Maybe two classes of sadist. One, the military and intelligence personel who will torture us. Two, the private mercenaries who will machine-gun us if we get too close to them in traffic.

But I fear we may be wasting our time. Feinstein and Leiberman were good progressive liberals until the Middle East caught fire. Once the heat gets close to Israel, they're just as willing to torture as Torquemada.

Honestly, rejecting Mukasey might not be the best thing here. The Solicitor General continues in the job, perhaps behaving better than Gonzales, but certainly not fixing the wrongs of his era.

After Mukasey's defeat, who does Bush nominate? Someone worse. Are the Democrats really prepared to reject nominees until Bush relents and nominates someone willing to actually uphold the law, oppose torture and prosecute contempt of congress?

The real issue is that rejecting Mukasey becomes some kind of proxy for punishing Bush and Cheney, who should be the real targets. So in the absence of a dedicated campaign to roll back all of the Bush abuses, either through impeachment or at least through inherent contempt trials, and refusals to fund objectionable activities - What is the point of rejecting Mukasey, other than a symbolic, and possibly Pyrrhic victory.

If they do it, they have to follow up. Doing it in isolation is actually worse than confirming him (he should not be confirmed with more than 51 votes in any event).

Don't get me wrong, I want that dedicated campaign, and I endorse impeachment tomorrow, but if that isn't going to happen, Mukasey is the best we're going to get.

There is no middle option on this one, if I have read the situation correctly.

Congress passed laws immunizing certain treatment of prisoners (DTA, MCA) and denying rights to prisoners some of whom allege torture, and allowing coerced testimony in legal proceedings. They also have failed to take action on allegations of complicity in torture by Bush administration officials. Under the U.N. treaty, the country, and therefore the Congress, has the following obligations:

Article 12
Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 13
Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

Article 14
1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation.
2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other person to compensation which may exist under national law.

Article 15
Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

I would submit that any and all members of intelligence committees, judiciary committees or any other people in Congress, who were aware that such procedures had been sanctioned, had a duty to act under the treaty, and did not. Are they culpable?

Are the Democrats really prepared to reject nominees until Bush relents and nominates someone willing to actually uphold the law.

I doubt it, but if they did, it would at least have the effect of alerting the public that there's something seriously wrong. It's one instance where the old "obstructionist" meme might not play. We are after all talking about torture.

That's true. But the effect would be lost if the Dems don't follow up and persist in this.

Saying that a recognized form of torture is personally repugnant but might not be illegal is like saying that a recognized form of rape is personally repugnant but might not be illegal. Or like saying that enslaving someone is repugnant but might not be illegal.

There are times to compromise, and there are times to say "NO!" When the subject is an "interrogation" method that has been recognized as extreme torture for hundreds of years (and which the US has prosecuted people for using), it is NOT time to compromise. If Bush can't submit a candidate who supports the law and opposes torture, then it's the duty of anyone in the Senate with both morals and guts to keep saying "NO!"

Aranfell

Watching Bush regime apparatchiks weasel around the truth is like George Costanza mumbling an inaudible answer to a question he couldn't answer.

Mukasey can't admit the truth, i.e., that waterboarding is torture, because the Bush regime has based its blanket "We don't torture" denial on its own contorted definition that waterboarding is not torture.

So Mukasey must either contradict his boss and indict the Bush regime for torture by admitting the obvious, or like George Costanza, mumble an incomprehensible reply -- as he did in his four-page response to the Judiciary Committee.

It's like "shrinkage," only with the Constitution.

“Honestly, rejecting Mukasey might not be the best thing here. The Solicitor General continues in the job, perhaps behaving better than Gonzales, but certainly not fixing the wrongs of his era.”

While I agree with many commenters that the Dems have to stand up to the Repugs and that Mukasey has shown that he will cave in to them you make a very valid point about whether defeating the nomination would be a pyrrhic victory.

Maybe the points made so far about torture by the committee Dems and presidential candidates will be sufficient at this time. Senator Schumer could make a back room deal with Mukasey that he will vote for him and thus get him out of the committee by one vote, if he will agree to other stipulations that involve investigations and de-politicization of the DOJ that would be more likely to happen than if Mukasey is rejected. Mukasey has some positive sides as Glenn has pointed out and could start some actions that would help his replacement when hopefully the Dems take over.

It does give the Busheviks another “victory,” but things need to be put in practical perspective rather than just keep asking for the moon too soon or wailing that all the Dems are no better than the Repugs.