"I like Judge Mukasey"

[MrCoffee]

"I would expect him to be confirmed," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told reporters after meeting with the former federal judge.

"I like Judge Mukasey," Leahy added. "I want him to succeed."

Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said that Mukasey faces few, if any, obstacles to confirmation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21333827/

it really pisses me off that this confirmation has come down to waterboarding. there are any number of reasons to oppose the nominee, but instead it has boiled down to one issue.

does anyone know his position on enforcement of contempt citations issued by Congress against Executive officials? or access to the courts? or educational rights? or environmental issues? or any of the other issues which comprise 99.99% of the role of the Justice Dept.? what we know is that he was wishy-washy in his answer to whether waterboarding is torture.

so what happens when he says "you know, you're right, waterboarding is torture. let's not do it.", and he gets confirmed in a heartbeat. do you really expect the Justice Dept. under chimpy to prosecute Americans for torturing anybody?

[spanone]

1. he gets confirmed in a heartbeat anyway....bummer

[MrCoffee]

3. and once again, Senate Democrats look utterly ineffectual and fractured

whoever came up with this strategery is friggin' jenius

[soothsayer]

2. aipac likes this israeli national

[cali]

5. He's an Israli national?

Do tell.

[L. Coyote]

9. And, an Orthodox Jew. Not that that matters if he keeps his religion out of politics.

[Parche]

11. Maybe He Knows Something About Wellstone Plane Crash?

:shrug: :Shrug:

[Lasher]

29. As I think you must know, he is a Russian-American whose religion is Orthodox Judaism

Belarusian-American, if you must.

It never occurred to me to wonder what the religious convictions were of the key players in this episode. But yesterday, prompted by a post here complaining about how sinister it is to verbalize these things, I came to understand that both Feinstein and Schumer, as well as Mukasey, are Jewish. I don't know if it means anything. But in light of issues regarding AIPAC, and of the neocon propensity to promote the interests of Israel above those of the US, I wonder if it might.

[Selatius]

31. Not all Jews in office are AIPAC dittoheads. Feingold and Sanders are also of Jewish origin, but...

they're hardly questioned in terms of loyalty to US interests or taking orders from AIPAC, which is dominated by Likudniks and their supporters.

[Lasher]

33. Yes, you are correct.

I'm not trying to paint all Jewish folks with a broad brush. I don't know what Likudniks are but I will learn if you do not choose to educate me.

[LeftishBrit]

34. Likudniks are supporters of the most right-wing of the main parties in Israel

Who are NOT currently in power, by the way.

'I'm not trying to paint all Jewish folks with a broad brush'

Good. Because implying that Feinstein and Schumer might be more loyal to Israel than America is pretty bloody low, if that's indeed what you were implying.

BTW, the Israeli Attorney General, Menachem Mazuz, is infinitely more independent and liberal than anyone whom Bush is ever going to appoint!!!

[Lasher]

37. I have not meant to imply anything other than what I have openly stated.

But if you think that it is wrong to even note that Feinstein, Schumer, and Mukasey are all Jewish, particularly in light of the neocon obsession with Israel's interests, then perhaps it is your motives that should be scrutinized more readily than mine.

[cali]

40. I know! I know!

Let's drag all Jewish lawmakers in front of a special committee to grill them about their loyalties Hmm. Come to think of it, maybe we should have a quota on Jews in the Congress. Yeah, that's the ticket. There are too many Jews in positions of power in this country.

[Lasher]

42. Might as well shove them into cattle cars, is that it?

Would it be proper to mention that the original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals, or would you try to censor that also with phony charges of anti-Semitism? Don't you think you're overreacting just a tad?

[LeftishBrit]

44. My motives include being anti-racism and anti-bigotry!

I will call out anyone who brings up membership of ANY ethnic group as something that could be suspicious about a person.

I won't take it when it's about Jews and I won't take it when it's about Muslims, and I won't take it when it's about Indians and I won't take it when it's about Afro-Caribbaeans and I won't take it when it's about immigrants or their descendants, and - you get the pattern!

BTW, before you start suspecting MY loyalty to America, it's irrelevant 'cos I'm not American, I'm British!

[Lasher]

45. Good for you, mine do too!

I don't have any patience for that sort of thing either.

[cali]

36. Actually, I didn't know anything but that he was Jewish

and sorry, I think it's whacked as can be to think this has anything to do with AIPAC. Suggesting that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than the U.S. is no less offensive than the suggestion that American Muslims are more loyal to Islam than the U.S.

