Someone Called Mukasey A Tyrant Before He Almost Plotzed

Barbara Ehrenreich paints a pretty glum picture of the American workplace in her latest book, a collection of short essays called This Land Is Your Their Land. She talks a lot about the ugliness of the pecking order. She kind of reminded me of the very first Patti Smith indie release, Piss Factory. Tonight, though, I was going through the BBC News and came across a related article, Bad Bosses May Damage Your Heart (which also led me to Work Stress Changes Your Body-- "a stressful job has a direct biological impact on the body, raising the risk of heart disease"-- and Unfair Bosses Raise Blood Pressure-- bosses that people perceive to be unfair not only make your working life a misery-- they can also pose a significant threat to your health." Yesterday's story was about a Swedish study that found a strong relationship between "poor leadership" and serious heart disease among the employees of the poor leaders.

I had just finished reading some right wing kook moaning and groaning because Washington state Judge Richard Sanders had stood up at the Federalist Society dinner last week and yelled "Tyrant! You are a tyrant!" at Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Mukasey was in the middle of defending the Bush Regime's disgraceful detainment practices at Guantánamo and its disregard for its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Mukasey may have heard Judge Sanders' opinion and that may have caused him to collapse and faint a little while later. Right after his outburst Sanders walked out in protest and Mukasey was still feeding raw meat to the happy little fascistic Federalists.

Sanders did the right thing by speaking Truth to Power. He should be commended. Mukasey didn't die and he can oversee more inhuman detentions, more torture, and other crimes against humanity. I'm far more concerned by the victims of workplace brutality whose tyrannical bosses are shortening their lives in ways that anyone who has ever worked in an hierarchical work situation understands very well. Some say that kind of tyranny is part of human nature. Maybe it is. It's another excellent and compelling reason for strong labor unions.

Mukasey Is No More And No Less What Bush, Schumer And Feinstein Saddled Us With

Accountability? A little? Someday?

Michael Mukasey is Attorney General today because of the effusive support he received from Chuck Schumer. Should Schumer be held responsible? Absolutely. During the confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mukasey weaseled his way through his testimony, refusing to say, for example whether or not waterboarding was legal. That should have ended the hearings on the spot and the man should have been escorted to the door and thrown out on his ass. Instead, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senator with all the re-election money (from corporate sources), announced, along with Madam Dianne Vichyssoise (D-CA) that he would be voting for him, ensuring the futility of a battle.

The actual Senate confirmation vote itself (Nov. 8, 2007) was just political posturing. Every single Republican was in their regular rubber stamp mode-- not one voted no-- and they were joined by Lieberman and by 4 of the most consistently right-wing Democrats in the Senate-- Carper (DE), Bayh (IN), Landrieu (LA) and Nelson (NE)-- plus Schumer and Feinstein. Obama, Dodd, Biden and Clinton were all off campaigning and didn't vote.

No one can honestly claim they were buying a pig in a poke (or a cat in a sack). If someone expected an honest man or a righteous man or a man committed to Truth and Justice or who would serve the American people and the Constitution, they need to be removed from office just based on naiveté alone-- or for spending too much time listening to the rivers of bullshit that flow out of Chuck Schumer's mouth every time he opens it. Mukasey turned out to be exactly the kind of stooge Bush hired him to be and that the Senate was amply warned he would be and that, in fact, he has been.

This morning's NY Times claims there are some senators, particularly this most disingenuous of all senators, who are having buyer's remorse nine month's on.

Mukasey has dragged his ass and completely derailed the investigation into the Bush Regime's politicization of the Justice Department. There was never any question that he was hired to do exactly that. Schumer's crocodile tears are repulsive.

[A]t a hearing this month, face to face with his pick for attorney general, Mr. Schumer, a Democrat [thanks for the clarification, Eric; it does get hard to keep track in some cases], did not hide his disappointment in what he saw as Mr. Mukasey’s reluctance to move more aggressively in investigating accusations that the Justice Department had brought politically inspired prosecutions against Democratic politicians.

Mr. Schumer was still fuming a short time later as he went to the Senate floor for a vote. “That was terrible,” Mr. Schumer told a colleague privately in assessing Mr. Mukasey’s performance, an official privy to the conversation said.

...“I don’t want to use the word ‘disappointed,’ but he hasn’t provided the balance that I had hoped for,” said Mr. Specter, who supported Mr. Mukasey’s nomination.

