well make Cheney their proxy with power to cast their votes as he pleases. Congress will have forfeited its power and duties.

    •  The President swears an oath... (1+ / 0-) preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

      He does NOT swear an oath to do whatever is necessary to preserve, protect, and defend the national security of the United States of America.

      Since the US Constitution is the heart of the USA, national security means squat if the Constitution is trashed.  A secure police state ain't my America; nor would it be that which was founded in 1776.

      •  A yes to Pelosi pretty much nullified the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Constitution.  If Congress, a separate branch charged with the duty of oversight, won't impeach over torture - why do they expect an AG who works FOR Bush and can only get the nomination FROM Bush, to do what Congress won't?

        They haven't even begun to discuss impeaching Bybee, who signed off on the torture solicitations at the beginning and now has a Circuit Court seat for life.

        A "no" on Mukasey leave firmly entrenched A) Keisler (who probably wouldn't even say what Mukasey has said about torture being unConstitutional - he's beyond bile) as Acting AG; and B) Bradbury, who authored the re-adoption of torture, heading OLC; and C) another year for all the DOJ whistleblowers outed by Conyers to feel the brunt of having Keisler in charge.

        OTOH, it's true that it makes a mockery of this country to put into the AG slot someone who is ok with torture.  

        At least, to do that for the THIRD time in a row would be sad.

        Think about it.  We've already had two pro-torture AGs, with an extended set of pro-torture Dep AGs who got to stand in as actings from time to time, and we've had over a half decade of uninterrupted torture, endorse, solicited, covered up and exempted from prosecution by the US DOJ and, with the Sup Ct turning down the el-Masri case, now also endorsed by the courts.

        The el-Masri case is pretty much the proof that it doesn't matter whether or not they put Mukasey on the bench.  It's already been established that the President can kidnap and torture someone for having the "wrong" last name.  Disappear them, coerce statements from them, cart them around, beat and brutalize, terrify and terrorize, and dump in the middle of nowhere with no protections -

        - and not one voice in DOJ is raised and not one prosecution takes place and not one court allows any avenue for recovery.

        And the DOJ prime prosecutors want to talk about the "Islamo" fascists while they wallow in Bush filth without even a shudder of distate.

        How does it get any sadder?

        Mukasey or Keisler - what does it matter anymore?

  •  Mukasey (7+ / 0-)

    The Bush nominee for Attorney General still can't figure out whether the horrible practice of waterboarding ought to be deemed a form of torture, and thus illegal and unconstitutional.  In the America I thought I grew up in, it wasn't necessary to have an extended, detailed converation about things like waterboarding.  Our reaction was visceral, and quick-- we knew in our bones that it was wrong.  The fact the conversation has even taken place in an important deliberative body like the US Senate is an indication of just how far we have fallen as a nation under the Bush administration.  What the hell has happened to this country?

    •  Precisely. "Visceral and quick." Some ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PBCliberal, creeper

      ...answers I'd like my chosen officials to think about long and hard. This isn't one of them. There was a time, even though the CIA was torturing and teaching surrogates to torture when even those who approved the torture would say it was wrong, wink-wink. Now we get Gonzalesizations. So, Mr. Mukasey, is opposition to waterboarding "quaint" as well as hypothetical?

      "When shifting paradigms, it is important to put in the clutch." -- Patricia Limerick

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:50:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It goes beyond that for me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If he is not, we no longer live under the government the founders established.

    If we as Americans are so fearful that we no longer feel the President needs to follow the law to protect us, democracy has reached a new low and may not last much longer.  What on earth are we telling our children?

  •  Just e-mailed my Senator (Whitehouse) n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Called Leahy's ofice (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    creeper, Mary2002

    Suggested that Leahy offer Mikasey the opportunity to be waterboarded so that it is no longer a hypothetical.

    Florida Democrats: Delegates 210, Suffrage 0

    by PBCliberal on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:35:42 PM PDT

  •  There's an important distinction here (0+ / 0-)

    when stating that the President's requirement to defend the country outweighs his requirement to defend the Constitution...

    ... the other question is, is breaking the law actually necessary to defend the country?  I mean, sure, the Bush Administration can't seem to find a way to protect the American people that doesn't involve breaking the law, but that doesn't make it so.

