Reid declare potential AG 'unconfirmable'

[Balta1701]

Well, I'll just consider this the AG thread:

For more than 25 years, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement authorities say they have suspected the New York-based Alavi Foundation is a "front" for Iranian espionage and anti-American activities.

 

For more than 25 years, court records show the foundation has been publicly defended and represented by the New York law firm where attorney-general nominee Michael Mukasey is a partner: Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

 

The foundation says the firm continues to represent it.

 

Mukasey personally handled at least one matter in court for the foundation.

 

That case, a real estate dispute, began in 1981 when reports first surfaced that the foundation, originally set up by the Shah, had been taken over by the new Ayatollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mukasey took it to trial in 1984.

 

The firm insists the foundation has no link to Iran's government.

 

"I think we've had a relationship that goes back 20 or so odd years with this foundation. This foundation has made all appropriate filings...since we've represented the foundation," said John Winter, a partner at Patterson Belknap. "The foundation is transparent...in accordance with the law. It is not an alter ego or a front for the Iranian government nor is it controlled by the government of Iran."

 

The case handled by Mukasey was settled in 1984, two years after the foundation was described in the New York Times as being controlled by the government of Iran.

 

More recently, the Alavi Foundation was described four years ago by New York Police Department intelligence chief David Cohen, a former CIA official, as "totally controlled by the government of Iran."

 

"The Alavi Foundation is a non-profit charitable organization ostensibly run by an independent board of directors but totally controlled by the government of Iran," Cohen said in the affidavit, filed in connection with a request by the police department to expand surveillance powers. "The foundation funds a variety of anti-American causes, including the four Islamic education centers it owns in New York, Maryland, Texas and California...Mosques funded by Alavi have organizations which support Hezbollah and Hamas."

[Texsox]

I really do not have an issue with whomever an attorney represents in court. I believe our system works best when every defendant, ever last one of them, has a dream team of attorneys. No matter how despicable their client may be.

[NorthSideSox72]

Interesting to see the Q&A on Mukasey. I have to say, I think I like this guy. Good answers. The Dems have to do their song and dance, but, ultimately, he says the right things (IMO) on torture - its not constitutionally allowed, but, any given technique needs to be evaluated case-by-case to see what might constitute torture in the legal sense.

 

[Rex Kickass]

So, Mukasey refuses to say that "waterboarding" (simulated drowning) is torture in the second day of his confirmation hearings. What was a path to a smooth confirmation, got thrown off the tracks with that one answer.

 

The judicial committee is drawing a line in the sand. Call waterboarding torture, or no confirmation.

 

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/10/democrat...rney_gener.html

 

The future of Michael Mukasey’s nomination to be attorney general hinges on whether and how he clarifies his stance on an interrogation technique critics say amounts to torture.

 

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., said Thursday that Mukasey’s answers to written follow-up questions about “waterboarding,” a technique that simulates drowning, “will certainly influence” the timing of a committee vote on the nomination.

 

Senate Democratic leaders — including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada — signaled that they will be examining Mukasey’s answers closely as well. Leahy said he was “troubled” by Mukasey’s answers on the subject at his confirmation hearing and believed that committee Republicans shared his concern.

 

Democrats said Mukasey appeared headed for confirmation after the first day of committee hearings, on Oct. 17, but got into trouble on the second day when the questioning veered into the subject of interrogation techniques. Mukasey was deliberately circumspect and apparently tried to avoid saying anything that could antagonize either Democrats or the White House. But committee members were disturbed by his vagueness.

 

A Democrat familiar with the panel’s deliberations said that unless Mukasey is prepared to say that waterboarding is torture, he will not receive the 10 votes on the 19-member committee required for a favorable recommendation to the full Senate.

 

Follow-up questions from committee members were being compiled Thursday night for delivery to Mukasey.

 

“I think the odds are pretty heavy that he will satisfy us on waterboarding,” said the committee’s ranking Republican, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. “But it remains to be seen.” Specter sent his own letter to Mukasey on Oct. 24, asking the nominee for his views on the “legality and propriety of waterboarding.”

[kapkomet]

So, Mukasey refuses to say that "waterboarding" (simulated drowning) is torture in the second day of his confirmation hearings. What was a path to a smooth confirmation, got thrown off the tracks with that one answer.

 

The judicial committee is drawing a line in the sand. Call waterboarding torture, or no confirmation.

