Comments (52)

theWalrus wrote on November 6, 2007 10:01 AM:

What makes you think the Bush Administration will abide by some silly "law" outlawing torture?

Funny.

DWD wrote on November 6, 2007 10:02 AM:

Sometimes I feel like a grain of sand trying to beat down a cement wall. I know that eventually it will work, but it is going to take a lot more than me.

jolly ranchero wrote on November 6, 2007 10:03 AM:

"Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) will offer a bill that would specifically outlaw waterboarding -- so that even if we have an attorney general who hedges on whether it's torture, his hands would be tied"

That will be first filibustered and/or veto'd? Are they really that stupid to think they'll get any such restrictive law to pass with this Administration?

I just cannot believe the Dems are this stupid.

phred wrote on November 6, 2007 10:04 AM:

Dear Sen. Kennedy -- Waterboarding is ALREADY illegal, so how exactly will another law put a stop to conduct that is already illegal? And even if you do manage to spook the spooks enough that they lay off the water torture, what might be next? It is really much simpler to outlaw ALL torture.

And while I have your attention, I'm calling your bluff. You Dems think I will vote for you no matter what, 'cause you think the alternative is so much worse. Well, I've got news for you, if you confirm Mukasey and grant immunity to telecoms and continue your utter disregard for the rule of law, you will not get my vote in 2008.

P.S. Senator Schumer, is this really the outcome you want?

phred wrote on November 6, 2007 10:04 AM:

Dear Sen. Kennedy -- Waterboarding is ALREADY illegal, so how exactly will another law put a stop to conduct that is already illegal? And even if you do manage to spook the spooks enough that they lay off the water torture, what might be next? It is really much simpler to outlaw ALL torture.

And while I have your attention, I'm calling your bluff. You Dems think I will vote for you no matter what, 'cause you think the alternative is so much worse. Well, I've got news for you, if you confirm Mukasey and grant immunity to telecoms and continue your utter disregard for the rule of law, you will not get my vote in 2008.

P.S. Senator Schumer, is this really the outcome you want?

The Decider wrote on November 6, 2007 10:06 AM:

The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which declares waterboarding illegal, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct interrogations in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for interrogation specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

NJ Lawyer wrote on November 6, 2007 10:06 AM:

Can someone explain to me why Reid shouldn't be replaced as Majority Leader?

Mr. Antimatter wrote on November 6, 2007 10:07 AM:

"Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) will offer a bill that would specifically outlaw waterboarding -- so that even if we have an attorney general who hedges on whether it's torture, his hands would be tied."

Hmmm, I feel a signing statement coming on.

Charlie Brown goes to kick the football with the usual result. When will the Democrats learn?

Legalize wrote on November 6, 2007 10:10 AM:

Sigh. Waterboarding is already illegal. When this bill fails, on top of approving a pro-waterboarding AG, we'll have the pernicious spectacle of the Senate abbrogating 60 years of legal precedent.

Ferruge wrote on November 6, 2007 10:11 AM:

Nearly a full year later, the Democrats still act like they are the minority party.

I guess it's because when you get down to it, they are. A self-inflicted minority, if you will. Some Dems are basically Republican-lite, still adhering to the idea of go-along-to-get-along, and thinking that they have to seem "fair" and "tough on terror" or some other bilge.

Because of this, I am no longer optimistic about why anything would get any better even with that mythical "veto-proof" majority. It won't matter, because in the end, you'll still have these Dem turncoats who act like Republicans. Repubs vote like a bloc, even in defense of the indefensible, and for whatever stupid reason, some Dems can't resist jumping on that bandwagon of stupid.

TheraP wrote on November 6, 2007 10:12 AM:

And given a signing statement, do we have any idea what Mukasey would believe was lawful - the law or the president?

This is the crucial problem here.

linda wrote on November 6, 2007 10:12 AM:

and wasn't it just dandy that chuck schumer was so obliging to the white house that he actually advised them on how to deceive congress -- via yesterday's froomkin:

"One Democratic aide said Schumer gave the administration guidance about what Mukasey should include in a letter to Democrats on waterboarding. The letter included some of the elements but fell short in key areas, stoking the controversy, the aide said."

Cranky Observer wrote on November 6, 2007 10:13 AM:

Does anyone truly understand why Reid allows the Republicans to filibuster, use holds, and otherwise obstruct the business of the Senate elected in 2006 but stops any Democrat who trys the same?

