Bob26003 Posted November 6, 2007 #1 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Mukasey Is (Much) Worse Than Gonzales http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=248702 George Bush's nominee to replace disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, retired Federal Judge Michael B. Mukasey, must be rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee for the same reason that Gonzales should have been rejected in 2005. Like Gonzales, Mukasey refuses to accept that the president of the United States must abide by the laws of the land, beginning with the Constitution. In fact, the nominee to replace the worst Attorney General since Calvin Coolidge forced Harry Micajah Daugherty to quit rather than face impeachment is actually takes a more extreme position in defense of an imperial presidency than did Gonzales. When questioned by Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont and Constitution sub-committee chair Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, during the key hearing on his nomination, Mukasey embraces an interpretation of presidential authority so radical that it virtually guarantees more serious abuses of power by the executive branch. There is no question that one of the ugliest manifestations of that expansion of authority involves the Bush-Cheney administration's embrace of extraordinary rendition and torture as tools for achieving its ends. But those who focus too intensely on Mukasey's troubling dance around the waterboarding question make a mistake. Even if the nominee were to embrace the Geneva Conventions -- not to mention the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- and condemn all forms of torture as the cruel and unusual punishment that they are, he would still be an entirely unacceptable choice to serve as the nation's chief law-enforcement officer. And while some Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have made their peace with Mukasey -- shame on New York's Chuck Schumer and California's Dianne Feinstein -- the fight to block this nomination cannot be abandoned. Mukasey's critics on the committee, led by Leahy and Feingold, should do everything in their power to re-frame the debate to focus on the broader question of whether a president can break the law -- and on the nominee's entirely unacceptable answers to it. They should pressure Schumer and Feinstein to reconsider, and they should reach out, aggressively, to "Republicans who know better" such as Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter. Mukasey has made the case against his confirmation more convincingly than any of his critics. Article Continues........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmpressStarXVII Posted November 6, 2007 #2 Share Posted November 6, 2007 It's either him, or no attorney general at all. Isn't that what Bush said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlimited Posted November 6, 2007 #3 Share Posted November 6, 2007 It's either him, or no attorney general at all. Isn't that what Bush said? his way or the highway...get the padded cell ready bush will need it...this guys an extension of gonzales and his torture policies,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMockYou Posted November 6, 2007 #4 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Bob do you have a problem because he is Jewish,why else do you have a problem with him?He is highly qualified and has the backing of prominent Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 6, 2007 #5 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Bob do you have a problem because he is Jewish,why else do you have a problem with him?He is highly qualified and has the backing of prominent Democrats. The Jewish problem is one one aspect of it. The other fact is that he was nominated by Bush. If he had been nominated by Hugo Chavez or Ahmedinejad or Bin Laden, Bob would love him, and tell us how any opposition against him is a CIA front and that we deserve a terroristic attack because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlimited Posted November 6, 2007 #6 Share Posted November 6, 2007 The Jewish problem is one one aspect of it. The other fact is that he was nominated by Bush. Is that what you really think?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted November 6, 2007 #7 Share Posted November 6, 2007 (edited) It's either him, or no attorney general at all. Isn't that what Bush said? Bob and the Democrats are saying it's either who we want or no Atty. General at all. Edited November 6, 2007 by AROCES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob26003 Posted November 6, 2007 Author #8 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Bob do you have a problem because he is Jewish,why else do you have a problem with him?He is highly qualified and has the backing of prominent Democrats. 1. He supports torture 2. He says Bush has doesn't have to follow the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlimited Posted November 6, 2007 #9 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Bob and the Democrats are saying it's either who we want or no Atty. General at all. ..maybe bush will call for martial law...it's so chic' and happening.