• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

MT Senators say no to Mukasey

A

Anonymous

Guest
Baucus, Tester statement on Judge Michael Mukasey
from the Office of Senator Jon Tester

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester today released the following statement:

“From fighting terrorism, fraud, corruption and the scourge of meth to gaining the trust of the American people the next Attorney General has a huge task ahead. Over the past several weeks, we have listened carefully to what both Judge Mukasey has said and what he has refused to say.

We are deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey's refusal to acknowledge what our courts, our military and every single previous administration has recognized: waterboarding is torture and it is illegal. Failure by our government to repudiate torture exposes American men and women fighting around the world to potential danger and injustice.

For too long the Department of Justice has lacked an independent leader who will attack the many problems that face this country, while preserving the liberties guaranteed in our Constitution. We do not believe that Judge Mukasey will be that needed independent voice and we cannot, in good conscience, vote for his confirmation.”
 

Tex

Well-known member
In my opinion, Mukasey is NOT capable of running the Justice Department.

He does not believe in holding the executive branch to the same laws as everyone else. This is the primary responsibility of the justice dept--to apply the law across the board blindly. He doesn't believe in it.

I also don't think pres. Clinton should be a lawyer because of his inability to do the same. Nor should Libby be an attorney.

We have to clean up the professionals who are given the responsibility to carry out the laws of the land. When they want to reinterpret the laws to suit their own needs or if they want to allow powerful people to not abide by the laws of the land, they have lost their professionalism. They should also lose their jobs.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If I had been in their shoes- I would probably have done the same thing...While I feel Judge Mukasey is a much better choice than old GW crony Gonzales-- his answer to the water boarding question was a cock and bull story and actually an insult to the intelligence of the Senators and the American people...

He claims he had not been briefed on the waterboarding practice and could not be briefed because he didn't have a security clearance?
BULLPUCKEY!!!!
First off he is a Federal Judge and as such has had to have an extensive background check-and clearance.... Number two is that the Federal government has thousands of retired FBI, CIA, DEA, Law Enforcement, and Military folks contracted back to the US government running around the nation (I know several) doing security clearance background investigations- and with just a phone call his security check could have been expedited-- and number 3---you would think that GW would have had these extensive clearance checks done- before he nominated the man to the position...

To me the thing we in this nation- and the Senators- are trying to get back in this government/Administration is transparency and honesty-- and this story don't cut it....To me he'd have been more honest if he'd have said I don't want to answer that- or I refuse to answer that....
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
To me the thing we in this nation- and the Senators- are trying to get back in this government/Administration is transparency and honesty-- and this story don't cut it....To me he'd have been more honest if he'd have said I don't want to answer that- or I refuse to answer that....

I doubt the senators are being honest....political yes....


If water boarding is "defined by law as torture", then it would be Judge Mukasey obligation to interpret the law and say if the law is broken...

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 (UPI) -- U.S. attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey said Tuesday the interrogation technique known as waterboarding is "repugnant" to him but didn't label it illegal.

The retired federal judge said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he wasn't able to define the dunking of prisoners to simulate drowning as torture because he had not been briefed on details of the interrogation method, The New York Times reported. But he did say waterboarding and other such techniques "seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me," the newspaper said.


every day an activist judge goes beyond the scope of the law and interjects his/or her opinion,.. to the outrage of this country.. now when a judge says he would have to examine the "facts" and law to determine if it is illegal we say he is dishonest???

If our senators wanted to end this practice,..they could simply make it a crime.. but in all honesty they want it to be used, as long as they can blame some one else for the repugnant act..
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve, it is already defined by the Geneva Convention, and the U.S. has already prosecuted Japanese officers for the offense.

The "you have to make it a law" talk is a bunch of BS.

What happened to the republican crap of "we need less regulation"?

Regulations are almost always a result of incompetent or ineffective leadership, both a problem in this case.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
As an attorney general- you are also called upon to interpret law-- and following that interpretation, it is the law of the land until overturned by a court or changed by law....

