Shortly after Alberto Gonzales resigned or was asked to leave the Attorney General’s post, Bush nominated Judge Michael Mukasey to fill the post.

Now, it seems some questions have arisen over his attitude concerning waterboarding.

At first it seemed that this might be close to a consensus nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

There is a lot of information out there on both sides of the issue, so I’ll just provide this one link.

Question for debate:

Should the Senate conform Judge Michael Mukasey. Why or why not?

REJECT.

He won't give a clear answer on torture- and the whole "I am not briefed on waterboarding" line the GW machine is putting out there? Is there really somebody out there dumb enough to buy this line of fecal material?

We need to ditch the whole torture is okay in an emergency stupidity- we need to ditch it if we are to be able to be proud of our country and say with a straight face and say "we are better than Iraq or Syria"- when we talk of being violators of human rights.

Can't do that with this guy in charge, now could we?

I think Mukasey should be rejected.

Not only do I dislike his evasive answer on waterboarding, but his seemingly falling in line with Bush's desire to widen executive power.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/washington/20mukasey.html

It's going to be tough for Bush to get appointments confirmed, now that Bill Frist isn't waving the "nuclear option" in people's face.

Should the Senate confirm Judge Michael Mukasey. Why or why not?

At this point, I'd say no.

I don't believe that Mukasey can't form a professional opinion on waterboarding without access to classified material. Are there variations on waterboarding? Don't they all simulate drowning? Well, simulated drowning is torture. See, how easy that is?

This dodge only proves that Mukasey would likely be unwilling to stand up to the Administration on important issues.

I don't envy Shumer his position; if I were him, I'd be really disappointed in Mukasey. He shouldn't vote yes simply because he put him forward as an option.

Clearly he is qualified for the position so he should be voted out of the committee and have an up or down vote on the floor. His position on water-boarding is based on rule of law, a legal position requiring that he reviews the classified law prior to making a judgment.

The Senate had a vote on torture measures and it failed at a 62 against in the past. How can they demand a standard from the appointee that they don't demand of their majority?

As for the constitutional issue of Executive Power it is a decision of the Supreme Court and not congress or the Justice Department.

So he should have his nomination moved forward for an up or down vote.

Zack- do you know what waterboarding is? If you do, then why doesn't Mukasey? Do YOU need a classified briefing to understand what is is-

I mean, is the guy smart enough to, you know, type it in the little box on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

and figure it out for himself?

You have a guy that is already asking what the definition of "is" is at this point- why appoint him AG if he can't be a man and make the damn statement?

If you need a "classified briefing" to figure out what waterboarding is, and if it is torture you are either

1) Lying to congress, and you should be in jail.

2) Too stupid to be in this office, to figure out what a 13 year old can figure out.

Looks like it would be better to do without an AG at all for the remainder of this lame-ducks time in office- at least, it would be more difficult for him to screw the pooch that way.

Matters of law cannot be addressed on personal opinion and you are demanding he make a lawful decision without looking at the law. He could say, if it isn't unlawful then it should be but that also would be ambiguous. He doesn't know what the exact situation is nor what judgments were used to describe the procedure. Congress can make law that exactly defines the spirit and intent of law they create. Congress has failed to create such a law or they would simply site the federal statute. Congress should make a law defining torture and they did try to include this into the law but it failed as I mentioned earlier.

If one would look at the bar of Ruby Ridge or Waco, TX in former holders of the position I would think this Judge even needs to raise his foot very high to step across that bar.

Not on a bet. Torture is torture.

Our military gives their lives to the actual war on terror (Afghanistan, etc). If they are ready to give their lives for this cause, then intelligence people should be required to give up something far less than death - their freedom. If it's a ticking time bomb scenario and torture is a last resort, they should be willing to go to jail for it. In any case, we certainly don't need a policy of torture regardless of how fine the line is defined.

Our military can't get immunity from death, but we try to give immunity to to everybody around them. If Mukasey can't stand up to what clearly are war crimes, we don't need him. Next!

Perhaps you can point out legislation making waterboarding a legal interrogation technique so we can put this question to rest, or is said legislation also a state secret requiring special security clearance?

To me you just can't have it both ways, the hearing vote is set for Tuesday and the question is on the Judge's answer on waterboarding as it applies to torture. The hold has been ongoing for some time now based on this unanswerable question. When the first comment was made about the answer then someone should have put legislation on the table outlining what is and what is not torture. Vote on it, pass it and send it to the president to make it law. Then the question is answered in one week. It would be law and then the nominee could answer the question strait forward.