    •  The only Power the President has is that conveyed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      by the Constitution.  It doesn't say anything in the Constitution about empowering a President to violate the Constitution if he thinks its a good idea or wants to have a vanity war.

  •  Boooosh intones thusly.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It was good for Torquemada,
    It was good for Torquemada,
    It was good for Torquemada,
    and its good enough for me...

  •  To me this is real simple, we have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PBCliberal, Mary2002

    a pResident that is totally partisan. His way or the highway. He got a way with it with a gop controlled Congress.

    I'll cut Pelosi & Reid a little slack here (very little) & assume they took the high road & tried to work with bush & his minions in a bi-partisan way meaning discussion,compromise etc to come up with a solution that everyone can agree with. In situations like this there is always give & take on both sides of the negotiating table & some things are gained & some things are lost.

    bush has continued to display that he will not negotiate in any form at all. It is time with this nomination to send bush a message. Neither will we on the torture issue. Send this appointment back to George & let him go look for another.

    We also need to keep Congress in session every day thru out the boy kings last day so he can't do recess appointments. I'm sure there is a way to this and there should be enough Dems that believe in our Constitution & the rule of law that Congress should not recess.

    If there isn't then we have a bigger problem than any of us realized.

  •  It's simple, if no law binds the President, then (0+ / 0-)

    no law binds anyone, only power and fear.

    Get a brain, morans! Go USA!

    by Cartoon Peril on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:00:16 PM PDT

  •  ALL THIS IS SILLY. sheeesh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the answer is simple.
    Say, Mike. OK, the office is yours. BUT, here is the deal.You have to submit yourself to waterboarding, THEN, tell all of America, on LIVE TV, watching the whole process, that it was not torture. Then, you get sworn in. OK?

    In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

    by agnostic on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:05:34 PM PDT

  •  torture (0+ / 0-)

    I've long believed that the reason the Bushniks are so enthusiastic about defending torture is that they are acting out of fear;  they know they are guilty of so many heinous acts that they worry that prosecution may be forthcoming.  

    Thus, they desperately defend the notion of waterboarding and other such practices, because to concede that waterboarding is wrong is to make themselves vulnerable to the accusation of human rights abuses.  They know very well that torture is not an effective means of gathering information; they are scared shitless that they might end up in orange jumpsuits and handcuffs in front of a tribunal in The Hague someday.

  •  Mukasey Now, Gonzales Then: Torture Hypothetical (0+ / 0-)

    In his written responses to questions from Senate Democrats regarding waterboarding and other issues, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey almost exactlty regurgitated Alberto Gonzales' 2005 assertion to Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) that "what we're really discussing is a hypothetical situation."

    For the details, see:
    "Mukasey Now and Gonzales Then: Discussions of Torture 'Hypothetical.'"

  •  funny how it feels like we've already been here (0+ / 0-)

    As I said to Armando years ago when we were discussing AG nominee AG: Its really not that hard, just say "no" to torture.  It still holds, ladies and gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee.  

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:40:28 PM PDT

  •  I know this is juvenile (0+ / 0-)

    and off-topic, but every time I see his name I pronounce it mucus-ey in my head.

  •  Everything that's transpired since 1999 could've (0+ / 0-)

    been foretold by a paranoid-ish interpretation of Bush's snotty, "I'm not going to respond to hypotheticals." Lack of imiagination, refusal to plan in a substantive fashion, rejection of logic - all of which require one to entertain the hypothetical - have gotten us where we are.

  •  A script for interrogating Mukasey... (0+ / 0-)

    If the Democrats are so spineless & mentally
    paralized that they don't know how to take on
    Mukasey (or anyone who semantically dances around
    the torture question) here's the script:


    Let's turn to illegal narcotics.
    If a previously-reliable, confidential informant
    notified your staff that he saw  an illegal alien
    transporting cocaine into the US. And then upon
    investigation this proved to be accurate would you
    prosecute the illegal alien?

    Of course. You don't have to be a citizen to break the law.

    How did you determine it was worth prosecuting?

    (Any answer here is virtually irrelevant.)

    (Setting him up with DEMOCRAT#1's hypothetical is key here.
    If he won't answer that one either then
    we paint him as pro-drug smuggling.
    Now for the spike.)

    You say you're against torture.

    America can not and does not torture.

    Is waterboarding torture?

