November 9, 2007
Democrats Surrender on Torture (Brent Budowsky)
Mr. Smith has left Washington and Mr. Orwell has arrived.
First, let’s be crystal-clear about how the Democrats threw a vote they would have won on Michael Mukasey and torture and let’s be clear about why this happened.
Others and I were privately advocating a filibuster against Mukasey’s attorney general confirmation bid, and would have needed 41 votes to prevail. At a minimum the filibuster could have forced Bush to accept a waterboarding and torture ban as a condition of confirmation.
Democrats had 40 votes against confirmation last night plus the four presidential candidates who did not vote. Democrats had 43 or 44 “no” votes adding the presidential candidates and, had these senators had the conviction to filibuster, would have won.
As of Thursday morning the vote would have been taken next week with some talk of delay until December. Once it became apparent that there were 43 to 44 “no” votes if the presidential candidates were present, with the weekend coming to increase pressure, the vote was jammed through late at night, a week ahead of schedule.
Of course, by late last night, the BBC World Service was correctly broadcasting to the world that the Senate had confirmed Mukasey with all of the objections to his position on torture that were stated, but surrendered, yet again, by Democrats.
George Washington spoke with fury against torture. Commanders of every military service, throughout every generation of Americans, during every war ever fought, were adamantly against torture. Military JAG lawyers have defied higher authorities in opposition to torture. Gen. Taguba defied higher authorities to courageously speak out against the continuing cover-up of Abu Ghraib.
Yet the Senate’s contribution to our troops on Veterans Day is to create more harm for them, as messages are beamed to the world, that even the Democratic Senate cannot make a stand against torture, even when 70 percent of America agrees, even when they had the votes to win.
Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), one of the leading neoconservative advocates of the catastrophic Iraq war, who only recently succeeded in defining the Senate’s position on Iran, is now attacking Democrats for having too much principle, and fighting too hard.
What is incredible about Lieberman is his lack of modesty considering how much carnage, chaos and bloodshed has resulted from his catastrophically bad judgment on Iraq and his arrogance in attacking those who have been the most right.
Yesterday was a new low for Democrats, who surrendered the fight they would have won and were morally obligated to make, on torture, and for Lieberman, who attacks Democrats for being too strong, at the exact moment of their weakest of many surrenders.
Mr. Smith has left Washington, George Orwell has arrived, and 70 percent of the nation must now consider what to do, with Washington in such overwhelming disrepute directed at both sides of the aisle.
27 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Brent: Have you ever considered you've aligned yourself with a bunch of losers?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — November 9, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
[…] the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback. ‹ Biofuels Talk Conservatism and the Welfare State› […]
Pingback by Democrats Surrender on Torture | Political news - democrats republicans socialists greens liberals conservatives — November 9, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
Brent: The Dems could have easily filibustered Mukasey's nomination and they didn't. None of them had the cahones to do it. Support the immediate impeachment of Cheney and Bush. That will solve the problem.
Comment by JJ — November 9, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
[…] Democrats Surrender on Torture […]
Pingback by Make Them Accountable / Brent Budowsky: Democrats Surrender — November 9, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
What I find interesting is that all of the Senators who are running for President, including Mr. McCain, did not think the nomination was important enough for them to take some time out of their campaign and do their job and vote on the nomination. They all skipped the vote!
Comment by Laurence Socci — November 9, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
RR
Have you ever considered that only cowards support, endorse, or order torture to be carried out?
Is it acceptable to rape, torture or murder children if trying to get information from their parents?
And what remedies are available to those wrongly tortured, do they get to carry out the same techniques, with the same severity, on those who ordered and carried out the wrongful torture in the first place?