Perhaps you can provide the law that makes it illegal? Not! That is why it is an unanswerable question. It is Congresses job to create law and if they identify a problem with law then it is their responsibility to create hard and fast law. Why bother this guy when it is congresses job to CREATE LAW?

Our nation has obligations under the Geneva Conventions. As such, Mukasey could form a legal opinion regarding waterboarding and the relevant article in the Geneva Conventions. Instead of providing an answer, he went in depth into how he would go about providing that answer were he Attorney General. This, to me, is not acceptable; he can provide that answer.

Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that is well known; it's not like waterboarding is some top secret technique that nobody knows about. He could've answered based on knowledge he had of the technique and how it relates to our nation's obligations under international law. He chose not to, but rather chose to duck the question entirely.

Always nice meeting an authoritarian. Dear Zack, the government cannot do what it is not authorized to do. There's your answer.


There isn't a problem with the law unless Congress identifies it. Congress is bothering this guy because the Bush administration thinks they can create legislation. Moreover, the Bush administration thinks it isn't bound by the Constitution, treaties and federal code during times of war. This gives them and executive agencies the right to ignore and circumvent existing law. I hear what you're saying about a full vote, but obstruction may better serve the Republic than a full vote in Mukasey's case.

I gotta tell you I got a kick out of conservatives like Novak wailing about Bush's nomination because he was an outsider. A New York Democrat endorsed him after all, and that could only mean bad news. They were afraid Mukasey wouldn't be as wingnut crazy as they are. Three years ago on the OpinionJournal Mukasey wrote the government is entitled, at least in the first instance, to receive from its citizens the benefit of the doubt. If we keep that in mind, then the spirit of liberty will be the spirit which, if it is not too sure that it is right, is at least sure enough to keep itself—and us—alive.

He asked readers to trust the government first and ask questions later. I'm sure he wants us to take his advice today. I'll pass.

The law involved with the Geneva Convention is complex. You must remember that the US didn't ratify the protocols of the 70's that included Unlawful Combatants as Lawful Combatants. Thus the law then reverts to the Laws of War from the 1800's where it is a crime of death to fight out of uniform, a simple military hearing and a firing squad.

Regardless, congress found it necessary to identify clearly what the standards were for US military in dealing with Unlawful Combatants and could have just as easily stated that standard applies to all US government officials. It is on Congress to make law, the Justice can only interpret existing law and determine legal finding after reviewing the existing law. If congress has doubt of standards then congress is the place where standards of law responsibility lies. If a doubt exist of law it is not for an attorney to do other than interpret the spirit and intent. If the spirit and intent isn't clearly stated then it is hard to determine how differing legal minds have interrupted the law created by congress.

I agree with those who think he should not be voted out of committee and not just because he won't take a clear stand on torture. The hearings have revealed that he would show extreme deference to the powers of the President. This would be extremely dangerous given Bush and Cheney's attempt to grab unlimited power.

The torture issue in and of itself should disqualify him, however. This dance that he and Bush are engaged in is pure sham. There are plenty of precedents of people outside of government being granted specify access to relevant classified material. If GWB really wants Mukasey confirmed he could ask for a delay, grant access to all relevant classified materials to the judge, and allow him to make a fully informed opinion. What this is really about is avoiding legal jeopardy for past acts of torture and authorization to torture.

Do you recall the confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee? The absolute opposite argument was used on legal presidencies or starie decisis as it pertains to law. Will you follow established law when it comes to abortion? Will you follow established law when it comes to torture?

It doesn't float!

The only resolution for Executive Power lies in the Supreme Court.

By virtue of Executive Order, the CIA is bound by the same rules as the military. So, the CIA is legally prohibited from committing:



I believe the Supreme Court weighed in on the application of the Geneva Convention to "unlawful combatants" as well.

So, when asked if waterboarding is illegal, I think Mukasey could've answered the question.

I follow your logic but the Executive Order doesn't say much other than you can't torture the UC's. It nor the law referenced defines torture. The president is on record repeatedly stating America doesn't torture persons in custody. The EO cites the 1949 version of the GC and doesn't mention the 1970's protocols.

The only thing the Supreme Court has really said on UC's or detainees is that congress needs to create law or regulations to govern them as the congress creates laws and regulations to govern military personnel in our armed forces that violate law. The Supreme Court places them outside of constitutional protections and within the protections of the GC. POW's can be held until the end of war, POW's that violated laws of war should be tried IAW congressional legislated law or regulations.