The Senate committe asked Mukasey and the Administration if they would like more time to "brief" the Judge on how the practice had been used, so he could better give them an idea of what his "legal" beliefs on waterboarding were-- but they backed out using this "NO security clearance Bullshiest argument".....

One of the first decisions as AG he will have to make is that determination on where waterboarding fits into the current law, Consttutional law, and the common law around which this country was built...

I watched much of the interviews and afterwards comments-- and I think all the Senators are looking for is some reassurances that Mukasey won't be another of King Georges puppet stooges like Gonzales was (that forgot their even was laws or a Constitution)-- and will remember that in his position he actually represents the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES-- and not the White House, nor the Congress , nor of any politicians that self annoint themself as King George and Lord Cheney- who all have independent counsel to do their biddings...
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
As an attorney general- you are also called upon to interpret law-- and following that interpretation, it is the law of the land until overturned by a court or changed by law....

The Senate committe asked Mukasey and the Administration if they would like more time to "brief" the Judge on how the practice had been used, so he could better give them an idea of what his "legal" beliefs on waterboarding were-- but they backed out using this "NO security clearance Bullshiest argument".....

One of the first decisions as AG he will have to make is that determination on where waterboarding fits into the current law, Consttutional law, and the common law around which this country was built...

I watched much of the interviews and afterwards comments-- and I think all the Senators are looking for is some reassurances that Mukasey won't be another of King Georges puppet stooges like Gonzales was (that forgot their even was laws or a Constitution)-- and will remember that in his position he actually represents the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES-- and not the White House, nor the Congress , nor of any politicians that self annoint themself as King George and Lord Cheney- who all have independent counsel to do their biddings...

There is no telling on this one. Mukasey might have to arrest himself if he said it was illegal, having overseen terrorist trials himself and maybe knowledge about it.

I have seen few people willing to arrest themselves, but George Washington did a great deed for the start of our country by not looking for another term. Where are all the patriots?
 

Steve

Well-known member
The "you have to make it a law" talk is a bunch of BS.

Not really,...if there is reason to feel it should be illegal then a "law" is required to make it "against the Law"..or illegal,,

treaties and such often do not over-ride laws and our constitution..

so if the politicians want to act offended, then maybe they should do their job..... instead of waiting for the bench to legislate again...

I stand on my statement:If our senators wanted to end this practice,..they could simply make it a crime.. but in all honesty they want it to be used, as long as they can blame some one else for the repugnant act...

I have always believed the United States should take a higher moral ground on torture....
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
As an attorney general- you are also called upon to interpret law-- and following that interpretation, it is the law of the land until overturned by a court or changed by law....

What Law is he to interpret???

This one???



18 U.S.C. § 2340A,
1. "Torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
2. "Severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
1. the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
2. the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
3. the threat of imminent death; or
4. the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mindaltering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality..

I stand by my statement:If our senators wanted to end this practice,..they could simply make it a crime.. but in all honesty they want it to be used, as long as they can blame some one else for the repugnant act...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
1. "Torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

If I was making the decision--"drowning" or the acts that led me to believe I was being "drowned" would qualify under severe physical and/or mental pain or suffering....

Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water into the lungs. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent. Waterboarding's use as a method of torture or means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure. Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.

Numerous experts have described this technique as torture. Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding, including the United States.

In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

International law
All countries that are signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subjected to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition, and as such there exists no legal exception under this treaty. (The treaty states, No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.) Additionally, signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also agreed to its Article 5, which states, No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
 

Steve

Well-known member
If I was making the decision--"drowning" or the acts that led me to believe I was being "drowned" would qualify under severe physical and/or mental pain or suffering....

But the law says...prolonged...

again all congress has to do is make a law.....one that doesn't have to be argued over and over again...

it's their job!!!!

not the job of a judge to legislate from the bench...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
If I was making the decision--"drowning" or the acts that led me to believe I was being "drowned" would qualify under severe physical and/or mental pain or suffering....