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob26003 Posted November 6, 2007 Author #10 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Look, the AG has to be approved. By saying there will be no AG if not approved is making a mockery of the process. Bush is a criminal. And this just proves it. He has no respect for the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted November 6, 2007 #11 Share Posted November 6, 2007 ..maybe bush will call for martial law...it's so chic' and happening.. Simply because you can't get everything your way. Now you predicting Martial Law, talk about bitterness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlimited Posted November 6, 2007 #12 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Simply because you can't get everything your way. Now you predicting Martial Law, talk about bitterness. why not..he can dictate better...whats good for musharaf should be good enough for him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMockYou Posted November 6, 2007 #13 Share Posted November 6, 2007 HOw does questioning if Water Boarding is torture make Mukasey support torture, Mukasey has been a public servant for years as a Judge to question his loyality to the law is rediculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlimited Posted November 6, 2007 #14 Share Posted November 6, 2007 why not..he can dictate better...whats good for musharaf should be good enough for him... when the democrats are being taken down by the army along with the liberal judges..well; we're one terror attack away..me feels.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlimited Posted November 6, 2007 #15 Share Posted November 6, 2007 HOw does questioning if Water Boarding is torture make Mukasey support torture, Mukasey has been a public servant for years as a Judge to question his loyality to the law is rediculous. see that's the glitch waterboarding is illegal!! and he's defending it...so i guess he's as loyal to the law as the next neo-con.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 6, 2007 #16 Share Posted November 6, 2007 see that's the glitch waterboarding is illegal!! and he's defending it...so i guess he's as loyal to the law as the next neo-con.. It is? Where is the law "outlawing" waterboarding. One must wonder why Bob and his ilk are so desperate to take away this interrogation tool. Could it be they know it's effective? Without effective tools, we have a harder time preventing terrorists attacks, which is exactly what Bob wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlimited Posted November 6, 2007 #17 Share Posted November 6, 2007 It is? Where is the law "outlawing" waterboarding. . look in the geneva convention... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 6, 2007 #18 Share Posted November 6, 2007 look in the geneva convention... Where in the Geneva Convention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMockYou Posted November 6, 2007 #19 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Unlimited all Mukasey said was that he didnt know if Waterboarding was torture, and he said if it were he wouldnt allow it. Water Boarding is an effective techinique for getting information screw the Geneva convention I dont think our enemies who behead people, and blow up women and children care to much for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlimited Posted November 6, 2007 #20 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I've been grabbed by bushes SS or secret service...when they come for you! ..hopefully they wont board you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 6, 2007 #21 Share Posted November 6, 2007 (edited) There is no prohibition against water-boarding specifically ANYWHERE in the Geneva Convention or the UN Convention Against Torture. There is NO US law designating water-boarding as a form of torture. It is debatable whether it is a form of torture or not. Edited November 6, 2007 by BrucePrime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 6, 2007 #22 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I've been grabbed by bushes SS or secret service...when they come for you! ..hopefully they wont board you... Sure you have buddy. Go take your pills... Does anyone believe a word that come out of Unlimited's mouth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlimited Posted November 6, 2007 #23 Share Posted November 6, 2007 There is no prohibition against water-boarding specifically ANYWHERE in the Geneva Convention or the UN Convention Against Torture. There is NO US law designating water-boarding as a form of torture. It is debatable whether it is a form of torture or not. *sigh* you neocons can justify everything..tell you what. when they arrest bush finally; can we as a nation waterboard him and cheney for the truth?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted November 6, 2007 #24 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Unlimited all Mukasey said was that he didnt know if Waterboarding was torture, and he said if it were he wouldnt allow it. Water Boarding is an effective techinique for getting information screw the Geneva convention I dont think our enemies who behead people, and blow up women and children care to much for it. And that is why the terrorist main weapon is fear and horror on us. They see how a simple water boarding is such a big deal and we seem to be so afraid of it, what more then if they show us how they will cut our heads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted November 6, 2007 #25 Share Posted November 6, 2007 *sigh* you neocons can justify everything..tell you what. when they arrest bush finally; can we as a nation waterboard him and cheney for the truth?... Do you think waterboarding is something new, or was first employed by the Bush Administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now