[Lasher]

38. You knew that he was Jewish and that was all?

I do not share your priority of focus.

If you can offer a credible assurance that there is not a single Jewish American who is on any issue more loyal to Israel than to the US, then I shall apoligize for having even dared to wonder these things.

[cali]

39. LOL!

what does "priotity of focus mean" in that context? And of course I can't prove that. I wouldn't even assert that. Hey, can you prove to me that there's not a single Muslim American who is, on any issue, more loyal to a global Caliphate than to the U.S.? If you can't understand why throwing around that old canard so liberally (no pun intended) is a fucked up thing to do, well, what could I possibly say that would get through to you? So no, I'm not denying that there are Jews who have Israel's interests in mind, but I'm not running around tossing accusations at people that they're AIPAC stooges, just because they vote in a way I profoundly disagree with and they happen to be Jewish

[Lasher]

43. Double LOL back at you!

Did you mean to reply to some other post or are you just inventing this tripe as you go along? This is not just a stretch, it's a quantum leap. Show me where I accused anyone of being an AIPAC stooge.

I wondered if there were an AIPAC angle, and wondered if the fondness of neocons for all things Israeli could have any bearing. But I offered no conclusion except to say that Feinstein, Schumer, and Mukasey are Jewish. Excuse me for saying so but they are.

You are correct about one thing; I can't prove there is no Muslim American who is more loyal to a global Caliphate than to the US. It would therefore be disingenuous to portray all discussion on this topic as persecution of Muslims. Thank you for helping me make my point.

You said, "Actually, I didn't know anything but that he was Jewish." Apparently your priority was to focus on his religion. Mine was not. As I said upthread, it didn't even occur to me to wonder what their religion was until someone else pointed that out here a couple of days ago. That's what I meant.

[LeftishBrit]

30. Israeli national?

According to his Wikipedia entry, he was born in the Bronx in 1941 - before the State of Israel even existed. His father came from Belarus.

Orthodox Jew does not equal Israeli national!

[cali]

4. I didn't watch the Hearings

so I don't know. But those are excellent points.

[MrCoffee]

7. i didn't either...and the funny thing is, i don't expect it would matter all that much

i read a portion of the transcripts, and he was typically evasive (which i don't fault him for, all nominees should be evasive)...

but the questions weren't asked, and when they were, they weren't pursued. for whatever reason, waterboarding has become the defining issue of his nomination, even though he stated that he finds the practice repugnant. he didn't come right out and declare it illegal (which, like it or not, our Democratically-controlled Congress hasn't come right out and made it illegal). he just didn't give an opinion on a specific question. all that means is that he's probably a good judge.

[cali]

8. no doubt, those questions and others should have been asked

but as torture is already illegal, and as waterboarding is torture under the Geneva Conventions, why do you think Congress should reiterate the illegality of waterboarding?

[MrCoffee]

12. Mukasey stated clearly that US military personnel are prohibited from waterboarding

http://media.pfaw.org/PDF/AG_Nom_Hearing_Mukasey_Answers.pdf


the issue is revolving around a ridiculous hypothetical question that any halfway-sober judge would know not to go anywhere near.

[cali]

16. So why do you think that became such a focal point

when other issues were ignored?

[MrCoffee]

18. that's a great question...

my own opinon (for what little it's worth) is that waterboarding practically spins itself. of course waterboarding is torture and torture is 9 kinds of wrong.

the more interesting issue is why they decided to fight the nomination, after such glowing praise was issued barely 3 weeks ago. how they decided to fight it infuriates me (because it's such an astonishingly simple charge to refute), but why the sudden change of heart intrigues me.

[cali]

21. I have one guess on that:

His reported assurances to the Federalist Society that he would not appoint a Special Prosecutor, and the sense that he'd been too easily co-opted by the administration. I have no idea if I'm right.

[MrCoffee]

23. that's as good a guess as any

plus, it has the added bonus of being supported by fact.


really, we both know it's because of the blackmail/bribery/replacement with Senator Cylons

[cali]

27. *snort*

oops, I forgot about that.

(what can one do about a fondness for fact based opinion? And DU just makes me all that more fond of it.)

[MrCoffee]

28. i'm on to you

you know that if he's confirmed then iran will bomb britney spears, causing the north koreans to piss on al gore's parade by melting the ice caps with the "crowd control" X-ray death beam that they stole from valerie plame.