Those are questions the torture-frenzied lunatics never answer, let alone logically
Of course, the irony here is that these powers of torture will NOT drop by the wayside when W leaves office, his successor will have those powers as well, and if it's, say, a President Hillary, then there should be no neocon outcry about how immoral torture is as an official US strategy
In other words, if the blabbering W brigade doesn't want their turn under the torture and warrantless spying microscope in the future, then speak now or forever hold your tongue
So sad that there are so many in our society who wet themselves in terror every time they read or hear the word "terrorist", truly, these sniveling, whimpering, torture-loving W sheeple add nothing to our society, and the sooner they're rightfully repudiated at the ballot box, the better off our Constitution, and country, will be
Comment by KingCranky — November 9, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
King Cranky: Give me one example where we are torturing children. As usual, you go to extremes, to end up nowhere.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — November 9, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
On behalf of terrorists everywhere we would like to thank the United States Government for blessing our methods of social control. I would like to say that waterboarding is perfectly acceptable to us and we shall respond with some lovely beheadings of US soldiers in the near future.
Comment by Bob the terrorist — November 9, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Clearly there is something about the Shumer/Mukasey connection that has not seen the light of day yet.
Comment by Igor R. — November 9, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
DunceCranky. Go the the corner you ingorant fool. You make sheeple look good compared to Bush hatemongers and the anti-war left. Pack up and go where its better. Nnnaaa. Life is to good allowing me to spew this crap. First ammendment right, right? Enjoy it while it lasts.
Comment by John B — November 9, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
As must've been reported everywhere by the mainstream media, a 23-year-old Heathrow Airport worker who called herself the "Lyrical Terrorist" became the first woman to be convicted under new terrorism legislation this week in England. Here's an extract from her poem "How to behead". Read it, and maybe you'll realize that it's not waterboarding we should be worried about.
"It's not as messy or as hard as some may think
It's all about the flow of the wrist
Sharpen the knife to its maximum
And before you begin to cut the flesh
Tilt the fools head to its left
Saw the knife back and forth"
"No doubt that the punk will twitch and scream
But ignore the donkey's ass
And continue to slice back and forth
You'll feel the knife hit the wind and food pipe
- But Don't Stop -
Continue with all your might
About now you should feel the knife vibrate
You can feel the warm heat being given off
But this is due to the friction being caused."
Comment by Igor R. — November 9, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
I didn't think the blabbering W lackeys here would be able to answer some very simple questions, and I was right
Not a surprise in the least, because by not answering the questions, they prove they have NO problems with the scenarios I asked about
And again, since they didn't respond to this one question, I ask, what remedies apply to someone who's wrongly tortured?
The unwillingness to answer or even acknowledge that question speaks volumes about the cowardice of those who support, endorse or order torture
Try again lil' troopers, but this time, how about actually answering the questions, instead of engaging in your usual, easily-debunked spin
Oh, and RR, the allegations of torturing or raping children, in front of their parents, were made during the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, so do try to keep up, it's not THAT difficult
At least for MOST people it's not
And last I checked, the 1st Amendment still applies, no matter how much W sheeple like JohnB above may wish otherwise
Comment by KingCranky — November 9, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
It's enough, (isn't it?) that the demos saved the filibuster,
we know now that there was never a thought to actually use it!
Saving the filibuster was the only real victory demos have had in the past 7 years. And it is not that they have tried—but the bending over is so hard to do, made somewhat easier when they retrieve the cash shoved under the door.
Comment by Cole Epstein — November 9, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
Patriots don't torture because torture is un-American and ineffective. Neocons (from both wings of the Corporatic Party) need torture to create false evidence to justify war profiteering. Most neocons don't particularly want thousands of dead GI's - it's just an unfortunate cost of doing evil.
Comment by Mike5000 — November 9, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
I see you haven't joined your Racist Theocrat brethren in Israel yet Rosenscrans. Please take the Schumer and Feinstein with you. Your are all immoral cowards and your rampant hypocrisy renders your opinions invalid and irrelevant. Your kind is inherently weak and will be crushed uner the wheels of revolution any day now. Believe it. You are the vermin squished under my shoe.