At no point does the reference clearly identify what torture is. I tried to Google...Military Commissions Act (subsection 6© of Public Law 109 366)... and on my second selection my virus alert warned of a Trojan Horse Worm so I decided not to even check it out. But I'm sure the references doesn't identify what is or is not torture, if it did they wouldn't have asked the question.

Evening news reports he will be voted out of congress and with those positive votes in committee he will probably confirmed.

Funny how conservatives make these mewling mouth noises about "straight talk" from politicians on the other side of the aisle, and it is proven that they don't really want that.

All this sleazebag had to do was say "waterboardng is torture, and we don't do that, and it won't happen on my watch, and if it does, we will prosecute and arrest those that do"

He wasn't man enough to say it. Funny, Janet Reno was way more of a stand up guy than any republican nominee GW has put forward.

You guys are all about "personal responsibility" from the welfare mom and such- but hold the AG to no such standard.

This guy is just another sleazeball that will say or do anything GW tells him too- and that is the last thing this country needs. A guy that is either too stupid or too big a liar to look up "waterboarding" on google or wiki, and say "we don't do that, we wil never do that, and it is against the law to do that"

instead of hidng behind some made up "oh, it's too classified for you to know"- what a bunch of hogwash.



They don't need one second of time my friend- it is simple obfuscation- because his boss, if appointed, could be convicted of breaking the law if he comes right out and says "we don't torture poeple, and that includes waterboarding, and will prosecute any US citizen that does it, or commits "rendition" to countries that do allow this torture"

It is called a moral stand on a "always immoral" issue.

To bad conservatives don't hold thier elected leaders to the same standard they demand of others.

To add to what CR said, Mukasey probably had all sorts of pre-hering prep from Bush's regime. He had to know the question was coming, yet he chose to give an evasive rather than a straight forward answer. It's how the "genius" from Tejas wanted it.

I didn't even consider that Bof- I am sure he was HEAVILY coached on this hearing- after all, it is SOP these days, no matter what letter was behind his name- so that means he agreed on this non-answer before he was even asked the question.

That makes him an even bigger lying scumbag, as if we expected anything less than a steaming pile of human fecal matter as an appointment from this admin.

You claimed he had no way of making a determination as to whether waterboarding was illegal. That just isn't true. Waterboarding is a well documented interrogation technique. There are laws in this country defining what constitutes torture, though not specifically naming a particular technique. With those things in mind, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the nominee to form an opinion as to the legality of a particular technique. There is no need to have access to classified information in order to make that determination.

The Military Commissions Act



The definition used for 'severe mental pain or suffering' as it pertains to this Act is this:





The Detainee Act has this to say:



Given this law, Mukasey could have easily, and without the need for classified information, made a determination about waterboarding.


Irrelevant. It applies the 1949 version to UC's.


The fact that Feinstein and Shumer caved, frankly, disgusts me.

Your cited references of torture do not speak to waterboarding nor has there been a public definition of waterboarding so by law no one could know without facts if waterboarding is torture under your references. The Army Field manual was adopted separately from the law. The Army doesn't even run the base where the detainees are held. The detainees are held under CIA constraints in Cuba.

Here is a link that answers questions on this issue. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20060918.html

Without having classified knowledge the nominee cannot define waterboarding because he would have to draw on news accounts as to what waterboarding "is". Waterboarding could be requiring a detainee to lay on a wet board which wouldn't meet your cited definitions of torture.

Hey Zack, then this means you are okay with Clinton's obfuscating of the definition of "is" is i guess? Just want to see if you are consistant in your positions.

I am digusted with the dems for caving as well- there is no reason on gawds green earth to confirm this scumbag, none whatsoever. He doesn't have the cojones to make a stand on a moral issue, and as AG, that is not acceptable.

Hiding behind the silly premise of "I don't know what waterboarding "is""- is well, lame at best, and shows he has no backbone for independent thought, and will allow the prez to get away with anything including pedophilia.

I think you are reading way too much into what transpired, this guy was recommended by Senator Schumer to the President as a recommendation for the office. I would stand on my last post suggestion that his was a legal answer and to make a gut answer that would "be adored" by the liberal members of the committee would also be selling out his legal standing for being accepted. He may well prove to be against Bush on many issues once he is in charge and has had time to read what actually is happening.

I really thought the entire Clinton thing was a waste of time and tax dollars when nothing was turned up on the Whitewater investigation. I think the stupid investigations on the leak of the CIA agent was a trumped up political ploy also to give cover and newsprint to other happenings of the news cycle.