    If it's torture then we won't do it

    Ok. If you got an authenticated videotape of
    suspected terrorists being systematically
    gang-raped while in US custody would you stop it?
    Would you prosecute the rapists?

    Yes, of course.

    Ok, now we're making progress. How could you make
    that assessment? Why would you prosecute this as
    torture? What criteria are you using? By what

    I know torture when I see it from my
    understanding of the law.

    Ok, let's calibrate that understanding. We know
    you at least acknowledge rape to be torture. What
    about holding someone upsidedown with a hood on
    while you pour water to simulate the experience
    of drowning? Would you prosecute that? Why or why
    (((((Then proceed to drill down on the "prosecute
    or not?" question with a dozen other hypothetical
    torture techniques))))


    Ok. If you got an authenticated videotape of
    suspected terrorists being systematically
    gang-raped while in US custody would you stop it?
    Would you prosecute the rapists?

    I won't comment on hypotheticals.

    Well you answered DEMOCRAT#1's hypothetical!
    Why won't you answer mine?
    Because you have some reason to believe that this
    is actually happening and you don't want to
    comment on something that may come before you? So
    you're calling the military gang-rapists? I won't
    stand for that implication. Now answer this
    extreme hypothetical or have you no capacity for
    critical thinking? I will keep repeating this
    question for the duration of my time. You must
    answer. Again, If you got an authenticated
    videotape of suspected terrorists being
    systematically gang-raped while in US custody
    would you stop it? Would you prosecute the

    I would have to research that.

    Ok, you have a day to come up with an answer of
    if you would prosecute or not. That is
    fundamentally your job as the AG. if you can't
    answer that question you're admitting your
    incompetent. It is a "yes or no" question. There
    is no hedge. If you refuse to definitively say
    you would prosecute the rapists then we will have
    no other conclusion to draw than that you approve
    of gang-rape of prisoners & detainees.
    And if your daughter or wife or college friend
    were erroneously designated an "enemy combatant"
    that you would be ok with that woman being
    gang-raped. It's that serious.
    You're either pro-gang-rape or your against
    I didn't understand your muttering. What was that?
    Another semantic hedge with conditional
    Ok, let it be known to all...Mr. Mukasey supports
    gang rape!


  •  Why do we have a system that requires people (0+ / 0-)

    to lobby for the obvious?

  •  I rather see him as AG than on the bench (0+ / 0-)

    As a federal judge his term is for life. As AG, it's only until January 2009.

  •  Waterboarding (0+ / 0-)

    If waterboarding is not torture then why can't the local cops use it?  I'm sure we could get rid of those pests who insist in fighting their traffic tickets in court with a single treatment.

  •  When, Then, Hypothetically (0+ / 0-)

    We should waterboard him until he makes a decision. Hypothetically. Virtually. By turning the screws, so to speak.

  •  I called (0+ / 0-)

    my senators Boxer and Feinstein today to express my dissapproval for Mukasey's nomination moving forward. Feinstein is on the Judiciary Committee, no?

  •  Mukasey tells Leahy on torture "go f*ck yourself" (0+ / 0-)

    Okay, he didn't quite say it that way and of course I'm paraphrasing what Cheney is reported to have told Leahy a few years back. Mukasey was quoted saying "If, after such a review, I determine that any technique is unlawful, I will not hesitate to so advise the president and will rescind or correct any legal opinion of the Department of Justice that supports the use of the technique." Reagan said "trust and verify" but Mukesay is in other words telling the Judiciary Committee -- trust and nominate -- and I'll get back to you on that torture thing when I get back to you on that torture thing. Going from Gonzales to Mukasey would be going from the pot to the frying pan. How could the law making body of the United States even consider someone as attorney general who thinks the laws that they pass may or may not apply to presiding officer in the executive branch?

    Steve Everett

  •  Bring Ashcroft back (0+ / 0-)

    I almost want the glory days of Ashcroft back.

    This guy is more dangerous than Gonzales - he can actually shred constitution while making a polished case for it.

    He is applying to be the chief prosecutor of the country. They need to think hypothetically to see if a crime has been committed. This letter is bizarre for 2 reasons:

    He states "I would rather quit than take part in breaking the law"????? This for a guy who wants to be the chief prosecutor of the country.

    He also seems to think he is either applying for the job of a supreme court judge or legal counsel for the president. NO - he is supposed to prosecute people when any federal statute is presumed to be broken.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site