Mukasey’s Tortured Response (Update)
With his once sure nomination as attorney general possibly hanging in the balance, Michael Mukasey has responded to Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee about his equivocating on whether waterboarding is torture with further equivocating.
Mukasey declared Tuesday in a four-page letter that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques “seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me” and promised to review the legality of such methods if confirmed.
But he told the Democrats that he still could not say whether waterboarding, which simulates drowning, was illegal torture because he had not been briefed on the details of the classified technique and did not want to suggest that CIA officers who had used such techniques might be in “personal legal jeopardy.”
The Dems did not appear to be assuaged and a vote on the once slam-dunk nomination still has not been scheduled.
The White House has whined that Mukasey has been put in an untenable position, and there indeed is some political grandstanding going on here. But as I said yesterday, I also would say that a long overdue day of reckoning has arrived.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “Mukasey’s Tortured Response (Update)”
I think that the longer this drags on, the better it will be for the nominee. The committee has not defined what ‘waterboarding’ is, so they can not expect the nominee to make any judgements in regard to an undefined practice.
In fact, Mr. Reid gave a speech yesterday where he referred to the practice as ‘water torture’ and was incredulous that Mr. Mukasey could not confirm that a practice known as ‘water torture’ was not considered to be torture. He corrected himself later in the speech.
In the end, I think that this will be decided in the media by whichever side gets their question out there the most, for the Rs, “would you allow waterboarding to save the life of your wife or child” and for the Ds, “do you condone torture”. I think that the Rs have the upper hand with the public in their argument but am not sure that they can or will try to get their message out there enough to sway the public.
They should know since they are the ones who put him there.
And I’m guessing it’s not some CIA officers he (and the administration) fears may be put in legal jeopardy.
I’m guessing that the administration is protecting the VP from legal jeopardy for his frequent trips down to Guantanamo Bay to personally waterboard all the new arrivals. Is that what you were intimating?
PWT,
“to personally waterboard all the new arrivals”
is not really relveant. when one can accomplish the same with the stroke of a pen on a document while starying at a safe physical distance
Waterboardint to save a wife’s life is not relevant either, when the ‘confession’ thus elicited is as likely to send aurthorities off in 10 wrong directions instead of the one right one.
The Republicans have what you call the upper hand by using illogical argumentation. That so many fall for it is a sad commentary on the public’s gullibility.
I find it odd that the Senate believes that the Attorney General’s office is so important that is can be left unfilled for over 18 months.
If they vote down Mukasey’s, I cannot see any accepting the job for the last 12 months of the Bush Administration. An acting AG will be left as a caretaker.
I wonder if the Clinton, Edwards, and Obama would be willing to say who they would nominate since they believe that the jobs is so important. My guess is that they would not.
SD-
I find it odd that this most important post should be awarded on the President’s say-so, without a clear understanding of where he stands on waterboarding.
Elections have consequences, but so does a hasty endorsement of a bad policy.
We landed in a very bad place because of abject acquiescence.
It has to stop.
” for the Rs, “would you allow waterboarding to save the life of your wife or child†and for the Ds, “do you condone tortureâ€. I think that the Rs have the upper hand with the public in their argument but am not sure that they can or will try to get their message out there enough to sway the public.”
And your assumption is based on what exactly?
It’s not as if it were filled for the two years prior.
A letter signed by all dems on the committee was sent to Mukasey in which they described, in minute detail, their understanding of what water boarding is. The question was simple- does what they describe constitute torture? The Geneva Convention has declared it as such, as has our own military and listening to his testimony to the committee I have no doubt Mukasey does too. He can’t say this because to do so would mean President Bush could no longer claim that America does not torture.
The committee doesn’t want another AG whose primary function is to protect the president from the consequences of breaking federal and international statutes. It appears that was Gonzales’ key role, as he left DOJ in total disarray, but covered Bush’s rear very well.
PLEASE NOTE:
Please read our comment guidelines below. Focus on actual issues.
The kind of AG needed is the issue, Holly.
Evoking comparisons to what is not needed can’t be avoided, IMO.
I don’t understand your reminders in light of the many pure fantasies among comments on many threads, detailing what the liberals ‘might’ do or the conservatives ‘might’ do.
domajot, we are sorry. Holly’s note was not aimed at your commentaries. Holly’s note was accidentally posted here, but meant for a different article where it does belong.
I can see why it seemed to be a response to something you wrote. It’s not. All is well.
dr.e.
domajot,
But the Democrats in the Senate are arguing that the U.S. does not need an A.G. until sometime in the middle of March 2009 and does not need an A.G. who is up to speed until the Summer of 2009. Either the A.G. job is important and needs to be filled or it is unimportant and can go years without being filled. The Democrats in the Senate seem to want it both ways just like they want it both ways on most issues.
SD said:
So let me get this straight SD, you’d rather see the spot filled quickly with perhaps a Gonzalez-lite rather than have the committee fully vet the appointee to be certain that his duty is to uphold the Constitution rather that this President?Heck why even have an approval process? Obviously the president knows best & his nominee needs no vetting. Good grief!