Halfway through his term, Mr. Mukasey has defended or let stand some of the most controversial policies that he inherited from Mr. Gonzales, including the treatment of detainees, the broad surveillance powers claimed by Mr. Bush and the White House’s use of executive privilege in warding off demands from Congress for information.

Last week, Democrats charged that Mr. Mukasey was using the shield of executive privilege to “cover up” possible wrongdoing by the White House. The result, critics say, is that investigations have languished on some critical issues.

Patrick Leahy acknowledges that Mukasey is "head and shoulders above his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, but Bush would have had to look for an inmate of a federal penitentiary to find someone who wasn't. Still, Leahy, who knew what was coming and voted against Mukasey, said he is “letting the worst excesses of the Gonzales era stand... He doesn't want to rock the boat."

Neither Mukasey nor his pal Schumer-- well known as the biggest publicity whore in the Senate outside of McCain-- would agree to an interview for today's Times piece.

AG Malarkey appears to have taken a tangible step toward restoring a modicum of professionalism to the decimated Department of Justice

It's hardly the highest-profile problem facing the Justice Department, but considering the range of disasters and catastrophes facing Attorney General "Judge" Malarkey, he earns points for his move yesterday, filling at least temporarily the vacant Minnesota U.S. attorney position with a competent career prosecutor, naming the top surviving assistant in the troubled office, Frank Magill Jr., as acting U.S. attorney. (Frank Magill Sr. retired last summer after 21 years on the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th District. I found some photos of Dad, but sorry, none of Junior.)

Amy Goldstein reports in today's Washington Post that both of Minnestota's U.S. senators were urging the new AG to consider people inside the office, which has been in something close to open revolt, to fill the vacancy from inside. HometownSource.com reports praise for the appointment from both Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar. There seems to be general relief--if not outright wonderment, or even dancing in the streets--in Minnesota.

The vacancy, you'll recall, was created by the resignation under pressure of Rachel Paulose, one of former AG Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales's screechingly incompetent ideologues--who was hardly ever in Minnesota anyway, spending most of her time committing judicial mayhem with her concurrent day job at DoJ in Washington.

Neither DoJ nor the White House is saying whether Magill is being considered for proper appointment to the job, which requires Senate confirmation, of course. (Current statue allows an acting U.S. attorney to serve up to 210 days.) Apparently nobody involved has evolved to the point of thinking that we're entitled to any information about what our government is doing.

#

SCHUMER AND FEINSTEIN GET THEIR WAY-- MUKASEY IS CONFIRMED

Two happy campers-- living examples of why we should be able to recall senators

Late tonight, when respectable people were fast asleep, the Senate confirmed Michael Mukasey, a pro-torture/anti-Constitution, ultra-partisan reactionary as Bush's Attorney General. This was engineered by two people, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Whatever Mukasey does wrong should be lain on their doorsteps.

Joining every single Republican in voting to confirm, were Schumer, Feinstein and the 4 most right-wing Democrats in the Senate: Ben Nelson (NE), Mary Landrieu (LA), Tom Carper (DE), and Evan Bayh (IN). Needless to say, Connecticut for Lieberman Party hack Joe Lieberman, as with all matters of importance, voted with his Republican chums. Not bothering to stand up and be counted: Hillary, Obama, Biden, and Dodd, all out trying to convince voters they can do a better job than Bush.

IF DEMOCRATS CAN'T EVEN GET THE MOST BASIC THINGS RIGHT-- LIKE "TORTURE BAD"-- WHAT GOOD ARE THEY AT ALL?

Dianne Feinstein will never be a Russ FEINGOLD. Don't mix 'em up

Yesterday grassroots Democrats, especially grassroots Democrats in California and New York, were fuming over Chuck Schumer's and Dianne Feinstein's blatant sell-out of core Democratic values and principles in their shameless and coordinated coup against attempts by the Senate Democratic caucus to tell the Bush Regime that America is through with torture and through with the whole unconstitutional concept of an executive branch which operates as though it were above the law. Mukasey may be as nice a fella as Albert Gonzales was and he may be brighter, but, like Gonzales, he believes that the president is above the law. No president is or should be and this particular president-- with his 24%-and-sinking job approval rating-- is one the cowardly Democrats should be reining in-- BIG TIME, and now. If the Democrats were serious about it, they would ignore Bush's hysterical threats and remove Schumer from his source of power as the head of the DSCC.