But the law says...prolonged...

again all congress has to do is make a law.....one that doesn't have to be argued over and over again...

it's their job!!!!

not the job of a judge to legislate from the bench...

Looks like the legislative branch did their job and outlawed "torture"-- and its GW that is playing tip-toe thru the tulips with symantics-like he's done thru his entire term...

But if the Attorney General does as he's supposed to do-- and interprets thru the little wording holes of a law to the intent of the law- and says its included in the torture law-and the country ends it--- then you don't have a Judge making judicial precedent....If not--you bet- I'll bet a Judge would rule in a minute that its torture--and then you have a Judicial Precedent set... And it makes GW out to the world to be more of the tyrant idiot he is.....

Not all laws are written with every minute incident covered-- thats where an authority figure has to decide what the intent of the legislative branch was...Many times that is the Attorney General....

In law, the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation may sometimes be considered by the judiciary when interpreting the law . The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to directly or adequately address a particular issue.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve:
I stand by my statement:If our senators wanted to end this practice,..they could simply make it a crime.. but in all honesty they want it to be used, as long as they can blame some one else for the repugnant act...


Steve, that doesn't even pass the laugh test. This is just a talking point. The issue, in my opinion, is whether or not we have the competence in the people who are responsible to enforce the law.

We don't.

We can't legislate competence in government, it would be way, way, too burdensome and way too many regulations and laws. If these guys can't do the job with the tools they have, we need to have someone who can.

No More Excuses!

Bush just doesn't want to have to follow the law so we get what we get.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Steve:
Quote:
I stand by my statement:If our senators wanted to end this practice,..they could simply make it a crime.. but in all honesty they want it to be used, as long as they can blame some one else for the repugnant act...

since none of you seem to be budged by the reality of the need to be able to "pressure really bad people who wish to Kill Americans",..I found a few articles to help my point...

instead of posting them, I thought these would be just as effective...

"Kennedy weak on questioning Mukasey"
(2007-11-09) — Moments after the Senate confirmed President Bush’s nominee for attorney general yesterday, despite objections by some Democrats that Michael Mukasey had been evasive on questions about torture, Mr. Mukasey told Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, “If you really wanted answers, you should have waterboarded me.”

Waterboarding is a rarely-used interrogation technique that simulates drowning to extract vital information from a terrorist. During confirmation hearings, Mr. Mukasey refused to definitively say whether he thinks the procedure constitutes torture, a declaration which would ban it from the U.S. government’s list of intelligence-gathering options.

“Ted Kennedy thinks I’m a clear and present danger to America,” said Mr. Mukasey, “but he didn’t have the guts to do what it takes to get the answer he believed would have protected our nation. A few drops of water in my nostrils and I would would have sung like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”

“Of course,” Mr. Mukasey noted, “perhaps Sen. Kennedy didn’t think waterboarding me would work. After all, he knows from personal experience that a man can nearly drown and still keep a secret.”

Kennedy,... " Making detaineed think they're about to be drown is unacceptable!

Mukasey,... "Then we should keep them out of your car, Senator Kennedy"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Except, of course, Mukasey never said any such thing as you've quoted. Quoting a cartoon is pretty pitiful.

http://blog.nola.com/stevekelley/2007/11/2_november_2007.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
what, I forgot to put :wink: :lol: :roll: :lol: :wink: again...

large_2NOVEMBER07NOLA.jpg


of course they're cartoons,... gees you liberals are thinner skinned then I thought... must be why they call you bleeding heart liberals ... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Thanks for finding the cartoon on the web for me though...
 

Tex

Well-known member
Kennedy,... " Making detaineed think they're about to be drown is unacceptable!

Mukasey,... "Then we should keep them out of your car, Senator Kennedy"

That is pretty funny.

Mukasey seems willing to open the investigations into waterboarding. He has the security clearances for the investigation to go forward.........
 
Top