Comment by VettaKing — November 9, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
The democratic senators running for the nomination are spineless. Read the following post. it is hardhitting and straight forward.
www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/a-devastating-failure_b_71969.html
Comment by Karen Green — November 9, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
Justice is not a difficult concept to grasp, however, the tribunal trials are anything but. Trading our transparent, independent legal judicial proceedings for the continuation of unduly secretive and unfair tribunals is a travesty of Justice.
Mukasey will prove equally as contentious as Gonzales or maybe worse. It is not just his feigning "ignorance" on waterboarding and torture, he upholds detentions, unlimited executive power, and tribunals, the SCOTUS ruled illegal.
Bush got his Gonzales with Mukasey. Notwithstanding that may prove more harmful to Bush and the rest of his administration in the long run as evidenced by 5 law suits pending against Rumsfeld in several countries.
A couple of weeks ago charges were filed in a French court against Rumsfeld for authourizing interrogation techniques that led to the abuse and torture at Guantánamo, Iraq and other US-run prisons. While Rummy was on French soil when the suit was filed meant he was under French jurisdiction whereby the courts had to comply with the law. Had Rumsfeld not fled, France would have had to decide whether to prosecute Rumsfeld in France or extradite him to a place where he could be prosecuted.
That is the fifth time similar charges have been filed against Rumsfeld. One, of two suits filed in Germany, is on appeal, the other was dismissed on grounds Rumsfeld's criminality is an internal US matter. A law suit in Argentina and one in Sweden remain pending. However because France is heavily obligated to prosecute war crimes committed against humanity indicate the charges are more significant.
So shielding Bush and/or being a "Yes" man, Mukasey in the long run might be more of a liability to the administration than realized. Currently Bush and co. fail to recognize that.
Do note though that Mukasey's job as the AG is to protect the people's interests whereas separate legal advisory Councils counsel the WH.
Last Friday Federal district Judge John C. Coughenour addressed what concerns him more than Mukasey's views on "what constitutes illegal torture" is "his philosophy … of the judiciary's role in prosecuting the war on terror." [both equally and vitally important are part-n-parcel of the same thing].
Coughenour did not argue against Mukasey's appointment, he simply pointed to where they differ. After personally presiding over the trial of Ahmed Ressam in 2001, Coughenour maintains the US court system proved well-equipped to handle terrorist cases.
On the other hand Mukasey's op-ed in the WSJ last August had this to say,
"our legal system is “strained and mismatched,” and implored Congress to consider “several proposals for a new adjudicatory framework.” Judge Mukasey suggested we strike a different balance between civil liberties and national security in terrorism cases. "
Our Justice system successfully worked for over two-hundred years.
The administration, for 6 years, by claiming national security and states secrets obstructed US courts from holding trials kept the public from hearing testimony that might embarrass and/or uncover possible illegal activities. Mukasey's plans, based on his testimony and past comments, will allow the unduly weighted tribunals to continue under the cloak of secrecy.
Understand, Bush's secret military tribunals are explicitly designed to render guilty verdicts. The prosecution is permitted to submit secret evidence and/or information gained by coercion not privy to the defendant makes it impossible to prepare a defense. Often defendants are not even told what they are charged with. How can an individual defend himself against charges or build a defense refuting evidence submitted by the prosecution unbeknownst to the defendant?
Proving one's innocence is virtually unfeasible and unrealistic. Rarely do individuals beat the odds, but are often tried again, sometimes 3 times, if they do. The involuntary forfeiture of legal, civil and human rights is a travesty of justice under any circumstance and rulings made under such egregious conditions are an abomination to justice.
Bringing Justice to bear necessitates a just and fair trial for all individuals.
The breadth of injustice that spread unrestrained and unfettered through out the military tribunal system rests on the absence of transparency. As long as military tribunals remain hidden from public view heightens the certainty of injustice becomes the norm rather than the exception — it may take a decade, it may take a couple of years. Nevertheless a silent society portends the emergence of an unfair, secretive legal system rife with injustice.