Fat chance! Because they're not serious. Oh, some are. Some actually still believe in American values and place them before their own personal interests-- something Feinstein has never done in her entire miserable career-- and some Democratic senators still strive for a balance and principled approach to governance over narrow partisan calculation (the lifeblood of a lifelong shameless hack like Schumer). I know-- because I've been cc-ed on so many-- that lots of DWT readers have already communicated their extreme displeasure directly to Schumer and Feinstein for their treachery. Tomorrow we'll be announcing a ratcheting up of that pressure.

Meanwhile, Russ Feingold, announced early this morning that regardless of what Feinstein and Schumer are doing, he's standing up for basic American principles and opposing Mukasey's confirmation.

I will vote against the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General.  This was a difficult decision, as Judge Mukasey has many impressive qualities. He is intelligent and experienced and appears to understand the need to depoliticize the Department of Justice and restore its credibility and reputation. 

At this point in our history, however, the country also needs an Attorney General who will tell the President that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. Unfortunately, Judge Mukasey was unwilling to reject the extreme and dangerous theories of executive power that this administration has put forward. 

The nation's top law enforcement officer must be able to stand up to a chief executive who thinks he is above the law. The rule of law is too important to our country's history and to its future to compromise on that bedrock principle.

Schumer was very smart in high school and, from what I've read, in college too. What's happened to him? (Feinstein was always a hack and this behavior on her part is just par for the course.) Why is it that a senator from Wisconsin can see this so clearly but that the senior senators from New York and California can't? Or won't? We'll take a shot at making sure they understand it a little better tomorrow.


UPDATE: WHO'S "THE NEXT LIEBERMAN?"

Today's Washington Post pins the tail on DiFi.

WOW! PEOPLE ARE PISSED OFF TODAY-- AND IT'S A WEEKEND! DIFI & CHUCKY ARE LUCKY THEY'RE NOT UP FOR RE-ELECTION

Thanks to RagingGurrl from FDL Editorz

Last night I started getting flooded with e-mail about the treachery of Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer regarding their declarations that they intended to foist Michael Mukasey on us as Attorney General. (I've made it crystal clear on this blog-- I never liked or trusted either of them and although New York and California are the only two states I've ever voted in, and I've never missed an election or a primary, I've never voted for either one of them for anything. Jane Hamshire and I originally met while we were campaigning for Jello Biafra when he ran against Feinstein when she wan for mayor of San Francisco after the political assassination of George Moscone and Harvey Milk by one of her right-wing colleagues on the Board of Supervisors.)

A frequent DWT contributor, Woid, sent me this late last night:

In her latest lurch toward the right, our despicable senior senator announced that she'll be voting in favor of the nomination of the newest Bush stooge for Attorney General, making his approval likely-- in spite of the fact that he seems to be perfectly okay with torture, indefinite detention of citizens without charges, and the power of The Executioner's branch to ignore any laws they don't care for. Hey, why not make it official and just declare themselves the Fourth Reich?

I'm way past the point of feeling futile about what we can do about the depredations of our insect overlords-- but this particular outrage fired me up enough to get on the web and email that miserable tool, which I followed up by calling both her socal and DC offices. It took almost an hour to get through to DC, because so many people were calling in outrage. The guy on the phone said they'd probably had thousands of calls, 100% against.

Yes, it may be futile, but it did give me a delightful jolt of adrenaline, saving me 4 bucks on an afternoon cup of coffee.

You could use an extra 4 bucks, right?

Just before that, I got a call from some of my pals at Calitics who are talking about working with a coalition of concerned activists who are thinking about running robo-calls and newspaper ads informing Californians about how Dianne Feinstein has let us down.

Since then, she's written a defensive and deceptive editorial in the L.A. Times trying to minimize the damage to her miserable political career. Before you read it, look what Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, John Edwards... even Hillary Clinton have said about why they oppose Mukasey getting his hands on the Justice Department. Feinstein's defense boils down to him not being as bad as Gonzales and how the Justice Department is in a shambles. How did it get in a shambles? Clearly, it got there because of the level of appointees by Bush-- approved by senators like Feinstein-- and because of the policies and agenda promulgated by Bush and, at best, overlooked by senators like Feinstein.

Like the equally shameless Schumer, she says she believes-- while acknowledging that "serious questions have been raised about Judge Mukasey's views on torture and on the separation of powers"-- that "Mukasey is the best nominee we are going to get from this administration and that voting him down would only perpetuate acting and recess appointments, allowing the White House to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and to diminish effective oversight by Congress." What a disgraceful excuse for reasoning! I'm mortified! Just look at how the twisted, sick mind works. I think it's long past time for Ms. Feinstein to retire from the public sphere.

