Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Waterboarding is all fun & games until someone gets Caught

Why would we want to confirm an Attorney General nominee that cannot seem to take a firm stance on what is legal/illegal? Have we stooped so low and do we have so few brilliant lawyers and judges in America that we have to scrap the bottom of the barrel?
Am I the only one here that doesn't get it?!

2 comments:

Lukovica said...

No, I don’t think you are the only one who is shocked. To be equivocal about waterbording is like to be equivocal about rape or electroshocks. I think most of the people realize the reasons behind his stance on this question, and that Sen. Feinstein’s belief that “this man is going to be an independent breath of fresh air in this department” is, if truthful, is simply na├»ve.

This brings me to the issue that is more shocking to me then the views of the Attorney General Nominee (as a side remark, after Gonzales almost anyone would seem fit for the job). What is truly shocking to me is that some of our Democratic representatives supported this nomination, that they actually praise Mukasey because “he has personally made clear that if Congress passed further legislation in this area, the President would have no legal authority to ignore it, and Judge Mukasey would enforce it.” (Sen. Schumer) Now, with all due respect, I think that this is a pretty low standard we have here. I completely agree with Sen. Ted Kennedy that “enforcing the law is the job of the Attorney General. It is a prerequisite, not a virtue, that enhances a nominee’s qualifications". (now, I would put this last sentence in caps if I could). I think this should be pretty obvious. I realize that all norms and standards have been perverted by the Travesty of Justice Dep. under Gonzales, but have the standards really sunk that low?
There is another charming point that the Democrats who supported this nomination belabored in their commentaries to the press and public, which can be summed up in four words: “Mukesey is better then nothing”. Sen. Charles Schumer is terrified by the President’s promise to appoint “a caretaker” for the Justice Dep. if Mukesey’s nomination is rejected. Sen. Schumer believes that “to accept such an unaccountable caretaker would be to surrender the Department to the extreme ideology of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington, without check”.
Sen. Feinstein shares his fears: “I believe the President would not send another nominee to the Hill. I believe he appointed this man because he believes he is mainstream. I believe there was even discussion about whether he should appoint him or appoint somebody who was even more conservative.”
I just realized that there are two more things that I do not get about this whole debate.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that our Senators believe that unwillingness to call one of most paradigmatic torture techniques unconstitutional and illegal is now a “mainstream” position, as opposed to more “conservative” and “extreme” views. I dare not think what these might be.
Another thing that I do not get is: what is the purpose of this whole nomination- approval farce, if the President can bully the lawmakers into approving any nomination.

And for those of us who, together with Makasey, are still in the dark as to what waterbording is, I recommend: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OaQ1Eryjq9I
I loved this idea, by the way.
And also http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/05/1538212&tid=25

Dr. D said...

Lukovica,
thanks for your comment and for providing the YouTube link. The video was very disturbing. Hopefully some will watch it, and maybe if they were on the fence about waterboarding, they might finally change their minds.