Zack- there is no reason in the world to obfuscate on "waterboarding"- it is just a dodge, nothing more. It is high time those on the right hold thier politicians to the same standard as the folks they oppose.

There is no need to consult a legal definition or anything else- waterboarding is still waterboarding, with some minor differences in technique since the middle ages.

For him to dodge this is unacceptable, and we should vote out those that don't hold him to that standard.

So you were okay with Clinton's answer of "what the definition of IS is? You answered the bigger question, but I was just checkin' to see if this kind of dodge is okay whomever is uttering it.

And let's be clear- it is a slimeball politician double speak move- there is no other way to describe his statements.

Zack, do you not suppose that the people who prepared Mukasey for the hearings didn't know that this question would be coming? It wasn't like a shot out of the blue. Can you argue that it wasn't a totally coached answer?

Well I'm sure appearing in front of a committee requires a little more preparation than going in for a job interview for a job. There were plenty of questions that would be anticipated and answers had to be decided in advance of the questions in the same way you prepare for a job interview. I absolutely don't know why anyone would subject themselves to such public spectacle. Why not just send the nominee a list of questions and then tell him to sign a statement in front of a notary with an oath statement at the bottom. The whole process is flawed in my eyes and it doesn't matter which party is in office since what goes around comes around.

Yes, the question was anticipated undoubtedly. The answer was carefully crafted as one would expect from a legal person. As I argued earlier when you compare the Chief Justice nominee hearing and how they tried to pin him down to established law as it deals with abortion they tried to pin this guy down to say he would not even look at established standards set by prior legal standing. The question was unfair as simple as that, a question no legal person could make a legal statement on. He gave his personal feelings on the use of waterboarding but to give a legal judgment he must see all the established precedence and what foundation in law it was made. I give up, yes he knew it would be asked. No the committee didn't offer him nor did the administration to review the classified information and then answer. He gave his personal opinion and reserved his legal opinion until he reviewed the law and how it was applied.

That is an evasion and you know it Zack. There is ONLY one answer to "do you think waterboarding is okay or legal"- that would be "no"- any other answer is reason NOT to confirm, period.

You don't need a legal briefing for that- just some cojones to stand up and do the right thing, no matter what.

That would be a first.



Then did he rehearse his answer? Did he know what he would say before the committee asked? Is the answer what the Bush Administration wanted? Bonus question: can Bush or his gang do any wrong in your opinion?

UNCLE! Lets see what he does if and when he is approved.

No, waterboarding is a well known technique. It is documented. It's been around since the Spanish Inquisition. And no, it isn't requiring someone to lay on a wet board and has never been that. To say that Mukasey wouldn't know what waterboarding "is" and couldn't know without classified knowledge is just patently absurd. He could've asked Senator McCain for a description, the Senator having been a victim of torture himself. No need at all to have classified knowledge.



Never been a public definition of a technique that has been around since the Spanish Inquisition? Really?

So, you have a technique that has been around since the 1500's - that has a very clear description, in fact - and you have a legal definition of torture. You're telling me that Mukasey couldn't look at the one and make a determination based on the other? It's easy.

Waterboarding involves lying a person down so that their head is lower than their chest, gagging them, restraining them, pouring water over their face in order to simulate drowning. Have you ever inhaled a little bit of water when you're taking a drink? I have. It is quite an intense sensation. Now, imagine that... sustained. Imagine it getting worse because inhaling moisture makes you want to cough and coughing requires inhaling. Imagine your gag reflex kicking in. Imagine having that continue with no knowledge of when it will stop. Would Mukasey be able to form an opinion regarding whether or not this technique with those effects causes severe mental suffering? Why would he need classified information in order to form that opinion?

I am disappointed that Senators Schumer and Feinstein supported Mukasey. When it will really hit-the-fan is if or when Bush tries to slide another right-wing U. S. Supreme nominee past the senate.

Detainees lying on a "wet board” Zack? What a minimization technique. If the Bush Administration really wants to euphemize waterboarding, they could tell people they are giving detainees surfboards and playing music by Dick Dale or the Beach Boys in the background. Let's party! If the administration said it, some people would believe it.

I watched the confirmation of the Judge last evening and listened to the arguments of both sides and admit my argument stated above about definition of waterboarding was incorrect. The judge did apparently did have ability to review the classified definition. I thought the arguments on both sides of the issue were well stated and was rather surprised the vote was as strong in support of conformation as it ended.

Considering his evasion, do you think he should have been confirmed?