On Day 2, Democrats See Change In Mukasey

[babylonsister]

So I imagine this will guarantee his confirmation :eyes:

On Day 2, Democrats See Change In Mukasey
Nominee Endorses President's Positions

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 19, 2007; Page A01

President Bush's choice for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, embraced some of the administration's most controversial legal positions yesterday, suggesting that Bush can ignore surveillance statutes in wartime and avoiding a declaration that simulated drowning constitutes torture under U.S. laws.

Mukasey struck a different tone on the second and final day of his confirmation hearing, after earlier pleasing lawmakers from both parties by promising new administrative policies at the Justice Department and by declaring that the president cannot override constitutional and legal bans on torture and the inhumane treatment of prisoners.

His shift prompted an unexpected clash with key Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, although none said Mukasey's confirmation was in question.

The panel's chairman, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who had heaped praise on the former judge's qualifications and testimony on Wednesday, told him that, "on a number of your answers yesterday, there was a very bright line on the questions of torture and the ability of the executive or inability of an executive to ignore the law. That seems nowhere near as bright a line today."

Mukasey aroused Democrats' concerns by testifying that there may be occasions when the president's powers as commander in chief could trump a federal law requiring that a special court approve intelligence-related wiretaps. That answer jibes with one of the legal rationales used by the Bush administration in defense of its controversial Terrorist Surveillance Program, under which the National Security Agency eavesdropped on calls between persons in the United States and those overseas without first securing a court warrant.

Mukasey also repeatedly demurred when asked whether an interrogation technique that involves simulated drowning, known as waterboarding, constitutes torture and is therefore illegal. "I don't know what's involved in the technique," Mukasey said. "If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional."

"That's a massive hedge," responded Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). "I mean, it either is or it isn't." Mukasey never directly answered the question.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101801120.html

[annabanana]

1. To define torture is to condone it.

The human capacity for evil is limitless. Our imagination is infinite. That's why the definition MUST be fluid. If it is defined it can be circumvented..

We either torture, or we do not torture..

To define limitations is to erase all limits.

[babylonsister]

2. You think? I think if torture is defined, a line can then be drawn that

it would be illegal to cross.

[MuseRider]

3. Perhaps only when

dealing with moral people.

I don't think it matters in this case. These guys are so evil it would not matter no matter what we did.

I agree with you that there has to be a line if for no other reason than to cause this kind of discussion on the occasions we have to deal with this kind of administration.

[WinkyDink]

6. Torture's NATURE can be defined, without specifying METHODS.

[annabanana]

7. I think maybe you're right.

I think this crowd is busy defining & specifying methods.

i.e. You are not allowed to rub cayenne pepper in the eyes (doesn't say anything about habanero)

[spanone]

4. if this guy gets the nod the DEMOCRATS are for torture.

[WinkyDink]

5. Nobody knows nothin' 'bout no techniques!

[malaise]

8. Is Mukasey linked to Rudy?

Could he do a Gonzo here for Rudy?

[Skidmore]

9. But they'll still approve him and talk about his honorable service.

That about face he did was remarkable. It is this type of stuff that makes you wonder about * and blackmail.