Mukasey unequivocally maintains the theory of "unitary" presidential powers — I don't have the exact quote, but in no uncertain terms stated the president could act outside the law if it meant protecting the nation.
Therein what led to Rumsfeld's troubles will likewise apply to Bush and other administration officials. One day those whom served or are serving in the Bush administration will not be able to leave the US without fear of prosecution.
Thus the onus is on Mukasey to build an independent DoJ that will say no to an executive branch bent on breaking with traditions seeped in meting out just and fair law for all. But what are the chances of that: slim at best ….
Meanwhile the whole world is watching.
Justice prevails under the law. Acting outside the law to do harm to others has neither moral standing nor reason. If Mukasey tries but fails to compel the administration to change, what are considered, illegal procedures may exonerate him, but if he fails without trying he will be complicit in perpetuating America's travesty of Justice while betraying the very people he is supposed to protect.
Comment by serena1313 — November 10, 2007 @ 5:26 am
Actually Igor there is a Giuliani/Mukasey connection.
Comment by serena1313 — November 10, 2007 @ 5:33 am
In case you want to know who vetted Mukasey in the first place:
by emptywheel
"Here's an interesting question from Dick Durbin to Mukasey. It addresses whom the Administration felt it needed to give buy-in before nominating Judge Mukasey:
11. According to the Washington Post, before you were confirmed you "spent part of the weekend meeting with leading figures in the conservative world, seeking to allay their concerns about [your] philosophy and suitability for running [the] Justice Department."
a. With whom did you meet?
ANSWER: Prior to the announcement of my nomination, I met with former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Lee Casey, Leonard Leo, David Rivkin, Jay Sekulow, and Edward Whelan.
b. Who asked you to take these meetings?
ANSWER: Officials within the White House. I cannot remember the specific individuals.
So:
* A former Attorney General implicated in Iran-Contra and additional corruption allegations.
* Casey and Rivkin, a one-two team serving as the public intellectuals defending the unitary executive
* Leo, the Executive VP of the Federalist Society alleged to have been involved in the Civil Rights Division politicization
* Sekulow, the Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, one of the brains behind the Terry Schiavo circus, and someone with his own ethical challenges
* Ed Whelan, himself a bit of a public intellectual for the right, not to mention a former OLC lawyer when most of the crap was written and–my personal favorite–a former Senior Vice President of Verizon"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Meese
http://findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qt=%22Lee+A.+Casey%22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Sekulow
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1130499506270
http://bench.nationalreview.com/author/?q=MTUwOA==
Comment by serena1313 — November 10, 2007 @ 5:34 am
VettaKing: What size shoes do you wear?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — November 10, 2007 @ 8:47 am
Brent,
Watching the Dems "surrender" isn't exactly news. It's a re-run. Are your writers on strike too? The only senator you criticize by name–Lieberman–isn't even a Dem!
How about the four Dem presidential candidates who didn't vote? How about Reid, who waived the normal 60-vote criteria that he gives the Repubs on anti-Bush bills and thus allowed the bill to pass? Who blocked the filibuster, Reid? Did he make a secret deal with the Repubs over another bill, defense spending perhaps?
Brent, you've got to do better than this. Kicking Lieberman around is too easy. You've got to kick ass and name names (Dem names).
I think that you're still in denial that the Dems can be as bad as they really are. Wake up and smell the coffee, Brent!
Comment by Don Bacon — November 10, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Serena, but why was Schumer so much for him, seemingly out of character?
Comment by Igor R. — November 10, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Igor, Iam not sure why Schumer was so heavily invested in Mukasey. According to his comments he seemed to believe Mukasey was qualified for the job and would be the closest they could come to filling the position with someone of integrity.
On the second day of testimony when Mukasey's testimony diverged from his testimony from the day before, Schumer should have spoken out, but didn't. That in and of itself is troubling and does not reflect well on either Mukasey's integrity or Schumer's silence.
I would also tend to say that Schumer may have felt he would lose face for initially promoting Mukasey only to then back down later? Nevertheless I think it made him appear weak for not admitting he made a mistake or admitting he had changed his mind. I suppose it was a political hot potato, but I would rather a lawmaker place conscience above politics. Fat chance, eh? LOL
Notwithstanding Schumer did seem to sincerely believe Mukasey would be independent of the executive branch — a choice everyone could live with. Obviously he was mistaken. Iam not aware of any past history between the two of them. But that does not mean none exist.
Although it is not that unusual for Feinstein to surrender to the opposition, but considering her husband has several lucrative government contracts that presumably might be jeopardized, her vote is equally troubling. Obviously there is a conflict of interest. One has to wonder if that influences her votes? …
And the rest is history or so they say …
FYI:
The fact that Mukasey is a consultant on Giuliani's campaign is also disconcerting. (self-explanatory).
Comment by serena1313 — November 10, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
WHAT'S WRONG WITH BRINGING THIS TO THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE FOR AN ENDORESMENT-RESOLUTION VOTE, BRENT? YOU KNOW, REAL-QUICK–LIKE THE 'CONDEMN MOVE-ON.ORG' "RESOLUTION"?
DUH-FACTOR TEN: WE ASK IT TO PUT GOP ON THE SPOT…
POISON-TIPPED ARROWS LEFT IGNORED IN OUR QUIVER?
HERE'S YET ANOTHER TO STARE AT WITH A WHITE-FLAGGED HALF-MAST 'PASSIVE PROGRESSIVE' DO-NOTHING STARE…your 'eyeprints' are on this too, Brent…
'derlection of duty'–inasmuch as (get past the napping-at-the-wheel failure-of-nerve-AND-imagination) it remains a PAYLOADED, WEAPONS-GRADE, MORALLY BULLET-PROOF NO BRAINER QUESTION OF CHARACTER, HONOR, "$ACRIFICE" FROM GOP "MARTIAL PLANNERS"–A TROJAN HORSE 'SPECIAL-DELIVERY' TO THE GOP MULTI-MILLIONAIRE WAR-CABINET ACHILLE'S HEEL:
WOULD YOU (From Bush & Cheney to Rove & Bremer!) AGREE TO SURRENDER ON DEMAND ANY PERSONAL PROFIT TRACEABLE TO ANY WAR ON YOUR WATCH FOR LIFE–YES OR NO–
Artist General: Ghost in the War Machine (Who Ya Gonna Call)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYe7D6hJtRU
"Truthdig" Blogment / scroll down from poem (FIRE WHISPERERS) to PROPOSAL : #103556 / Artist General]
"Artist General's Warning:
Recu$al question could be bad for Bush's political health…
The question is this:
Will you agree never to accept any personal profits flowing from any military action you authorize or promote?
… Who knows, maybe mainstream journalists might even begin questioning why a war cabinet of Texas oilmen lied their way into occupying some of the most oil-rich regions of the world. Or maybe that's asking too much. "
–Steven T. Jones, San Francisco Bay Guardian
reposted @: http://www.kyndmusic.com/2006/07/01/artist-general-warning-recusal-question-bad-for-bush/
Comment by Artist General — November 11, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
KingCranky: I asked you for one specific true example. You gave me a generalization. Are you a pathological liar?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — November 13, 2007 @ 7:33 am
Yeah, the leftist have to lie about everything. Can you beleive it? The gall of these haters.
Mukasey will restore the rule of law. I'm confident.
Dubya has gotten some bum people during these times of hardship and war. Yet, Dubya is resolute and illustrates the intellect of a genius before his time. If people could just understand.
Comment by GOP Timmy — November 13, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
Uh…..OK Timmy. You must be right. He does exhibit many signs of genius!!???,,,,…
Comment by Chris Calbi — November 16, 2007 @ 6:24 am