 

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/10/democrat...rney_gener.html

I'm sorry but that is absolutely f***ing ridiculous.

[Rex Kickass]

You're right. Why are we having a debate over simulating death as ever being acceptable as an interrogation technique?

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm sorry but that is absolutely f***ing ridiculous.

I agree. I don't think the AG should be commenting on which interrogation techniques are OK and are not, and doubt he knows what they are anyway. Now, if a case comes up and it needs his review, then so be it.

 

Now, maybe if, say, the did a demonstration... like, they waterboarded Dubya in front of Mukasey and the review panel, so that everyone knew exactly what it was and how best to do it... then you could reasonably expect Mukasey to go marry that reality with the case law and books law, and come to a stand. Until then, I don't see any reason why the committee needs to be so focused on one bizarre example, instead of confirming a guy who for once looks like he's not a Bush goon.

 

When your disobedient child (Bush), after all that punishment, finally shows some signs of learning... do you ask him why his shirt isn't ironed?!

 

[NorthSideSox72]

You're right. Why are we having a debate over simulating death as ever being acceptable as an interrogation technique?

That debate is not the AG's job. You think what is being done is torture, then take the appropriate legal steps, and they will eventually involve the AG's office. That office can then review the entire situation. You cannot expect Mukasey to have an absolute opinion, out of hand, about such a narrow, unexplained theoretical.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Because the administration has a habit of backtracking on the learning that they've claimed to have done. Waterboarding stopped being torture for a while, then it became torture again, now it's unclear on how the administration views the subject.

 

The Attorney General is charged with prosecuting violations of the law. Law is open to determination, especially in issues where it considers things like torture, and what techniques can be expressly not used. If the Attorney General is to say that he doesn't support torture in any form, I think its reasonable to expect the nominee to describe what he would consider unlawful torture in this case.

[Rex Kickass]

That debate is not the AG's job. You think what is being done is torture, then take the appropriate legal steps, and they will eventually involve the AG's office. That office can then review the entire situation. You cannot expect Mukasey to have an absolute opinion, out of hand, about such a narrow, unexplained theoretical.

 

If waterboarding was a theoretical, we wouldn't be having this issue to begin with.

[NorthSideSox72]

Because the administration has a habit of backtracking on the learning that they've claimed to have done. Waterboarding stopped being torture for a while, then it became torture again, now it's unclear on how the administration views the subject.

 

The Attorney General is charged with prosecuting violations of the law. Law is open to determination, especially in issues where it considers things like torture, and what techniques can be expressly not used. If the Attorney General is to say that he doesn't support torture in any form, I think its reasonable to expect the nominee to describe what he would consider unlawful torture in this case.

If what is torture were simple, like, "what is blue?", then I'd agree. Except its not. Is being slapped around torture? Is sleep deprivation torture? Is gangsta rap music torture? No one has definitive answers.

 

Also, in this case, what does Mukasey know from waterboarding? If you really want his interperetation of that specific thing, right now, before he is confirmed (which I think is missing the point)... then you have to give him the chance to research it. Find out what it is exactly, then review the law and standing jurisprudence with his team. In other words, do part of the AG's job.

 

This is an obfuscation of the confirmation process, in my view.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

If waterboarding was a theoretical, we wouldn't be having this issue to begin with.

I didn't mean that the technique was hypothetical... the question of it being torture or not is. Its a legal hypothetical. There is no case, no background, nothing offered into testimony other than a name. If he says yes or no, he shows quite clearly he cannot be trusted, since he is no expert on the subject and hasn't talked to the experts yet (as far as I know).

 

[Rex Kickass]

I didn't mean that the technique was hypothetical... the question of it being torture or not is. Its a legal hypothetical. There is no case, no background, nothing offered into testimony other than a name. If he says yes or no, he shows quite clearly he cannot be trusted, since he is no expert on the subject and hasn't talked to the experts yet (as far as I know).

