Mukasey, by not condemning torture, is protecting the * admin from prosecution

[babylonsister]

Nominee’s Stand May Avoid Tangle of Torture Cases

Senators are weighing Michael B. Mukasey’s nomination.


By SCOTT SHANE
Published: November 1, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 — In adamantly refusing to declare waterboarding illegal, Michael B. Mukasey, the nominee for attorney general, is steering clear of a potential legal quagmire for the Bush administration: criminal prosecution or lawsuits against Central Intelligence Agency officers who used the harsh interrogation practice and those who authorized it, legal experts said Wednesday.

On Wednesday, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled a confirmation vote for Tuesday amid deep uncertainty about the outcome at the committee level. If Mr. Mukasey’s nomination reaches the Senate floor, moderate Democrats appear likely to join Republicans to produce a majority for confirmation. But a party-line vote in the Judiciary Committee, which seemed a possibility, could block the nomination from reaching the floor.

The biggest problem for Mr. Mukasey remains his refusal to take a clear legal position on the interrogation technique. Fear of opening the door to criminal or civil liability for torture or abuse, whether in an American court or in courts overseas, appeared to loom large in Mr. Mukasey’s calculations as he parried questions from the committee this week. Some legal experts suggested that liability could go all the way to President Bush if he explicitly authorized waterboarding.

Waterboarding is a centuries-old interrogation method in which a prisoner’s face is covered with cloth and then doused with water to create a feeling of suffocation. It was used in 2002 and 2003 by C.I.A. officers questioning at least three high-level terrorism suspects, government officials say.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee’s top Republican, said at a hearing Wednesday that any statement by Mr. Mukasey that waterboarding is torture could fuel criminal charges or lawsuits against those responsible for waterboarding.

“The facts are that an expression of an opinion by Judge Mukasey prior to becoming attorney general would put a lot of people at risk for what has happened,” Mr. Specter said.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/washington/01mukasey.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1193915878-bOhqxtoNuqo00FDKMqhr6Q

[deacon]

1. It's insanity. No way in hell should this man be confirmed. n/t

[deacon]

2. And another thing, this is incredibly vital- we need a decent AG- this is make or break time for

this congress. If the obvious can't be distinguished by Leahy on this- he and this congress are completely washed up.

[cali]

3. LOL!

wake up! Yes, they should reject him in committee, but how in hell can they force bushco to nominate a decent AG?? Clue: they can't.
And what's likely to happen is either a recess appointment or footdragging on the part of the admin, so they can keep their minion Keisler, who unbelievably is even worse than Mukasey, on.

[babylonsister]

4. You've broached the argument that Keisler is worse than Mukasey,

and I can agree with that. But why does that mean we have to confirm Mukasey? There has got to be someone honest out there, I would think.
By Mukasey protecting this admin on torture, he's appearing to already be a lapdog for this admin a la Gonzo. We really cannot afford another lapdog.

[cali]

6. bs, I've said for a week now, since the hearings that

that they should NOT vote him out of commitee. In fact, how did you manage to overlook that, not only in the post you're responding to, but the dozens of other posts I've written to that effect?

But although I'm sure there is someone honest out there, it's absurd, based on everything we know about bushco, to think for even a nanosecond, that bush will nominate such a person. He'll either nominate someone as bad or worse, or stall and keep Keisler, or pull a recess appointment.

And for the record, the reason both I and L.Coyote think he's worse, is because he's not only a torture guy and a crook, but because he's a key figure in the BFEE- and that's one thing that Mukasey doesn't have a history of.

[babylonsister]

9. A bit defensive this a.m., aren't you. I asked a question, didn't

mean to get your nasty engine running. I'm sorry if you think I'm overlooking your posts, I'm just trying to keep up myself.

[cali]

11. no, just a bit irritable

when people don't read the post they're responding to, but we all do it at times, so I apologize. Here it is though- from the post you responded to:

"Yes, they should reject him in committee".

I do understand you're just trying to keep up.

[deacon]

8. It's so stupid. This congress can force a decent AG. No excuses.

[cali]

10. how?

I'm sorry, that's just ridiculous. Short of holding bush at gunpoint or waterboarding him, there's NOTHING they can do to force him to name a decent nominee for AG. Zilch. He's the president, and he has options. One more time: He can stall and keep Keisler in for some months and then name whoever he feels like. He can do a recess appointment- though Reid should be able to block that. Or he can just name someone within a couple of weeks. Now the dems can give him a list of acceptable candidates and tell him that's it, but there is no way they can force him to choose someone off that list. He has options that enable him to circumvent the Senate.

[cali]

15. you keep saying that. I've posted what they can

do, and what bushco can do. If you're so flippin' sure they can force a decent AG, don't just keep parroting that line, explain HOW they can do that.

[maine_raptor]

16. Hmmm, "recess appointment"

Couldn't Harry keep the Senate in session? That would by-pass that, and if Mukasey's appointment was just not "yet" reported out, that would put him in limbo.

As for Keisler, just keep hauling his ass before the Committee. That'd slow his act up a bit.

[cali]

17. Sure. Reid could do that.

But hauling Keisler up before the JC will not slow him down *enough*, and bush can always throw another terrible nom at them. There's really no solution for the SD under bushco.

[Solly Mack]

5. The Bush admin. is fairly protected now from prosecution

because the Bush administration has yet to be held accountable for implementing and carrying out a torture policy. It's not as if this (US government engages in torture) is a new revelation.

Also because how the torture "debate" is being framed


As long as people in government act as if the important question is whether or not water-boarding is torture, then attention is drawn away from the lack of accountability.

Water-boarding IS torture, torture is illegal - and it IS a war crime.

The issue isn't whether or not Mukasey will call water-boarding illegal but is instead, will Mukasey hold the Bush admin. accountable for their crimes. We already know water-boarding is torture and that torture is illegal - and the US government under Bush has engaged in water-boarding.

Confirming Mukasey would be but one more step in insulating and protecting the Bush administration ...vote to confirm and you vote in favor of one more avenue of escape for a war criminal executive.

[babylonsister]

12. That's precisely why Mukasey cannot condemn torture; the wh won't

admit to doing it, but we know they have. Here's Gillespie disavowing that it's ever even been done:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/31/gillespie-waterboard/

[Solly Mack]

13. and Gillespie really thinks he said something clever

Many in government are using the same kind of verbal dodge...

[mmonk]

7. That is correct.

Those of us want a return to constitutional government have watched many such moves and tried to stop such moves all usually in vain. That would take representation in government that supports the rule of law and the people's protections which there aren't enough of to stop the erosion. A long sad story.

[annabanana]

14. That's the JOB of the Attorney General, isn't it?

Oh...wait...