[AuntPatsy]

25. That makes perfect sense and could very well be the reason why things changed.

[ProSense]

6. That article is from Oct. 16. "Sen. Leahy to oppose Mukasey for AG"

Nov. 2: Sen. Leahy to oppose Mukasey for AG.

It comes down to waterboarding because torture is illegal.

[MrCoffee]

10. yes, it is from Oct. 16.

and he clearly stated that the DTA applies to prohibit US military personnel from waterboarding. he didn't answer the question as to whether a US national acting in a foreign country would be prohibited from waterboarding as well. see page 3 http://media.pfaw.org/PDF/AG_Nom_Hearing_Mukasey_Answers.pdf

he refused to answer a ludicrous hypothetical, as any judge worth the robe should do.

[Rex]

13. Ouch.

MONTPELIER, Vt. - The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Friday he won't support Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, further undercutting his chances for a quick confirmation, because Mukasey hasn't taken a firm enough stand against torture.
ADVERTISEMENT

"No American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture," said U.S. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt. He planned an afternoon news conference to make the announcement in Burlington.

[cali]

14. You're missing what the OP is saying. n/t

[MrCoffee]

15. once again...Mukasey is clearly on the record against waterboarding by US military personnel

http://media.pfaw.org/PDF/AG_Nom_Hearing_Mukasey_Answers.pdf

page 3



my point is that Senate Judiciary Democrats have picked a bad fight.

[Rex]

20. You're assuming why I said 'ouch'

incorrectly.

[MrCoffee]

22. you may be right...now i have no idea why you said it.

[ProSense]

32. Mukasey basically gave the standard RW double-talk answer:

He said, yes waterboarding is not allowed to be used by the military, but unless Congress passes a law explicitly stating the certain coercive techniques are illegal, these practices would be deemed legal.

The Mukasey Precedent

Torture is illegal.

[David Zephyr]

17. Thanks for your sensible post.

Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer led the fight against the torturer, Gonzales, while most could have cared less. I trust them.

[MrCoffee]

19. mine was far more incoherent then yours

[sam sarrha]

24. he might be a likable person, but he is still a White House torture monkey whore, for th wet brain

alcoholic, drug addict, psychopath pResident

he is now complicit in the torture crimes committed by white house minions as part of the cover up

[MrCoffee]

26. did you even bother to read the link in Reply 15?

[sam sarrha]

35. yea. he is covering for civilian tortures.cia said there have been at least 200 people 'accidentaly'

tortured to death.

extreme renditions are done on civilians... here is a link

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27873.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/01/MNGE5CI9MO1.DTL

gonzo OKed torture of civilians, bu$h ordered them, they committed crimes against humanity, and he is protecting them saying he doesn't know if it applies to civilians.

if he did say it was a crime the pResident, gonzo and others can be charged.. so he is complicit in very serious crimes by covering them up

[mmonk]

41. Here are the reasons why Mukasey shouldn't be confirmed

http://www.ccr-ny.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-calls-senate-vote-down-attorney-general-nomination


-snip-

Michael Mukasey is not fit to be Attorney General because he supports torture, illegal spying on Americans, and limitless powers for the Executive Branch. He made clear in the Senate confirmation hearing and in his letter to the Senate that he does not understand the difference between the role of the Attorney General and the role of Counsel to the President.

-snip-

Michael Mukasey professes ignorance as to whether water-boarding is a form of torture unless he knows "the actual facts and circumstances" of its use. The "facts and circumstances" of water-boarding are quite straightforward. When a person is water-boarded, their head is held under water until the person begins to involuntarily "inhale" water. At that point, the victim is certain they will drown if not allowed to get air. It is a technique from the Spanish Inquisiton and illegal under international and domestic law. Instilling fear of imminent death as an interrogation technique is the very essence of torture, and no amount of legal analysis can come to any other conclusion.

-snip-

Michael Mukasey asserts that as the Commander-in-Chief, the president can spy on Americans outside the law. He believes the president's Article II powers allow him to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) with impunity.


I'm watching closely. I want my party to do the right thing by me and my children. I've been waiting way too damn long. If I have to keep waiting while they fold and bow to tyranny and illegal acts and the shreading of the constitution, I might not be around when it comes time to vote. There comes a time when I refuse to be stupid anymore. I'm sniffing that time.