 

I think its entirely acceptable to ask if a specific interrogation technique falls under the definition of what torture is. And the Justice Department does have a working definition of torture.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec30.html

 

Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin said in the new memo that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain and thus may include mere physical suffering or lasting mental anguish. His opinion is meant, according to its language, to undermine any notion that those who conduct harmful interrogations may be exempt from prosecution.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think its entirely acceptable to ask if a specific interrogation technique falls under the definition of what torture is. And the Justice Department does have a working definition of torture.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec30.html

It is not fair to ask that specific question, in that context, and expect an immediate answer. Any immediate answer, unless he has worked multiple cases about that very thing before or done extensive research ahead of time, is going to be B.S. If you wanted a B.S. answer, we should have kept that loser Gonzalez in there.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Does anyone think that question wasn't going to come up? This has been an issue regarding the Attorney General's office and regarding the Secretary of Defense's office for several years. And this specific technique is the most controversial of them all.

 

To say that this guy didn't see it coming is either incredibly naive or that the administration isn't exactly trolling Mensa when they're looking for nominees.

 

I think its entirely acceptable to ask of an Attorney General nominee who will be dealing with the issue of what consists of torture to ask if simulating someone's death is considered torture.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Does anyone think that question wasn't going to come up? This has been an issue regarding the Attorney General's office and regarding the Secretary of Defense's office for several years. And this specific technique is the most controversial of them all.

 

To say that this guy didn't see it coming is either incredibly naive or that the administration isn't exactly trolling Mensa when they're looking for nominees.

 

I think its entirely acceptable to ask of an Attorney General nominee who will be dealing with the issue of what consists of torture to ask if simulating someone's death is considered torture.

I would actually say that you hit the nail on the head in that last sentence - that would have been a better question. That is the right one to ask. It still leaves one open question (is waterboarding the simulation of death), but at least it doesn't leave 2 (that plus, what is torture).

 

Did that question get asked?

 

[Rex Kickass]

Given that waterboarding is a simulated drowning. And drowning results in death, I think the point you and I are arguing is one of semantics. The way the question was asked, there was a description of the procedure. And Mukasey failed to say if that meets the definition of torture.

[NorthSideSox72]

Given that waterboarding is a simulated drowning. And drowning results in death, I think the point you and I are arguing is one of semantics. The way the question was asked, there was a description of the procedure. And Mukasey failed to say if that meets the definition of torture.

I don't agree that its semantics. I think its important legal context. Dealing with the law sometimes means big differences in what appear to be small variances in language.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Assuming that's the case, all Mukasey would have to say (and I'm sure it would be found acceptable across the board) would be something like this.

 

Any interrogation technique that simulates death for a detainee would be considered torture under my lead.

[Chet Lemon]

Grahamnesty weighs in:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., joined two top Senate Democrats in urging Mukasey to disclose his views. Mukasey so far has refused to say explicitly what his position is on the lawfulness of the interrogation technique, which simulates drowning.

 

"I am urging him that he needs to come forward. If he does not believe that waterboarding is illegal, then that would really put doubts in my own mind because I don't think you have to have a lot of knowledge about the law to understand this technique violates" the Geneva Convention and other statutes, Graham said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVl2y6_...s2QjPwD8SIE8J02

[EvilMonkey]

Grahamnesty weighs in:

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVl2y6_...s2QjPwD8SIE8J02

They should be asking him 'If we make waterboarding illegal, will you prosecute people who do it', not 'do you think it is illegal'? It isn't his job to make the laws, but to enforce them. Congress is supposed to be making the laws. grow some stones, write a specific law, and be done with it.

[Texsox]

They should be asking him 'If we make waterboarding illegal, will you prosecute people who do it', not 'do you think it is illegal'? It isn't his job to make the laws, but to enforce them. Congress is supposed to be making the laws. grow some stones, write a specific law, and be done with it.

 

I thought there are already laws on the books against torture, asking if this fits the definition of the law seems like a valid question. Now I wish they were more interested in his thought process and how he arrived at his decision, than the actual decision. Ultimately that is more important.

[Balta1701]

I thought there are already laws on the books against torture, asking if this fits the definition of the law seems like a valid question. Now I wish they were more interested in his thought process and how he arrived at his decision, than the actual decision. Ultimately that is more important.

If he won't even state a decision, what does that say about his thought process?

[NorthSideSox72]

If he won't even state a decision, what does that say about his thought process?

That he is the right man for the job.

 

I tend to agree with Tex, that stating opinion on this specific thing misses the larger point.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Or that he's the completely wrong man for the job.

 

After all, if you advocate simulating the death of a detainee as a means to coerce information of dubious reliability, something tells me that you shouldn't be responsible for enforcing the laws of this country.