The depth of her distorted perspective can also be seen here:

In the hearing, Judge Mukasey clearly expressed his personal repugnance regarding torture. And in a letter dated Oct. 30, he reiterated his personal views and described in detail the analysis he would undertake if confirmed.

Except for her close colleague Lieberman, everyone expresses purported "personal repugnance regarding torture." Bush does; Cheney does; a whole gaggle of Republican senators do. But Bush and Cheney order it and the Republicans enable it. We expect more from Democrats. Although hardly from Dianne Feinstein.

Matthew Grimm, a musician in Iowa, posted a passionate and well-reasoned piece today worth looking at. I recommend it strongly. A paragraph:

Go visit a foreign country, find a child, rape it bloody, eviscerate it with a hunting knife, murder its family, then burn its village to cinders, leaving nothing but carbonized corpses. It's okay. You're American. You can get away with it, long as you wear the right tie and now the right handshake and wear a flag pin on your lapel. Laws don't apply to you. The president will get the attorney general he wants, one who will use the Constitution to wipe proper Yalie shit from proper
Yalie asses. The Geneva Protocols remain "quaint."

Today we had two candidates for Congress over at Firedoglake, Donna Edwards, who is running against an establishment Democratic hack/Bush enabler (MD-04) who is heavily backed by the Inside the Beltway money interests-- and by Hoyer, Emanuel and Pelosi-- and Rabbi Dennis Shulman, a brilliant new face on the political scene who is taking on extreme right wing, adamantly pro-torture wingnut Scott Garrett (NJ-05). When asked, here's what Donna had to say:

"Is waterboarding torture? That’s a brightline test, no gray area. It’s torture and any nominee for the highest law enforcement officer in the land should be able to answer the question and agree to enforce international human rights standards. And, if Mukasey cannot stand apart from the other elements of the Executive Branch on this one, then he should not be confirmed."

When Rabbi Shulman was asked how Democrats can restore constitutional law, her was also clear:

Oversight, oversight, oversight.

With either a Democratic or Republican president, Congress’ responsibility is to watch the executive branch closely and protect the Constitution from executive incursion.

...I firmly believe that people should take responsibility for their actions. And I believe law and order applies to everyone-- and doesn’t stop when you achieve high office.

Big money interests support hacks like Bush and Schumer and Feinstein and Garrett and Wynn. If we want batter, we must participate in the process. There are many ways to do that. One is to contribute to the campaigns of good and honest Americans running for office, like Donna Edwards and Dennis Shulman-- and everyone else on this list. Even $5 helps. It really does.

YES, WE KNOW, LIEBERHOUND... YOU LOVE THE TORTURE

Lieberman has always been very clear; he favors torture. In a more perfect world we would look forward to a day when Lieberman, as a (former) senator, would look forward to being tried as a war criminal. Late yesterday he urged his fellow senators to join him in voting to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:

"To reject the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey because he refuses to say what some members want him to say on this question, and he refuses as a matter of sincerely held legal belief...would be grossly unfair, an unjust act to this judge. May I suggest an alternative course...confirm him!"

Watch Lieberman playing his role of Bush Regime lap dog-- and, of course, lying in the process. Lieberman says it's only a matter of one little disagreement (torture)-- which is neither a little matter, nor the only matter. Most members are at least equally concerned with Mukasey's explicit statements about president's being the law instead of being subject to the law. He should have been tossed out of the Senate hearing as soon as he said that. Watch Lieberhound:



Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who have announced they are opposed to Mukasey are Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and Sheldon Whitehouse. Undecided are Ben Cardin, Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy. Herb Kohl, Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer. If either Feinstein or Schumer buckle under to pressure for the Bush Regime, Mukasey moves to the full Senate where he will be confirmed thanks to the efforts of reactionary Democrats like Ben Nelson and Tom Carper.

I just saw Bush on CNN whining that if the Democrats don't approve Mukasey we'll have another 9/11. I'd like to think other Americans are as sick and tired of this charlatan as I am. His Regime failed to do it's duty in preventing the actual 9/11-- even more proof of that came out today, courtesy of his Saudi cronies-- but his entire disastrous term in office has been marked by exploiting the memories-- memories his Regime skillfully manipulated-- of a tragedy for which his own blame has never been seriously explored.

This morning's Washington Post claims the pivotal vote of Mukasey is Schumer, the centrist, albeit partisan, Democrat who originally recommended him to Bush.

