Friday, November 02, 2007

Chuck And Di Spit In Our Eye

What would the week be without yet another cave-in by Democratic politicians?

As noted here...

WASHINGTON - Sens. Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein say they will vote for Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey, which likely gives him enough support to pass the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Their decision came shortly after the chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced he would vote against Mukasey, a former federal judge.

"This is an extremely difficult decision," Schumer said in a statement, adding that Mukasey "is not my ideal choice."

In announcing her support for Mukasey, Feinstein, D-Calif., said "first and foremost, Michael Mukasey is not Alberto Gonzales," referring to the former attorney general who resigned in September after months of questions about his honesty.
“He’s not Alberto Gonzales,” huh Senator Feinstein? That’s your rationale?

You’re a disgrace.

Both of you read these letters…

To the Editor:

Re “Nominee’s Stand May Avoid Tangle of Torture Cases” (front page, Nov. 1):

What are we coming to when Judge Michael B. Mukasey, a thoroughly decent man whom I have known and admired for more than 30 years, is forced essentially to plead the Fifth Amendment as to whether the department he has been asked to lead authorizes illegal torture?

We are fast becoming an embarrassment in the world court of public opinion.

Frederick T. Davis
Paris, Nov. 1, 2007

The writer is a lawyer.



To the Editor:

Michael B. Mukasey, the nominee for attorney general, is doing an elaborate tap dance around the issue of waterboarding and torture to steer clear of potential legal problems for the C.I.A. and members of the Bush administration.

With this much choreography, there is one obvious conclusion: contrary to statements by President Bush, we do torture.

Sam Duncan
Wayne, Pa., Nov. 1, 2007



To the Editor:

So our nominee for attorney general refuses to declare waterboarding illegal — after being educated by a member of Congress on what it actually is. That explanation destroyed Judge Michael B. Mukasey’s ability to deny knowledge of the practice; one is reminded of the obfuscation of Alberto R. Gonzales, the former attorney general, in his bobbing and weaving before Congress’s questions.

Clearly, if confirmed, Judge Mukasey would act as a “team player” of the Bush administration, helping to cover up issues of torture, rather than as an independent enforcer of the nation’s laws.

Part of the legacy of such a confirmation would be, inevitably, condoning waterboarding and other methods of torture in the future — with continuing damage to our values, our international relations and the safety of our own soldiers if captured.

Can such a man ever be expected to rule fairly on issues involving torture?

Kathryn W. Kelber
Houston, Nov. 1, 2007

The writer is a lawyer.



To the Editor:

So, Judge Michael B. Mukasey has refused so far to acknowledge that waterboarding is torture because of his concern that such a statement by him might put the C.I.A. and other American interrogators in legal jeopardy. But doesn’t a former federal judge know that there is a remedy for such situations? It’s called the judicial system.

Someone accused of breaking the law is investigated, perhaps charged, arrested, arraigned, witnesses are called and so on — in short, a trial. The attorney general is not charged with protecting possible violators of the law but of prosecuting them. This is a nation of laws, not men.

Walter Friedenberg
Denver, Nov. 1, 2007



To the Editor:

I had the misfortune to come very close to drowning. I panicked while swimming in a river in England, and was pulled out of the water unconscious by a young woman, who saved my life.

Recalling that experience, which must have lasted a couple of minutes at the most, is still enough to make me tremble; it happened 30 years ago.

It turns my stomach to think that those who act on behalf of this civilized country may be using simulated drowning to question potentially innocent people. Is there no decency left in this ugly so-called war?

Peter Cleary
San Francisco, Nov. 1, 2007



To the Editor:

Re “Torture and the Attorneys General” (editorial, Nov. 1):
Torture is indubitably illegal under customary international law and the laws and treaties of the United States.

It is also inherently unreliable as a method of extracting information, because there’s always the risk that the one being tortured will say or do anything to stop the pain.

Furthermore, broadcasting to the world that the United States engages in torture when expedient inevitably undermines our reputation as an exemplar of democracy and human rights. Why, then, does Judge Michael B. Mukasey, the man who might become the nation’s top law enforcement official, seem to waffle when it comes to this seemingly straightforward issue?

What part of illegal does he not understand?

James P. Rudolph
Washington, Nov. 1, 2007

The writer is a lawyer.



To the Editor:

“Bearing Witness to Torture,” by Clyde Haberman (NYC column, Oct. 30), suggests there may be a connection between the upsurge in torture victims seeking help at the N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture and the United States’ current policies on torture.

When the leaders of the United States government shirk their obligation under international law to prohibit torture against suspected terrorists held in American prisons, when presidential candidates make statements implying a defense of torture and when the president’s nominee for attorney general, Judge Michael B. Mukasey, refuses to say whether he believes that waterboarding is torture, we shouldn’t be surprised if governments around the world step up torture against their citizens.

As director of the N.Y.U. Center, Dr. Allen S. Keller deals with the awful consequences of torture and says N.Y.U. has been “swamped” by a record 581 patients from October 2006 to September 2007.

His experiences as director tell him correctly that waterboarding is torture. From his wise perspective, as he says, it may be a more brutal form of water torture.

Larry Cox
Executive Director
Amnesty International USA
New York, Oct. 30, 2007
Another week ending with the Dems leaving me with a heaping helping of “what the f*ck is wrong with you people??!!” – nice work.

Update 11/05/07: Go, "Cheesehead Russ" (and as always, screw you, Arlen).

2 comments:

profmarcus said...

what are we going to do...? this simply can't go on... how the hell are we going to stop it...? i'm at a loss...

doomsy said...

Just got back into this - I can't think of a legal way to put an end to this madness either.