Lieberman Calls On Senate To Confirm Mukasey

Comments (27)

tom wrote on November 1, 2007 5:19 PM:

What an amazing hack. I know Holy Joe is unable to understand this, but the problem is that we want the bushies to STOP BREAKING THE LAW. It isn't "just a legal belief" it is national & international law.

P J Evans wrote on November 1, 2007 5:20 PM:

Lieberman is a ... well, I can't use that word in public.

Mukasey has all but said that he'll do whatever he's told, he won't think for himself, and he won't enforce the law or protect the Constitution if doing so would put his bosses in danger of prison time.

He doesn't deserve to be AG, and Lieberman (and the other DINOs in Congress) can go for a very long swim in Long Island Sound.

Marc wrote on November 1, 2007 5:21 PM:

I'm almost ashamed of Al Gore because he picked this stooge as his running mate. Joe needs to learn that just because you're nominated for a cabinet level position by the president (even his beloved patron George W. Bush) doesn't mean you're necessarily gonna get it.

texasdem wrote on November 1, 2007 5:25 PM:

Where is Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) on this? I assume she will vote for Mukasey. Putz.

Mike M. wrote on November 1, 2007 5:37 PM:

Good going, Connecticut low information voters. And Chuck Shumer and the DSCC. And the Clintons. And Obama. All you idiots who either helped Lieberman actively or through inaction... thanks. For this idiot.

Rich wrote on November 1, 2007 5:40 PM:

Judge Mulkasey might want to look up some old law that applies to this matter. The US ratified the Geneva Geneva Conventions in 1955. In it, "detained civilians" ..."must at all times be humanely treated (Geneva III, art. 13, Geneva IV, art. 27). Detainees may be questioned, but any form of “physical or mental coercion” is prohibited" (Geneva III, art. 17; Geneva IV, art. 31).

Further, "prisoners-of-war"...or "protected persons" may not be tortured or subjected to inhuman treatment and are considered WAR CRIMES (my emphasis) which create an obligation on any state to prosecute such crimes.

Most importantly, "detainees" in an armed conflict or military occupation are likewise protected and the state and its agents are prohibited from infliciting violence to life and person...cruel treatment and torture...outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

Waterboarding, as described in the daily news, by its victims, and by accounts leaked by our own military, assuming they are facts, fit within this law. Judge Mulkasey has a legal and ethical duty to call a torture technigue used by Pol Pot what it is: torture in a legal sense. Anything less is weaseling.

Dan Scarry wrote on November 1, 2007 5:44 PM:

Nice chart.
Be nice to seperate into the committee members.
Also a link to phone numbers if you click on the Senators name.
I just called Senator Feinstein to ask not to confirm until he unequivacly states waterboarding is torture and it is illegal.

Dan

Brian wrote on November 1, 2007 5:47 PM:

Lieberscum comes through again!!

Sully18 wrote on November 1, 2007 5:49 PM:

It`s hard to believe how corrupt our Congress has become.Waterboarding has been torture for centuries.Now due to our criminal-in-chief and 48 Senators say it`s fine to torture.
Once again I will say:"This is not the United States that I grew up in."
I want my tax money back.I want my brother`s money back.Does anyone want to go to Boston Harbor and throw tea into it?

Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 5:53 PM:

I can't believe that gore made this bozo his running mate either. Does anyone remember the reason why? I can't.

Also, when is conneticut going to recall this guy. It really is pathetic. He clearly is not representing his constituents interests and he lied to get reelected. I think a recall is in order.

Dennis wrote on November 1, 2007 5:56 PM:

Only a fool would have expected different from Lieberman. It's past time Lieberman was put out to pasture.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

urbino wrote on November 1, 2007 6:05 PM:

But, but, but, but, but it's a *sincerely* held legal opinion! Besides, he's kinda dreamy, and he's got a rilly cool car. And don't forget his parents offered to have the spring dance catered.

Sully18 wrote on November 1, 2007 6:14 PM:

So now John McCian is pro-torture/waterboarding.Who threatened to kill his family?

Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 6:18 PM:

Reason enough to put a nail in the coffin of his confirmation. Has Joe moved to Israel yet?

bob wrote on November 1, 2007 6:27 PM:

Let me get this straight:

If Mukasey's legal beliefs are "sincerely held," regardless of whether they are correct or incorrect, i.e. legal or illegal, he should be confirmed?

Joe, Joe, Joe...

ProDem wrote on November 1, 2007 6:44 PM:

Lieberman!! What a f****ing disgrace!!

urbino wrote on November 1, 2007 6:49 PM:

McCain seems to be arguing that Mukasey doesn't need to address waterboarding because, according to McCain's briefings, the US doesn't do waterboarding.

Which, even if it's true, makes absolutely no sense. If we don't do waterboarding, what's the harm in answering the question?

None.

Ni Daye wrote on November 1, 2007 6:57 PM:

That's a fight you cannot win. Move on! The Americans do not care terrorists being tortured, period.

You can refuse to confirm Judge Mukasey because of his view on torture. But he is put in an impossible position. Any other one would have the same problem. You are going to keep voting down other wise decent nominees?