Schumer, who has remained uncharacteristically quiet throughout the furor, said in an interview yesterday that he is now "wrestling" with whether to vote against a nomination that he was instrumental in bringing about. He compared the controversy to the 2005 nomination battle over Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

"From this administration, we will never get somebody who agrees with us on issues like torture and wiretapping," Schumer said at one point, suggesting an argument in favor of Mukasey, who faces a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Tuesday. "The best thing we can hope for is someone who will depoliticize the Justice Department and put rule of law first."

But Schumer said minutes later that his mind is not made up: "He's the best we can get, but that doesn't necessarily ensure a yes vote. I thought John Roberts was the best we could get, but I voted no."

...All nine Republicans on the committee are likely to support Mukasey, but if all 10 Democrats oppose the nominee, the confirmation would die in committee.

Republicans privately say that the nominee's prospects hang on a few votes, particularly those of Schumer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has broken ranks with her party in the past.

UPDATE: SCHUMER AND FEINSTEIN JUMP ON THE PRO-TORTURE TEAM

CNN just announced these two will vote to confirm Mukasey in the Judiciary Committee. That's the end of the battle. TPM has quotes from the 2 traitors. I guess Lieberman will be happy with them both even if more of their constituents, rightly, identify them with The Enemy. Steve Audio just did a fantastic demonstration of how Californians might like to respond to Feinstein's sick confirmation decision.

NEXT CONFIRMATION BATTLE: MUKASEY ON NOVEMBER 6-- CAN DEMOCRATS HOLD THE LINE? BUSH ISN'T LOSING ANY SLEEP

Only the Senate gets to vote on presidential nominations. At least we won't have to sit and watch Rahm Emanuel's little kennel of Bush Dogs-- like Heath Shuler (NC), Chris Carney (PA), Jason Altmire (PA), Melissa Bean (IL), Dan Lipinski (IL), JoeDonnellyBradEllworthBaronHill (IN), Tim Mahoney (FL),  Harry Mitchell (AZ), and Zach Space (OH)-- obediently voting to confirm Bush's candidate to succeed Alberto Gonzales as Vlad the Impaler Attorney General.

When Bush first nominated Michael Mukasey, Beltway Insiders, of both parties, rallied round and gave a great big cheer and pretty much claimed the hearing would just be for fun and he was in like flynn. But then he started talking-- or not talking-- about the Bush Regime's wiretapping policies and torture policies... and progressives started having second thoughts. As usual these days Chris Dodd was first:

"Mr. Mukasey's position that the President does not have to heed the law disqualifies him from being the chief attorney for the United States. We have seen for too long, and at great expense to our national security, an Administration that has systematically attacked the rule of law and turned our Justice Department into a political wing of the White House. I'm afraid that Mr. Mukasey as Attorney General would be more of the same."

Obama, Clinton and Edwards also came out against Mukasey. Obama:

We don't need another attorney general who believes that the President enjoys an unwritten right to secretly ignore any law or abridge our constitutional freedoms simply by invoking national security. And we don't need another attorney general who looks the other way on issues as profound as torture.

Hillary said "Mukasey has been given ample opportunity-- both at his confirmation hearings and in his subsequent submission to the Judiciary Committee-- to clarify his answers and categorically oppose the unacceptable interrogation techniques employed by this Administration. His failure to do so leaves me no choice but to oppose his nomination." The Senate Judiciary Committee has set November 6th as the day they will vote on the nomination. Patrick Leahy, the committee chair, who was the first to declare confirmation a virtual slam dunk, has gone through Mukasey's 172 pages of written responses and he says they do not satisfy him. Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Richard Durbin, also a committee member, said "I can't support his nomination." Reactionary Democrats in the tightly divided Senate, like Ben Nelson, arch-villain of the KKK confirmation battle last week, are already lining up to support Bush and ignore the Judiciary Committee.

Andrew Greeley explained today why Mukasey is probably a much bigger danger to America than Gonzales, who he describes as "an incompetent buffoon, a hack from Texas."

[He] believes the president can ignore statutes passed by Congress by virtue of his power as commander in chief. The separation of powers, the essence of American democracy, is thereby abolished, and the president becomes a dictator who can do anything he deems necessary to defend the country. There is no review either of his decisions or his judgments about the powers of the commander in chief or the specific threat to the country. The president in theory is as absolute in his power as Stalin was in Russia. No one reviews him, no one rules on him, no one questions his decisions. The next step will be FBI men in jackboots appearing at the doors of presidential critics in the middle of the night.

