Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy Demand Bush Withdraw Nominee For DOJ Office Of Legal Counsel

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/16/durbin-bradbury/

Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy Demand Bush Withdraw Nominee For DOJ Office Of Legal Counsel

In September, the White House has declared that its “next priority this fall” is to obtain Senate approval for Steven Bradbury, “the man who is advising President Bush on the extent of his terrorism-fighting powers.” In 2005, Bradbury replaced Jack Goldsmith as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and has since been interim OLC chief.

Today, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) expressed reservations about Bradbury. “What we know is troubling. Mr. Bradbury refuses to repudiate un-American and inhumane tactics such as waterboarding and mock executions. … There are also serious and unanswered questions about Mr. Bradbury’s role in NSA warrantless surveillance programs.”

Durbin announced that he, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), have written a letter to President Bush calling on him to find a more independent nominee:

I think we need new leadership at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Today, joined by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold, I’m sending a letter to President Bush calling on him to withdraw the nomination of Steven Bradbury … and to submit another nomination. … OLC is a small office, but it really has a lot of power, especially in this administration.

Watch it at link~

A lengthy New York Times expose this month revealed that in 2005, Bradbury signed off on a secret DoJ torture memo that endorsed “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the CIA.” Bradbury also approved an executive order approving “enhanced” interrogation techniques.

The White House “relies on OLC for legal approval of surveillance programs, detainee treatment” and a host of classified issues; subsequently, Bradbury has been on the forefront of these efforts, allowing himself to become a politicized tool of Dick Cheney’s office. Such politicization appears to have occurred, “with Cheney’s blessing, to ensure that the department didn’t balk, as Goldsmith and his allies did, over torture or surveillance or indefinite detentions.”

In July 2006, Bradbury testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and proclaimed that “the president is always right.”

[UGADUer]

1. What about the four Senators running for President?

Where's their leadership?

[cali]

2. huh??

So what do you think of this demand? And why do you think the dems running for president should be speaking about it?

[Ghost in the Machine]

3. EVERY candidate running for President should be denouncing torture

don't you think?

[gateley]

5. I agree. nt

[cali]

6. I think every dem should whether they're running or not

but I dont think demanding that the candidates denounce Bradbury, right this second, is neccessary. This just happened. And there's often a strategy about who will speak out, in situations like this one.

[UGADUer]

7. What have those 4 senators EVER done to defend the constitution?

A lot of this happened with them being deadly silent. They should just resign and let someone else take their job then. We need people who are going to speak out; that's your responsibility in the Senate.

[cali]

8. Well, let's see.

Dodd voted against the IWR and worked on and co-sponsored the Habeas Restoration Act. In fact, he's got a damn good record defending the Constitution. Why don't you do some research and see what you come up with. And none of them have been deadly silent.

[UGADUer]

9. Why did all 4 not exercise filibusters against the Military Commissions Act?

These things are lethal and some of our elected officials don't seem to take them seriously.

[cali]

11. I don't know. I'm only trying to point

out that your criticism seems overly broad and thus ineffective.

[UGADUer]

12. I am just frustrated, I apologize

People should take their jobs seriously. US legislators mostly don't. They don't understand that their decisions are lethal for some people, and they don't go all the way to try to stop bad things and do good things. They don't work very hard.

[cali]

13. That's OK. I can relate to that.

And you are right about Dodd. He did vote for that horrible IWR. But there are some good legislators. There are the members of the Progressive Caucus. And I really don't know enough about there work habits, with the exception of my delegation, and I know for certain, that they do work hard.

[UGADUer]

14. To be fair, all 3 of your legislators are amazing

In Georgia -- not so much.

[UGADUer]

10. Chris Dodd did not vote against IWR

You have to remember, "national security" mandated that the 2002 strategy for the party was to vote for IWR, lest they lose seats. I wonder how that worked out.

[UGADUer]

4. I think that the people running for President in the US

should not be afraid to be critical. Too much in the United States is subservient to what you have to do for the next election and not what you have to do for the people. Vice President Gore talks about this in his book Assault on Reason.

Why are Hillary/Dodd/Biden/Obama so silent on this issue? They make promises about "restoring the Constitution" when they are elected but have raised very little hell on the Senate floor. No filibusters of military commissions act (though Dodd said if he had a time machine he'd go back and do it -- like that helps), or PATRIOT, or FISA. I'm glad to see Feingold and Kennedy leading on this, they always have. But where are the others? Out campaigning?

[madrchsod]

15. bringing out the heavy hitters....

if these can`t get something done....... :hide: