Town Square

Post a New Topic

Michael Mukasey

Original post made by Tej Uberoi, Los Altos, on Nov 6, 2007

Once again, the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee failed to fully challenge the nominee for Attorney General (AG), Michael Mukasey. Incredibly, Mukasey defended many of President Bush’s most egregious post-9/11 policies, including holding American citizens indefinitely without charge and denying them Habeas Corpus. Although he was harshly critical of the White House memo on torture, Mukasey failed to take a strong position on the grotesque ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques now being employed, such as water-boarding, stripping prisoners, hooding and exposing them to frigid temperatures, subjecting them to savage beatings, sexual humiliation, and shattering ear drums by exposure to loud music.
The confirmation hearings are largely a charade to appease the public into believing that a change of policy will ensue after the new AG is confirmed. Guantanomo detainees will continue to be horribly abused and black rendition sites will be retained to outsource brutal torture activities out of sight of the US media which has largely remained deafeningly silent on such un-American practices. Mukasey even slithered unchallenged by the issue of warrantless, illegal wiretapping and surveillance which clearly violates US law.

Comments (7)

Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 7, 2007 at 4:56 am

The penultimate torture is to deny freedom to someone. The only way to impose imprisonment on someone is by force or threat of force, and the only way to impose necessary compliance with prison regulations is by force or threat of force.
People who wage war against the United States are fortunate to be allowed to live, and people who deny the reality of imprisonment anywhere demonstrate their naivete. When that denial serves the purpose of people who are overtly dedicated to the destruction of our society it becomes an attack on our existence.

Like this comment
Posted by disgusting
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 7, 2007 at 7:06 am

This Congress is the first in history to put political litmus tests on judicial nominees...and the first to have the very people who propose and support a candidate turn around and try to block him. An extremely dangerous precedent. Especially for use as political showmanship, first supporting a nominee behind the scenes, then turning around and working against him.

Pure political grandstanding, an abuse of the job we pay them to do. The amount of work this Congress is actually doing, versus simple games, is why it has the lowest rating ..EVER.

I hope Americans' memories are good for the next election.

Like this comment
Posted by Are you kidding?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2007 at 7:18 am

Disgusting--Are you saying the following with a straight face:

"This Congress is the first in history to put political litmus tests on judicial nominees"

Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 7, 2007 at 8:51 am

The fact that "bork" is now a verb, suggests that litmus tests have been going on for some time. It always seems to be Democrat controlled congresses. The Republicans have, thus far, resisted the urge to block Supreme Court judges, if they are competent.

Like this comment
Posted by Tej Singh
a resident of another community
on Nov 7, 2007 at 9:04 am

Naturally, Gary, it is only democratic controlled congresses that have litmus tests. The republicans, led by their religious right handlers, have no "litmus" tests whatsoever.

Like this comment
Posted by thanks for catching my own knee-jerk
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 7, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Sorry, meant Democrat controlled Congresses are the first to put political litmus tests blah blah blah..because the first worked so well, it has become a knee-jerk reaction.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Los Altos

on Jun 5, 2017 at 5:18 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 16 comments | 4,652 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 1,106 views

This time we're not lying. HONEST! No, really!
By Douglas Moran | 9 comments | 688 views

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 549 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 465 views