This just in from Patrick Leahy:
Some issues are so critical, so fundamental to who and what we are as a nation, that we must act on our convictions — and this is one of them. America does not torture. We do not inflict cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Certainly, we must do everything we can to prevent attacks on our nation, using appropriate interrogation techniques that require extensive questioning and thorough investigation. Waterboarding, however, is not one of these techniques.
In his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Michael Mukasey was simply asked if waterboarding is illegal. The fact that he could not provide a simple “Yes” to this question raises serious doubts about his ability to protect our basic rights.
My number one priority is to restore strong leadership and independence to an agency whose morale and image have been severely tainted. I wish that I could support Mr. Mukasey’s nomination, but I cannot.
Accordingly, when Michael Mukasey’s nomination comes to a vote before the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, I will vote against it.
All well and good. But, alas, Senators Feinstein (D-Cal.) and Schumer (D-N.Y.) will vote “yes.” Which pretty much guarantees that the Mukasey nomination will move to the Senate floor, where it’s all but certain to be confirmed (unless someone changes their mind). Schumer says that he hopes Mukasey’s “experience, independence and integrity, can restore the department.” Right — ’cause Mukasey demonstrated those qualities so well at the hearings. And as for Feinstein: “I believe that Judge Mukasey is the best we will get.” Well, there’s a great reason to vote for someone.
Another shining moment for the Democrats. *sigh*
“The best we can get” sounds like a dreadful reason to choose someone for Attorney General. Does she really mean, “The best we can get from George W. Bush”?? If so, WHY put up with it? What is the point of a Democratic Majority if they put up with mediocre appointments from George W. Bush without a fight?
Isn’t it about time she come clean and cross the isle? I mean really.
didn’t she used to be a liberal? What happened?
Feinstien has always been a fairly conservative Democrat, even when she was Mayor of San Fransisco. It’s a source of endless frustration of us California lefties.
She, through her husband’s company, has made a lot of money on the war. It became an ethics issue when she was on the MILCON contracts committee. I’m sure if she went against the Administration, she would lose financially as lucrative contracts would not come to Perini Corporation in Iraq and Afganistan.
<
p>
Just business, simply business.
She has supported the flag amendment and the death penalty!
<
p>
Hardly my idea of a liberal.
I was a 4th-grader in the east SF bay at the time, and my family were recent immigrants from England who had just gotten permanent resident status. It’s the of my earliest political memories and they were focused on two things: the excitement about the Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, and then the successful election of California’s first two female Senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. My impression since then was that Boxer was the liberal and Feinstein was the conservative, and when we moved to Massachusetts I used to framework to think about Senators Kennedy and Kerry respectively. I think Kerry has changed recently, but Feinstein has not AFAIK.
I was a 5th grader living in the East Bay in 1992 and my recollections are the same. What city did you grow up in?
Remember his constituency was the hardest hit in 2001.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
Source: The Politico
But as Hillary Clinton and others have pointed out, this hypothetical does not happen in the real world. It takes quite a few plot devices to know the guy who knows the Important Fact without knowing the Important Fact itself. Further, as legions of interrogators tell us, borrowing techniques from the communists aimed at extracting fake confessions — not at gaining truth — do not turn out to be even useful.
<
p>
So this moral calculation is based on a near impossible If plus a stupid approach to interrogation. Stupidity meet Immorality. How do you do.
<
p>
But doesn’t this hypothetical make an excellent soundbite! I bet one can run really scary attack ads based on that. I’m sure that’s why Rethuglican candidates just love it — love it!
<
p>
I bet that’s why you love it, too, EaBo.
That debate is as old as Nicola Micheavelli, isn’t it? When do the means determine the ends, and even the nature of the society that uses them? Anyway, great quote EABOGUY.
That’s not what he said even in The Prince. And he wrote a lot more than just The Prince. But maybe you are referring to the less well known Nicola Micheavelli. The name of the better known Italian renaissance philosopher is Nicolo Machiavelli.
Too many of them have no guiding philosophy other than opportunism. At least Bush and Rove have a specific ideological agenda, as warped and destructive as it is. This is not the way to recover the reins of power.
You generally advocate a non-ideological pragmatism and you consistently seem allergic to building out of liberalism a compelling ideology.
<
p>
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have a “guiding philosophy” that consists of the persistent application of Ad Hoc.
Will all of you call both of their offices on Monday morning?
From Connecticut.