Civil Liberty Sununu Stands By his Principles

Congratulations to our new AG: NotAlbertoGonzales (4.00 / 1)

Don't forget, jumping overboard with our good friend Chuck was Sen. Diane Feinstein (also not Alberto Gonzales)


It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 06:54:15 AM CST

Sununu, Gregg, Schumer and a host of others. (0.00 / 0)

What these people don't seem to understand is that the rule of law is set up to restrict the actions of the agents of government.  It's not just a matter of writing rules and regulations down instead of having them be issued as diktats.  It's a matter of the powers of government resting with the people and being delegated to our agents on a restricted basis.
The other side of this issue that they, perhaps on purpose, overlook is that the responsibilities of the agents are whatever the people demand.

In other words, the powers of the agents of government are limited; their responsibilities to perform assigned functions are not.

The problem we have is that the only remedy we have, when the agents of government engage in acts that haven't been permitted or fail to perform their duties, is to dismiss them.

Mukasey's apparent belief that the agents of government can do whatever hasn't been specifically prohibited is worrisome.  But, it's probably because his career has been in dealing with the criminal and civil law, rather than the Constitution.

---

by: hannah @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 07:04:32 AM CST

Civil v. human right (0.00 / 0)

BTW, protection from torture is not a civil right; it's a human right.  Civil rights refer to the individual citizen's right to take an active part in the government--voting, holding office, taking part in the legislative process.  Civil rights are a sub-category of human rights.

The problem we have with torture being carried out in the name of the state is that the typical motivation for an individual crime (personal benefit or revenge) is lacking.
If these acts are being ordered by superiors in violation of international treaties, which have the same authority as the Constitution itself, then that's a violation of the superior's oath of office and cause for removal.

BTW, it seems to be a recognized defense for public officials on the local government level that actions they took in their official capacity that had/have been supported by legal advice are ipso facto legal and the officials are protected from personal liability.  I doubt, considering the number of judicial decisions which have found this advice to have been bad, that Bush/Cheney is going to be able to use that excuse much longer.  Moreover, in a contest with the legislative branch which actually promulgates the laws which judges review, it's largely a matter of what the executive can get away with without being found in contempt.

---

by: hannah @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 07:41:01 AM CST

some didn't vote at all (0.00 / 0)

Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
McCain (R-AZ)


NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 10:21:20 AM CST

Abstained or didn't show? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 10:23:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't know (0.00 / 0)

and I see absolutely no difference between abstaining or not showing. Either way they tacitly condone torture by not voting against Mukasey.

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 10:26:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

In other words (0.00 / 0)

every Presidential candidate in the Senate skipped it.

And none of them made a phone call to a colleague: "I won't be back in time - can you please put a hold on the nomination?"

The entire Democratic caucus is behind this. They wanted to vote against him without blocking his confirmation.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 10:36:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Nope, at least one did (0.00 / 0)

And Reid (or surrogate) said no:

http://tpmelectionce...

This was Reid's horse-trading for a separate defense funding bill so that he can attempt to defund the war again on a supplemental.

Not a trade I'd make, but there's no story here against these candidates. If they could have made it back, it would have been gold -- a shoe to beat people with. It was arranged so that they wouldn't. It was particularly arranged so that rare chance that Dodd might filibuster was avoided.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 19:09:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm missing it, Mike (0.00 / 0)

I read the piece. It says some of them were surprised the vote was being called.

It doesn't say any of the candidates called a sympathetic colleague - Kennedy, Sanders, Boxer, etc - and said "Slow this down."

Which any of them could have done, and did not.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 19:22:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well one called leadership (0.00 / 0)

But, this source says, the leadership told this Senator's staff that they could not promise to hold the vote for his return. Leadership said that the vote would happen at the end of debate whether or not this senator got back in time for it, this source tells us. So this senator gave up the effort to return for the vote.

But as far as a sympathetic colleague, aren't the numbers against that? Meaning cold they prevent cloture? You tell me, I'm asking for real.

I am not ruling out that there may be more to it, who knows what Reid told them on the phone regarding his Iraq plan -- maybe he did convince them trading a lost vote for a chance to defund the war was a good trade. I don't know.

This would have been the feather in the cap of anyone that made the vote -- I just don't think it was about campaigning. How much would have Obama given to beat Hillary on the head with this? Or Biden to hit everybody else with it? Or Dodd? etc.

There's more to this story, I'd wait a couple of days. The horse-trade may have come with some assurances, for example, that Dem leadership will push this defunding bill as far as it will go.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 20:28:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Could they prevent cloture? (0.00 / 0)

It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture, as I understand it. It's 3/5ths of the Senate, not of those voting.

So with 53 votes for Mukasey, his supporters were 7 votes short of ending debate - if someone had challenged the "unanimous consent" to not filibuster.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 21:18:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

forgot one (0.00 / 0)

Obama didn't vote either.

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 10:25:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Seems its time for a Congressional resolution definiing waterboarding as torture. (0.00 / 0)

Surely THAT would pass?

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 10:24:19 AM CST

Yawn. (0.00 / 0)

And then be vetoed.

That's the next bit of theater Schumer, Kerry, and Harkin are talking about.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 10:34:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Can't be vetoed. . . . (0.00 / 0)

Congressional resolutions aren't subject to a President's signature.

Note:  Ted Kennedy introduced S. 1943 a few months ago, which would establish uniform standards for interrogation techniques applicable to individuals under the custody or physical control of the United States Government.  Looks like an expanded version of the weak compromise that McCain fostered a couple of years ago. . . . Hasn't gone anywhere yet.  Of course, that CAN -- and would -- be vetoed.
 

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 11:05:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're half right (0.00 / 0)

Not all Congressional resolutions are subject to a President's signature.  There are some that only involve one House or the other (amending rules, throwing out a Member, etc), and some that Congress has sole authority over (the Congresonal Gold Medal, censuring the President, renovating the Capitol building and grounds, etc), but anything that has the force of law needs to be signed by the President.  A concurrent resolution (not the same as a joint resolution) saying "waterboarding is torture" asserts the opinion of the Congress, but it doesn't define anything in law.

I was the overenthusiastic head of my high school's Model UN program, hence my peculiarly thorough knowledge of parliamentary procedure.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 11:16:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oops - I misread (0.00 / 0)

I thought we were talking about legislation - which is what Schumer, Kerry and Harkin have proposed.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 11:27:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

For now, no new torture laws (0.00 / 0)

Let the laws on the books stand!

Schumer the Stooge (and a note on Elwood's resignation)
by: Mike Caulfield
"Which is great, because that means that in addition to providing retroactive immunity to wiretappers, Chucky can now provide retroactive immunity to torturers, by providing a bill that basically affirms the insane assertion of this administration that there is no precedent that prohibits torture.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 10:55:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Fingernails (0.00 / 0)

Didn't need them anyway

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 18:32:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jay Buckey says no to Mukasey (0.00 / 0)

Jay issued a statement earlier this evening, expressing his disappointment in the Senate's confirmation of Mukasey for AG.

Here's an excerpt:

Buckey said that he doesn't question Mukasey's intelligence or qualifications, but he's concerned about  the Attorney General's  backbone, and he would have voted against Mukasey's confirmation...

"The Attorney General should have the strength of character to stand up to the administration and define water boarding as torture, " said Buckey. "Terrorists  present difficult issues, but we have to expect our Attorney General to uphold the Constitution. This is a time for clarity and having the courage to stand  for what we believe in."</>

Change is inevitable, but progress is not. Working together, we can make sure that change = progress. And that's what makes us progressive...

---

by: KarenLH @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 21:17:35 PM CST