Cranky

Mafalda Hopkirk wrote on November 6, 2007 10:13 AM:

Thank you, Linda.

Schumer: a Repub mole.

linda wrote on November 6, 2007 10:14 AM:

***Can someone explain to me why Reid shouldn't be replaced as Majority Leader?***

because harry's doing exactly what his benefactors want -- implementation of bush's policies. tough shit what the american people demand.

Drew Rodgers wrote on November 6, 2007 10:20 AM:

After reading this and Schumer's NYT Op-Ed only one thing comes to mind. Cowards!

I'm hearing that Coldplay hit in the back of my head now - you know the one - 'Look at the stars, look how they shine for you, and all the things you do, they were all YELLOW!'

Too many weaselly, unprincipled, spineless, and woefully ineffectual leaders among these Democratic Senators of ours.

I say, 'Throw the bastards out!'

oleeb wrote on November 6, 2007 10:22 AM:

We already have laws AND treaties that outlaw torture (of which waterboarding is one method) so the ruse of a new law outlawing what is already illegal is just a pathetic sideshow of the limp-wristed performance of the alleged Democrats in the US Senate. Any Democratic Senator voting for Mukasey under the circumstances is nothing but a shameless, cowardly whore.

megisi wrote on November 6, 2007 10:22 AM:

We don't need a law outlawing waterboarding.

We need a law outlawing Harry Reid.

DINO, DINO, worse than a wino ...

V wrote on November 6, 2007 10:26 AM:

I agree with Sen. Schumer on this one. The Justice Dept is in horrible disarray now. Mukasey is the best option the dems will have without the appointment of an interim AG. A law for the end to waterboarding will put the administration (and the repubs in Congress) in a difficult position. If it is vetoed or filibustered that is a fight that dems want right now.

workaday joe wrote on November 6, 2007 10:28 AM:

I was roundly slammed a few days ago on this site for saying that Feinstein and Schumer's vote on Mukasey was irrelevant and that the real problem was Democratic leadership. This is pretty much exactly what I was talking about. There's no comprehensive Democratic strategy to oppose Bush, so one day we all pick on Rockefeller, another day it's Feinstein, another day it's Leahy, another day it's Schumer. But the problem is Reid. The Democrats are playing a cynical game of raking in the contributions and trying to win in 2008 with no regard to what happens right now.

In their defense, if a Democrat is elected to the White House, all of this will be overturned on January 21, 2009. But that isn't the point. The point is that Congress needs to stop it now and everyone wants them to stop it now. They are seriously undermining American credibility by being such pussies (sorry) about this. And in the end, the are destroying the Democratic coalition and their own future prospects.

Gary173 wrote on November 6, 2007 10:30 AM:

If the Senate passes a bill into law that makes waterboarding, already a crime, illegal, any prior cases of torture by waterboarding will not be illegal since they were committed prior to the enactment of the law. The Senate will only be verifying the bushevik policy that the procedure was never illegal. The rubber stampers will have a field day exploiting that fact and nail the wimpocrats into eternity for wasting time trying to prove waterboarding illegal, could not, and now had to pass a law making it illegal, thus admitting it was not illegal after harassing the next GREAT AG WHO KNEW IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL. Thanks chuckie and dyeannie

Cranky Observer wrote on November 6, 2007 10:30 AM:

> The Justice Dept is in horrible disarray
> now. Mukasey is the best option the dems
> will have without the appointment of an
> interim AG.

The only people who can hold the Justice Dept together are the few professional apolitical staff members who remain. Rejecting Mukasey would have sent those people a signal that they aren't alone. Confirming Mukasey tells them that the will have no protection from Addington and Cheney and they had best update their wills.

Cranky

Ruffian wrote on November 6, 2007 10:34 AM:

Called Kennedy's office and pointed out if we pass a bill that says its illegal they will say ok no more but it also lets them o the hook for the illegal actions they already did.

agghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

workaday joe wrote on November 6, 2007 10:35 AM:

V says "A law for the end to waterboarding will put the administration in a difficult position."

I understand your point (hope?), but I'm not that optimistic about the strategy. First, the administration really has nothing to lose on this. As other folks have noted on this site, waterboarding is already illegal. There's no reason to think Bush would follow the law in any meaningful way. He'd just get some 30-year-old from Bob Jones University to write a memo saying that it's not illegal and leave it at that.

