Letters to the Editor
-
re: jayackroyd
The theory under which the torture by the CIA is legal is that it was ordered by the president, and if the president does it, it is not illegal. This theory has already been rejected--and would be again if they brought it to the supreme court.
There is no excuse for confirming an AG who doesn't know whether torture is against the law. --Herein is a large problem with all the "illegal", "liar", "criminal", administration. Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, it's legal. Either way I'll take Mukasey's knowledge and experience over yours, with all due respect. Needless to say, since Mukasey was the Dem choice they are satisfied with his competence as well.
-
Schumer's statement
from nytimes
Following is the statement issued today by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, announcing that he will vote in favor of President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey.
I will support Judge Michael Mukasey for attorney general.
I have spent the last nine months doing everything I can to get new leadership at the Department of Justice, and I believe the job will not be finished until we get a strong and independent attorney general. I believe Judge Mukasey is that type of person. Should we reject him, it is almost certain that an acting, caretaker attorney general will take office without the advice and consent of the Senate. Inevitably, that would enable those in this administration, who do not believe in the rule of law, and have done things that caused even former Attorney General Ashcroft to threaten resignation, to have the complete upper hand.
Only a strong and independent attorney general can return the Justice Department to what it once was and should always be. Under this administration, that nominee will certainly never share our views on issues like torture and wiretapping. The best we can hope for is someone who is independent, has integrity, will put rule of law first and, above all, will clean the stench of politicization out of the Justice Department. I believe Judge Mukasey will be that type of attorney general.
This is an extremely difficult decision. When an administration, so political, so out of touch with the realities of governing and so contemptuous of the rule of law is in charge, we are never left with an ideal choice. Judge Mukasey is not my ideal choice. However, Judge Mukasey, whose integrity and independence is respected even by those who oppose him, is far better than anyone could expect from this administration. He is recommended by and reminds me of Jim Comey, another Bush nominee who — while he didn’t agree with us on the issues — showed the kind of independence and integrity this department needs.
I would also like to say something about torture, particularly waterboarding. I deeply oppose it. I supported Senator Kennedy’s amendment in 2006 and am a co-sponsor of his bill in this Congress. Unfortunately, this nominee, indeed any proposed by President Bush, will not agree with this. I am, however, confident that this nominee would enforce a law that bans waterboarding as I hope it will.
This afternoon, I met with Judge Michael Mukasey one more time. I requested the meeting to address, in person, some of my concerns. The judge made clear to me that were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the president would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.
Judge Mukasey is a lawyer’s lawyer. He will not leap to quick judgments. When we want him to do so, such as on torture, we will be disappointed. But when he resists those in the administration who want quick and facile answers, so they can get their way, so they can roll over civil liberties and blot out separation of powers, it is they who will be disappointed.
I realize that, should he become attorney general, Judge Mukasey and I will disagree on many issues. I have told him that I will battle just as fiercely against him as I did against previous attorney generals when we disagree.
These are troubling times at the Justice Department. We cannot afford or allow the department to languish and limp along for the next 14 months. I deeply esteem those who believe the issue of torture is so paramount that Judge Mukasey’s views on it should be the sole determinant of our vote. But I must respectfully disagree. The Justice Department is a shambles: politicized and demoralized. The belief and hope that Justice Mukasey, with his experience, independence and integrity, can restore the department motivates my vote.
-
Torture Does NOT Work!
Most people understand that torture works. While it's commendable to be against any kind of human suffering, as a philosophy it's dependent on being willing to endure the consequence of pacifism. Which is, having one's fate left to others.
If your intent is to first terrorize and then embitter civilians, torture works. If your intent is to obtain useful information, it does not work It is known for producing unreliable information. The United States military was well aware of this during World War II, which is why it had a policy of humane treatment of captives.
The U.S. military turned to torture in Vietnam and Iraq. It did so out of anger and frustration. The use of torture is a sign of defeat.
-
shooter24=0!
It-s/he, a green goo-a-slime-slime? huh.
okay. it's a slime -o, a goo-slime-a-era.
and,
remember: It it is free to belch green-snot.
okay- o, and some brains are plain green-snot-goo.
-
Shooter's Nixon Defense
Shooter, your whole defense was already tried back in 1974 and found wanting:
Herein is a large problem with all the "illegal", "liar", "criminal", administration. Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, it's legal.
Sorry, you're wrong. We've got a statutory legal system, where our laws are written clearly. The president cannot go out and murder someone and have that murder be legal until the Supreme Court says otherwise. Nice try, but again, Nixon already tried the whole "if the president does it, then it's not illegal" thing, and it didn't work.
The Supremes might be needed to determine whether or not a law or an action is constitutional. However, that is not necessary regarding torture. In this case, the US has signed the Geneva Convention, and according to our constitution, our foreign treaties are the same as domestic law. That is, it's already statutorily provided. In terms of precedence, also, we've got a long history of prosecuting people who torture (including waterboarding). So again, there is no legal controversy here.
Either way I'll take Mukasey's knowledge and experience over yours, with all due respect. Needless to say, since Mukasey was the Dem choice they are satisfied with his competence as well.
Are you saying that Mukasey's "knowledge and experience" can't possibly be trumped by his own corruption and desire to get ahead in a GOP administration, to where he might say something that isn't exactly true just as a means to an end? That, due to his "knowledge and experience," what he's saying just has to be correct? Really? And you're also extending this prestige to the Democrats in congress? You're saying that as long as the Democrats are for it, it's okay with you? Damn, Shooter, you're doing backflips now, holding up the Democrats in congress as the beacon of justice and democracy. Better stop before you get a nosebleed.