Saturday, November 03, 2007
JB
From Senator Schumer's explanation of
why he will vote for Judge Mukasey:
This afternoon, I met with Judge Michael Mukasey one more time. I requested the meeting to address, in person, some of my concerns. The judge made clear to me that were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the president would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.
Sounds good, no? But as Marty has pointed out,
Congress has already passed such laws and Presidents have signed them. It is illegal for U.S. officials to engage in torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees.
If what Judge Mukasey told Senator Schumer is true, why can't he say that waterboarding is illegal? If he has pledged to enforce laws that bind the President, why can't he pledge to enforce laws that are already on the books? If he is being honest about his intentions to leave office rather than defend law breaking, why is he accepting a job that will require him to defend the Administration's lawless positions? For if one thing is certain, it is this: Dick Cheney is not likely to change his mind either about Presidential power or about waterboarding.
Which leaves us with this question: Who is the bigger fool, Judge Mukasey for making these representations or Senator Schumer for believing them?
Yes Chuck,
waterboarding is illegal.
Edited to add that there is no defense for Schumer and Feinstein, even if Bush recess appointed Bork:
What's worse than condoning torture?
Mukasey, Gonzales, Bork, no difference.
They will all uphold
Bush/Cheney/Addington's torture policy.
Feinstein and Schumer should have rejected Mukasey based on this single statement (which makes no sense) by
Schumer:
Under this administration, that nominee will certainly never share our views on issues like torture and wiretapping.
What they did, however, is give Bush cover from making a recess appointment that would obviously continue to show that Bush believes he is above the law and that everyone in his administration condones torture.
Although Bush said that if Mukasey wasn't confirmed, there would be no AG, he would most likely have recess appointed Mukasey as he did Foxie. The thing any recess appointment would spark controversy. Mukasey, Gonzales, Bork, there is no difference.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