Also, nothing that the Democrats have done so far makes me think that there is much short-term logic or strategy to what they are doing. They are biding their time until November 2008 when they expect to pick up five more senate seats and probably the White House. Then they'll change things.

kentuck wrote on November 6, 2007 10:35 AM:

The Senate is looking for the easy way out once again. The tragedy is that we have such a large proportion of our citizenry that are ignorant of what these esteemed Senators vote for and against. Otherwise, there would be an almost complete overhaul of the US Senate. Once again they will rationalize and vote against our laws and our Constitution.

Jake D wrote on November 6, 2007 10:36 AM:

Mukasey vote PASSES Judiciary Committee 11 to 9!!!

Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 10:38 AM:

Senator Kennedy really should stay away from the subject of drowning, even if it is only simulated.

Fractal wrote on November 6, 2007 10:41 AM:

This truly sucks. I'm not even sure we are better off knowing all the disgusting details of how cowed and craven the Dem Senators are behaving. Thanks to TPM and Muckraker (and dozens of other blogs) we are hugely better informed, but we haven't really figured out how to leverage our superior knowledge into political success.

Well, except for Blue State Project and Act Blue and Democracy for America and Stand Up Congress and MoveOn.Org . . .

But why do we keep getting our asses kicked like this?

Nedbalzer wrote on November 6, 2007 10:41 AM:

Schumer said he was voting for Mukasey because he was the best nominee we were likely to see out of the Bush administration.

Let's work to ensure that this is the easiest confirmation the Bush administration is likely to see out of this Senate

Jake D wrote on November 6, 2007 10:46 AM:

Make that 11 to 8 (only Schumer and Feinstein came to their senses : )

Art wrote on November 6, 2007 10:48 AM:

"But not to worry: there will be a kind of consolation prize for all those outraged civil liberties groups. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) will offer a bill that would specifically outlaw waterboarding -- so that even if we have an attorney general who hedges on whether it's torture, his hands would be tied."

By even offering such a bill the Dems will AFFIRM the administration's claim that there is a "controversy" or "debate" about whether or not waterboarding is legal or not. This is the same dodge used in connection with the perils of smoking, or the reality of waterboarding, or the teaching of evolution, etc.

Depend on this: every Republican senator who has given lukewarm opposition to waterboarding will refuse to override that veto, because of alleged national security concerns.

I hate to say it, but the Democratic party's current officeholders need to be turned out of office in the primaries.

Every. Last. One. Of. Them. Even the so-called "good" ones.

Replace them with senators and congresspersons who actually have convictions, and the courage to stand for them.

V wrote on November 6, 2007 11:06 AM:

All of the shock expressed on this page that democrats in Congress aren't behaving more defiantly seems naive. We have a two party system of government. There is no real opposition in this country. The Congress is the most dysfunctional political institution in America. The nomination of a replacement for AG isn't the place for the dems to be pressured into making a stand. Funding for the war in Iraq is where the pressure should be placed.
Put Mukasey in office, continue to investigate the dept of justice (especially the replacement of states' attorney generals and the politicization of the civil rights office).
Until we have some kind of viable multi-party government the sickness will continue unabated.

Evan wrote on November 6, 2007 11:09 AM:

If congress tries to pass a law that waterboarding is torture, it would be imply that it currently is not illegal, which would also let Bush off the hook. But so does consenting to an AG who is already committed to letting Bush slide.

Waiting For Godot wrote on November 6, 2007 11:22 AM:

When people say waterboarding is already a crime under U.S. law they mean this (via Marty Lederman at Balkinization):

-- On July 6, 1955, the Senate unanimously gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the Geneva Conventions, each of which (in Article 3, which applies to al Qaeda detainees) categorically prohibits "torture" (not to mention "cruel treatment").

-- On October 27, 1990, the Senate unanimously gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention Against Torture, article 2(1) of which obligated the United States to "take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction."

-- In compliance with article 2(1) of the CAT, in 1994 the Senate and House approved, and on April 30, 1994 President Clinton signed, the Torture Act, which categorically prohibits torture outside the United States (18 U.S.C. 2340A(a)).