Tomorrow's NY Times worries that Mukasey is treading a line so fine because he has to protect against future prosecutions against Regime members. A few nights ago I went to hear Paul Krugman speak at the L.A. Public Library. He was even more brilliant on stage than in the columns. I asked him if he thought Bush and his cronies had committed crimes that rose to the level of post-Regime prosecution. He wasn't sure but he told a little jokey. I'm paraphrasing: "On the last day of the Regime Bush pardons Cheney and resigns and then Cheney pardons Bush."

The Senate Judiciary Committee usually is stocked with partisans from each party. Even if some Democrats decide to filibuster Mukasey on the floor-- the way they did the KKK judicial nominee last week-- enough reactionary Democrats will throw their lots in with the GOP to shut it down and confirm him. If he gets out of the Judiciary Committee, he's home free. The KKK nominee had Feinstein jump the fence for him (or at least for old flame Thad Cochran). Will anyone jump the fence for Mukasey? We'll see next week. Today's Congressional Quarterly thinks if there is a traitor among the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats likely to let Mukasey pass it is-- surprise, surprise-- the increasingly reactionary Feinstein, someone who is very much compromised by her husband's longstanding financial relationships with criminal elements inside the Bush Regime.

POLITICIANS SAY THE DAMNEDEST THINGS-- LIKE ABOUT TORTURE

In his headlong, no-holds-barred quest to be the personification of a third Bush term, Rudy Giuliani (not to mention Bush's own execrable Attorney General nominee, Michael Mukasey) leaves plenty of wiggle room for the use of torture. Giuliani, when asked about waterboarding said he isn't sure if that would be considered torture. "It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it." He blames waterboarding's bad name on "the liberal media... But I have to see what the real description of it is."

Maybe he-- and his pal Mukasey-- can start their quest to find out about the real description by reading Jurist from the University of Pittsburgh's law school. Wednesday Gary Solis, an Adjunct Professor and former Marine Corps judge advocate and military judge, attempted to teach the willfully ignorant something about waterboarding. If Mukasey and Giuliani don't know what it is, "the U.S. Army has long known."

During the U.S.- Philippine War (1899-1902), five Army officers, Major Edwin Glenn, Captain Cornelius Brownell, 1st Lieutenants Julien Gaujot, Edwin Hickman, and Preston Brown, were convicted by courts-martial for employing the “water cure” in interrogating Philippine prisoners. Although Brownell’s victim, a local priest, died while being subjected to the water cure, Brownell’s conviction was set aside on jurisdictional grounds. Army juries rejected the defense of “military necessity,” recognizing the water cure for what it is. The Army’s Judge Advocate General, the reviewing officer of Glenn’s case, derisively noted, “the resort to torture is attempted to be justified…as the habitual method of obtaining information from individual insurgents.” In the Vietnam War, Army Staff Sergeant David Carmon was disciplined after he was pictured torturing a prisoner with the water cure. But Judge Mukasey doesn’t know if waterboarding is torture.

After World War II, several nations prosecuted former enemies for variations of waterboarding. The U.N. War Crimes Commission, in its Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, details convictions for the near-drowning of prisoners during interrogations. The Sawada case was a U.S. military commission in which “the water treatment” of captured Doolittle raiders was a basis for convicting Sawada and others. A Norwegian military court convicted Karl-Hans Klinge of the same torture. American military commission convictions reported elsewhere include, U.S. v. Chinsaku Yuki, U.S. v. Yagoheiji Iwata, and U.S. v. Hideji Nakamura and Others, all resulting from the water treatment of American or Philippine prisoners. The Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East says, “The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops…. Among these tortures were the water treatment….” But Judge Mukasey doesn’t know if waterboarding is torture.

U.S. domestic courts describe “the water cure” and “water torture” as human rights violations, and a means to coerce confessions, in In Re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos (D. Hawaii, 1995) and U.S. v. Lee (5th Cir., 1984). In Chile, the 2005 National Commission of Political Imprisonment and Torture, investigating abuses of the Pinochet era, documents the common use of water torture during interrogations. Argentine and Chilean criminal prosecutions continue today. But Judge Mukasey doesn’t know if waterboarding is torture.

I'm sure both Giuliani and Mukasey do know that waterboarding is torture. It's just that neither is willing to take on the Bush Regime which insists it isn't. Bush says "We don't torture" but he, Alberto Gonzales and Cheney have quite enthusiastically signed off on waterboarding. To admit it is torture could make them candidates for war crimes tribunals. Mukasey wants these people to employ him. Giuliani wants their supporters to vote for him.