GET A LIFE!

urbino wrote on November 1, 2007 7:16 PM:

But he is put in an impossible position. Any other one would have the same problem. You are going to keep voting down other wise decent nominees?

For purposes of argument, I'll accept your 2 assertions, and still answer "Yes" to your question.

I'm prepared to accept the argument that Mukasey can't give a direct answer to questions about the legality of torture. However, it is equally the case that the Senate cannot confirm a nominee to the position of Attorney General when that nominee refuses to answer so fundamental a question.

IOW, what this all amounts to is yet another reminder that while a president can implement national security policies alone, without support from congress, doing so has really bad consequences. It's a corollary to Justice Jackson's famous dictum.

In this case, if you are right, it has resulted in it being literally impossible to fill the position of Attorney General -- because any nominee must remain silent about the legality of the president's policy, and the Senate must reject any nominee who remains silent on the legality of the president's policy. It's just an issue too fundamental to our identity as a nation of laws to do otherwise.

This is the kind of log jam that results from one branch running too far afield from the other two. Sure, they can do it; but the results are disastrous.

Ultimately, presidents do have to have congressional support for their policies, even if they can, in the short term, implement those policies without congress. It's the difference between having power to do a thing, and having authority to do it.

President Bush has accumulated a lot of power, but at the expense of having any authority.

Catherine Rome wrote on November 1, 2007 9:39 PM:

I truly hate that this comes to my mind:

Lieberman: "To reject the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey because he refuses to say what some members want him to say on this question..."

Isn't that why torture is used? Because when humans refuse to say what we want them to say, people with very low moral and ethical standards will restort to torture to make them say what they want to hear simply stop their suffering?

I'd say rejecting the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey will is pretty mild suffering in comparison.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 1, 2007 9:49 PM:

Senator Lieberman,

Thank you for input regarding the Mukasey nomination, but the factual situation appears to differ from your expressed understanding of it:

The Mukasey confirmation is not being held up becuase he will not say what someone wants him to say.

The Mukasey confirmation is being held up because he is expressly and willfully refusing to acknowledge the law of the land while being nominated to enforce the law of the land.

Side note: A divine commandment of our (yours and mine specifically) people is "Justice. Justice. Justice, you shall seek." I suggest that you consider re-examine the Mukasey situation in that light.

enough wrote on November 1, 2007 10:21 PM:

Has anyone looked into Holy Joe's finances? Nobody can be this insane without being paid.

AtomicWarBaby wrote on November 2, 2007 2:47 AM:

Joe Lieberman doesn't represent Connecticut voters, he represents the interests of the ISRAELI Lobby & the Israeli Jewish Extremists in the Christian/Zionist Settler Movement.

Someone should ask Sen. Lieberman: If "Waterboarding" isn't Torture, what about "Simulated Crucifixion"? Would you consider THAT "Torture"?

At least Joe Lieberman is SINCERE, George W. Bush decided to become a Christian right-wing Evangelical, because KARL ROVE knew it would be a terrific way to get him elected!

Someone should also ask BUSH, whether he would consider "Simulated Crucifixion" to be "Torture". Knowing our Dear Leader, he would probably give the OK for a REAL Crucifixion.

I seem to recall someone promising Pres. Bush that he would bring him OSAMA BIN LADEN's head in a Box. I'm pretty sure BEHEADING is "Torture"!

To the Right-Wing, it's real simple. The rule is "The only GOOD Injun, is a DEAD Injun". Substitute the word "Arab" or "Muslim" for the word "Injun", that's their mindset. So, "Torture" is O.K.!

cwm wrote on November 2, 2007 3:41 AM:

Asking Lieberman about crucifixion is more relevant than one might think.

Stress positions--acknowledged as an "enhanced interrogation technique" being used at Dubya's not-so-secret prisons--are akin to auto-crucifixion under threat of worse treatment.

True, you don't have to worry about the vultures plucking out and eating your eyes...but the pain is induced by a similar method: forcing the body into excruciating postures for hours, or days.

(As for the nails: they were always optional. Being tied to a cross is also horrible, and ultimately fatal.)

Stress positions might be more effective, to get people to talk. Studies conducted by--you guessed it, such American institutions as the military and the CIA--have determined: an unintended consequence of some techniques of torture is that the victim becomes more determined not to submit.

The advantage of techniques such as stress positions is that the victim is less apt to focus thoughts of anger and revenge on his captors. If the victim feels he is (in some way) participating in his own torture, he feels more helpless and less inclined to resist.

Ah, the spirit of innovation...

dfong63 wrote on November 2, 2007 5:28 AM:

so why is it that the repubs are almost solidly in favor, while the dems are almost solidly "undecided"? obviously the repubs have a leader --- don't the dems?

WI Resident wrote on November 2, 2007 10:44 AM:

did my part and phoned both Senators Kohl and Feingold - re voting against any AG nominee who can't take a firm stand against torture-waterboarding.

Bill Perney wrote on November 2, 2007 3:26 PM:

My personal definition of tortures goes something like this:

"If I would make it my purpose in life to hunt down and kill whoever did it to me, then it is torture."

Bill

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)