-- And it's not as if torture was legal even before the Senate, House and President acted on these instruments. As the Supreme Court recently explained, under international law (including the laws of war binding on the executive branch), the flat ban on torture is among the handful of international law norms with the greatest "definite content and acceptance among civilized nations": Even for purposes of civil liability, "the torturer has become–like the pirate and slave trader before him–hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind".

This would make the Feinstein explanation that he promised to comply with the law - just as soon as the Kennedy bill banning waterboarding explicitly is passed something of a bitter joke, not withstanding the recent story of the Daniel Levin self exposure to a waterboarding, something Mukasy must certainly be at least aware of.

In May of this year, Josh said in a TPMtv episode that were Gonzales to be removed by Bush, there almost certainly be a bloody fight for his successor. I'd say the breathtaking Democratic capitulation is in free fall and was so right from the beginning with the first military expenditure fight.

At what point does the progressive element in the Democratic congress stage a thoughtful, coordinated revolt against the leadership?

romath wrote on November 6, 2007 11:27 AM:

Could it be that a large section of the Democrats support torture?! After all, look how Hillary hems and haws, even after 6 years of it under Bush. And it even took the supposedly liberal Feingold a long time to announce his vote against Mukasey. Of course, no surprise from Dixie Diane (SF flew the Confederate flag when she was mayor).

When friends tell me about voting for the Democrats, I ask on which grounds: torture, the Iraq war, warrantless eavesdropping, PATRIOT Act, effective doing away with habeus corpus, not doing much to stop most of Bush's White Citizens Council judicial appointments, etc.

jvill wrote on November 6, 2007 11:36 AM:

ADVERTISEMENT

Do you want to be a politician?

Do you completely lack any political skill or strategic thought?

Do your co-workers call you a "pushover"?

Does your wife or husband constantly tell you to stand up for yourself and "quit being such a pussy"?

Are you unable to capitalize in the slightest way as your opponents endure an historic collapse?

Then come on over to the Democratic Party!

We've got plenty of room for pushovers, empty bluster, whining and a complete lack of follow-through! If you like politics but haven't the foggiest clue how to behave and negotiate politically, we've got a job for you!

You can earn your Leadership Badge in as little as THREE WEEKS!

Plus: As a special bonus for signing up now you'll get a free year's subscription to Acquiesce Magazine, and a free inflatable Republican Tom DeLay doll to reprimand (Don't worry, it doesn't talk back! Ha Ha!).

So sign-up now!

(Rocks thrown through your windows by an outraged public not included.)

anonymouse wrote on November 6, 2007 11:44 AM:

Anyone see a trend of our nation becoming more and more violent, aggressive, unforgiving... lethal?

We haven't seen anything yet. Just wait until the next couple of generations of kids grow up... learning very well what we are teaching them...

Johan wrote on November 6, 2007 11:50 AM:

I find if baffling how arrogant the Democrats have become. I always believed that arrogance, ignorance, was the specialty of the White House and the Republican party.
Do they really believe that we, the voters, who have spend a lot of money supporting the Democrats in the last election will put up with this bullsh...
The whole Democratic leadership is worthless. Cowardice does not even start to describe their reaction.
They resemble the old Vichy government in France, who also believed that cooperating with the dictator might get them some crumbs.

biggerbox wrote on November 6, 2007 12:08 PM:

Perhaps when Congress gets finished with Kennedy's bill outlawing waterboarding, it can move on to other important legislation, like a law saying specifically that shooting a bound and unarmed prisoner through the head is illegal, once the White House starts saying that the definition of murder is complicated, and the AG hasn't been 'read into' the classified information about the program?

When the evil-doers are willing to deny the historical definition of words and play ridiculous word games by saying that things are not what they are, passing laws that say "They are so!" is always going to be one step behind.

Harry wrote on November 6, 2007 12:19 PM:

That is it. As a California Democrat, I pledge no more support for Diane Feinstein and I wrote her over the weekend to tell her so. I am so disheartened that torture has now become the bipartisan policy of America. So very sad.

Mary wrote on November 6, 2007 12:22 PM:

Hey, while they're at it, why doesn't Congress pass laws that say:

1. The President is limited to serving two four year terms;

2. That we have three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial;

3. That searches and seizures by the Executive need warrants; and

4. There's immunity and cookies in the green room for anyone who violated 1-3.

Moi wrote on November 6, 2007 12:23 PM:

You know, sometimes I think I just can't continue to read about this stuff in any detail. It's too disheartening. I have to focus on other things for my own sanity. Yet I know that then becomes part of the problem -- the public apathy. Our government is broken, to say the least. After one has sent so many letters to representatives, all of which are simply ignored, what else is left to do?