The wikipedia entry on the word waterboarding is very clear. The first sentence (with 9 citations): "Waterboarding is a form of torture which consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his or her face to simulate drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, and also to punish, and/or intimidate. It elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe his or her death is imminent while not causing physical evidence of torture."

During the Spanish Inquisition, probably the low-point for Christianity and surely one raison d'etre for the separation of Church and State so reviled by Republicans, waterboarding (toca or tortura del agua) was used during "trials." Since then, civilized nations, including the U.S. before Bush came to power, have agreed to the UN Convention Against Torture. It was signed and ratified by the U.S. in 1994. Among other things it states clearly that "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." Giuliani and Mukasey, in regard to the employment they are each seeking, ought to know that and ought to be able to deal with it. That neither does, speaks volumes about their respective suitability for the jobs they crave.

Former CIA officer and author Bob Baer has explained that waterboarding is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough." According to today's Des Moines Register at least one of the pathetic pygmies™ agrees with this anti-Bush Regime view.

Waterboarding is a form of torture no matter how it is done and should be a prohibited among U.S. military interrogation practices, Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Thursday, taking issue with GOP rival Rudy Giuliani's recent remarks.

"Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak," said McCain after a campaign stop at Dordt College here. "People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that."

McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese military after his plane was shot down 40 years ago today, made it clear he disagreed with Giuliani.

McCain, likes to point out that his opposition to torture among Republican presidential candidates is based on military experience not shared by any of the other pygmies. And he echoes Baer, not Bush, Cheney or Gonzales (nor, apparently Giuliani or Mukasey) when he says "There are much better and more effective ways to get information. You torture someone long enough, he'll tell whatever he thinks you want to know."

A GOOD FOLLOW-UP TO ALBERTO GONZALES-- EXPECT NO CHANGES AS SENATE DEMOCRATS DO WHAT THEY DO BEST

If you missed hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee questioning the Bush's Regime's next Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, you owe it to yourself to hunt it down. I heard a replay on NPR tonight. It was astounding. Crooks & Liars has a benevolent piece up, with Mukasey comparing the Bush Regime's torture memo (by future war crimes defendant Jay Bybee) to the Nazis. If that sounds more reasonable than something you'd expect from someone nominated for anything by Bush, rest assured-- it was straight downhill from there-- and now even Republicans are calling him unacceptable.

Probably after a threatening phone call from Cheney, he repeatedly "declined to say if he considered harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding, which simulates drowning, to constitute torture or to be illegal if used on terrorism suspects." Now that's the kind of nominee we expect from BushCo!

On the second day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Mukasey went further than he had the day before in arguing that the White House had constitutional authority to act beyond the limits of laws enacted by Congress, especially when it came to national defense.

He suggested that both the administration’s program of eavesdropping without warrants and its use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects, including waterboarding, might be acceptable under the Constitution even if they went beyond what the law technically allowed. Mr. Mukasey said the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress.

...In the case of the eavesdropping program, Mr. Mukasey suggested that the president might have acted appropriately under his constitutional powers in ordering the surveillance without court approval even if federal law would appear to require a warrant.

Might as well end the hearings now; after statements like that, I'm sure the Democrats are frothing at the mouth to follow their Republican colleagues right down the rabbit hole. Let Feingold and Dodd vote "no," and call it a confirmation by acclimation.

My personal favorite exchange came when Mukasey refused to respond to a question about condoning torture techniques first used by the Spanish Inquisition and, until Bush, always prosecuted by the U.S., saying he wasn't going to answer questions like that just to be collegial. At that point, if Leahy has a bit more spine, he would have shut the hearings down and told Mr. 24% approval rating to tell his nominee to answer the questions or to send over a better nominee. But he doesn't and he didn't. And Mukasey will by next month, no doubt, be a fitting follow-up to the Alberto Gonzales Show.

WILL THE FAR RIGHT MAKE MICHAEL MUKASEY THE NEXT HARRIET MIERS?

Mukasey with Chimpy

Bush had to decide who he would fight in regard to the new Attorney General nomination, the Democrats and mainstream Republicans who want the Justice Department to move on as a professional crime fighting organization, or the radical right which wants to make the nomination battle into an ideological battle to the death.

Jane and I were driving back from midtown today listening to KCRW and they had Richard Viguerie on carrying on about how Bush should have forgotten about confirming an Attorney General and just turned the whole thing into as violent and bloody a battle as possible. Viguerie and the partisan extremists are furious about Bush selecting a mainstream conservative as a consensus nominee. The far right isn't happy about Mukasey and they're not happy about how Bush comes out looking like he let the Democrats call the shots. And they're enraged that the process including the borking of one of their pet swine, Ted Olson.