Mary wrote on November 6, 2007 12:24 PM:

What they seriously need to do is pass a law that clarifies the fact that OLC opinions have no legal force and effect and may not be used for a defense of reasonable reliance with respect to the commission of felonies and give it retroactive effect.

ron wrote on November 6, 2007 12:41 PM:

Harry Reid wears silk panties!

Mauimom wrote on November 6, 2007 1:02 PM:

When last I checked, there wasn't a raving mob outside the Capitol, torches blazing & pitchforks waving, shouting for Mukasey's confirmation.

So WHAT are the sheeple Democrats responding to?

How easy for the Republicans: they don't even have to "fight" the Democrats. Dems will just fold on their own.

Someone out there -- could we get a filibuster?

Carolyn wrote on November 6, 2007 1:17 PM:

I never thought I would come to this but Diane Feinstein has finally lost my vote. The Independent Party should start looking around for a great candidate. What a shoe in the door this would be for them. By the way, thanks to the guy who put Kennedy on notice about Mukasey's purpose in proposing legislation re: illegality of waterboarding. I agree. It will be used to let past crimes off the hook. As he said, IT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL.

714Day wrote on November 6, 2007 2:00 PM:

Feinstein is a piece of work. Unfortunately, she is one of my Senators and is an institution in the state. She's likely to hold office as long as Strom Thurmond did if she can perambulate long enough.
She has consistently come down on the wrong side of the aisle on critical votes.
I cannot believe that she and Schumer both "justify" their yeas with the fact that Bush is not likely to offer anything better.
SO WHAT!!!! That means they have to give their imprimatur?
Ridiculous.
What remarkable fools pull our strings.

Reb Yudel wrote on November 6, 2007 2:06 PM:

Thanks, Chuck, Diane & Hank. You made it a lot easier for me to celebrate Election Day (all the kids home from school) by crumpling up my sample ballot and not going to vote. Freeholders and assemblymen are not important enough posts for me to put aside my repugnance at voting for a Democrat today.

bwindrip wrote on November 6, 2007 2:59 PM:

So, we just let another one slide, and hope that after January 9th democracy and respect for our Constitution will be restored.

Bullshit.

Simple, naieve, Pollyanna bullshit.

After almost 8 years of grabbing power and subverting our Constitution, do you honestly believe that these fascist asshats are just going to revolve into private sector jobs and let the democrats undo all their hard work?

Sure. And those guys in the black shirts are just crossing guards.

JoyceH wrote on November 6, 2007 4:08 PM:

Congress outlawed torture, despite the fact that it was already illegal - Bush renamed it 'enhanced interrogation' and kept right on doing it.

If Congress outlaws waterboarding, despite the fact that it's already illegal, Bush will just rename it 'horizontal liquid persuasion' and keep right on doing it.

steambadger wrote on November 6, 2007 4:53 PM:

> Mukasey is the best option the dems
> will have without the appointment of an
> interim AG.

Well, that's what Chuck and Di would have us believe; Mukasey is a clear-headed, independent judicial tough guy, who will clean up the mess in the Justice Department through the sheer force of his will. Unfortunately, it doesn't to be true, based on how quickly he caved to apparent administration pressure after the first day of hearings.

More importantly: it's not what matters right now. What matters is whether our country is going to continue down the disastrous, foolish and immoral path the Bushies have set us on. At this time in our history, nobody who refuses to condemn torture uneqivocally is morally qualified to be the Attorney General of the United States. And a Democratic Party that doesn't understand that isn't qualified to lead.

Dread Pirate Robert wrote on November 6, 2007 6:19 PM:

So what law has the government been using to convict people of waterboarding/"the water cure"/Chinese water torture for the last hundred years? Teddy Roosevelt said it was illegal and used existing laws to convict people, Douglas MacArthur said it was illegal and convicted Japanese officers (and their conscripted assistants) of torture, and they even convicted some Texas cops of waterboarding torture in 1983...

They don't need a new law, they need to put existing lawbreakers (Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Addington, etc.) in jail for breaking existing laws.