Through weeks of quiet deliberation, Bush abandoned the confrontational pronouncements to which Congress has grown accustomed. Instead, White House counsel Fred Fielding reached out to Democrats, including Bush's constant opponent Senator Charles Schumer of New York, who had previously recommended Mukasey as a Supreme Court nominee. Schumer and Fielding went so far as to discuss names, and Mukasey's came up. "We're in an alternate universe," says one Senate aide. "Charles Schumer saying something nice about a guy used to be the kiss of death."

...in dropping Olson and going with Mukasey, Bush has opened himself up to attack from the right. Conservatives are worried about Mukasey's 1994 denial of asylum for a Chinese man who said his wife had been forced to have an abortion under that country's one-child law, which they say indicates he's weak on pro-life issues. And though he has consistently ruled with the Administration on a number of important and high-profile terrorism cases, Mukasey broke with them in an early, crucial ruling, saying that American citizen Jose Padilla had a right to a lawyer, no matter what his status in the war on terror. Mukasey is also very close to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whom social conservatives distrust.

Democrats are unlikely to give Mukasey a total pass but the conventional wisdom emanating from the Inside the Beltway Establishment is that he's a "straight-shooter" and that he isn't a Bush crony-- a big deal with the Democrats "still insistent on getting to the bottom of the U.S. attorney scandal." Let's just hope he doesn't turn out as bad as the last Giuliani crony they tried to foist on us.

SOMEWHAT MAINSTREAMISH EX-JUDGE BEING FORCED DOWN BUSH'S THROAT AS GONZALES REPLACEMENT

When Bush was finally forced to fire his dimwit Attorney General, there was a whole lot of bravado floating around about how he would replace him with another political tool and extremist. There was talk about Chertoff and when they was laughed off the front pages, Ted Olson, perhaps the worst and most divisive possible nomination Bush could make. Harry Reid sent Bush a public message that even he could understand: "no."

Bush decided, despite the desires for GOP extremists for a bloody, knock down battle, that he doesn't want to fight over this one-- especially since he can't win. So instead, he's taking the advice of Chuck Schumer and appointing a consensus candidate, a retired judge named Michael Mukasey, a mainstream conservative rather than a radical rightist or a crony, the two pools Bush draws his appointments from. Neocon asshat William Kristol is signaling his ilk to feign joy over an appointment the extreme right is choking on. Jeralyn has done some research on him and worries that he's too close with the odious Giuliani. Looseheadprop did a stort about her experiences with Mukasey over at FDL. It's going to take one more election before we get appointments that, at best, won't be "Cs" and "Ds" instead of "Fs."


UPDATE: SO MUKASEY IT IS

Bush knew he would never get away with another hapless crony like Gonzales so he went for a mainstream conservative type. No one should expect that Mukasey will be any good but there is some possibility he won't be a future defendent in a treason trial the way Olson would have been. Harry Reid made a balanced statement after Bush announced the nomination

I'm glad President Bush listened to Congress and put aside his plan to replace Alberto Gonzales with another partisan Administration insider.  Judge Mukasey has strong professional credentials and a reputation for independence.  A man who spent 18 years on the federal bench surely understands the importance of checks and balances and knows how to say no to the President when he oversteps the Constitution.

But there should be no rush to judgment.  The Senate Judiciary Committee must carefully examine Judge Mukasey's views on the complex legal challenges facing the nation.  I look forward to meeting Judge Mukasey, and I will work with Chairman Leahy to ensure a full airing of the issues presented by his nomination.

Russ Feingold was a little sterner-- but appropriately so:

The next Attorney General will take over a Justice Department plagued by scandal and low morale. As Attorney General and White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales disregarded statutes, treaties and the Constitution to help this administration consolidate more and more power in the executive branch, and he misled Congress and the American people repeatedly. As a result, Congress and the public now lack confidence in the administration’s commitment to impartial justice. The new Attorney General must make it a top priority to repair the damage done by Alberto Gonzales.

To that end, Judge Mukasey must demonstrate that his first loyalty will be to the rule of law, not to the President. In particular I will be interested in his views on executive power and the need to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans while fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates aggressively. I will also expect Judge Mukasey to commit to reversing the course set by Alberto Gonzales by fully cooperating with ongoing congressional oversight of this administration’s misconduct, and by always telling Congress and the public the truth, starting with his confirmation hearings. Congress, the Department’s many committed employees, and the American people deserve nothing less from their Attorney General.