The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday morning approved President Bush's nomination of former Federal Judge Michael Mukasey to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.

Mukasey, a radical advocate for expanded executive power, had refused to condemn the torture tactics -- such as waterboarding -- that Gonzales sought unsuccessfully to legitimize.

The committee voted 11-8 to forward Mukasey's nomination to the full Senate with a recommendation that the former judge be confirmed.

All the Republicans on the committee backed the nominee of their party's president. They were joined by two Democrats, New York Senator Chuck Schumer and California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who said they were convinced to support nominee by his private vow to enforce any law Congress might enact barring waterboarding or related torture tactics.

To his credit, committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, pointed out that the assurance from Mukasey was meaningless.

"Unsaid, of course, is the fact that any such prohibition would have to be enacted over the veto of this president," explained Leahy.

The full rationale for rejecting Mukasey was offered by the last Democrat to announce his position, Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl, who said, "As Judge Mukasey's answers mirror the president's on this issue -- and defy common sense -- we are forced to question his independence as well. The attorney general's loyalties must be to the Constitution, to the American people and to the law. Too much doubt on this point is disqualifying."

Disqualifying for those who take seriously their oath to defend the Constitution. But not, unfortunately, for Schumer, Feinstein and their Republican colleagues on the committee.

Comments (44)

1. To the 11 who voted for torture I would ask - who the hell do you think you are? Do you arrogant excuses for humanity actually believe that you can simply snap your fingers and cause basic human right to simply disappear? Frank, thanks for posting Keith's comments - as usual they were absolutely on. And Schumer and Feinstein must be defeated, along with the other collaborators to the criminality of the past seven years.

   Posted by jmusolino at 11/06/2007 @ 11:22am

2. Frank

   I love Olbermann, but what's wrong with posting a link?

   Posted by drhammer at 11/06/2007 @ 11:24am

3. Schumer and Feinstein need to be pissboarded.

   Posted by drhammer at 11/06/2007 @ 11:27am

4. Suppose they, [Schum/Fiens], were threatened with waterboarding or illegally taped embarrassing conversations or just getting shot in the face... guess it was a cowardly vote either way-- almost as much as the congress's capitulation/surrender to a dic'tator philosophy.

   They, congress, will either filibuster the nomination and impeach the monsters that are leading our nation down to 4th world barbarism, or our nation is truly without a congress nor a government of laws, this is a dic'tatorship by every definition; lawless and gone.

   Our government will be no more.

   "Zaogao, I aim to misbehave right back.

   Hùndàn!"

   Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 11:59am

5. A little torturing of terrorists is ok with me!

   Posted by abell12ct at 11/06/2007 @ 12:03pm

6. Why are we going to pass a law that will stop the terrorists from torturing our troops?

   Posted by abell12ct at 11/06/2007 @ 12:07pm

7. Posted by ABELL12CT 11/06/2007 @ 12:03pm

   So you're comfortable giving that power to...."President Hillary" post-2009?

   Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 12:11pm

8. Posted by ABELL12CT 11/06/2007 @ 12:03pm

   well it seems you're one of them.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/06/2007 @ 12:35pm

9. Let's not forget Feinstein's power base-Calif, the land of large defense contracts and a booming plethora of privatized public funded 'cottage industries.' It's a number of any military or privatized para-military folks that would take some sort of retributive hit if she had any sense of decency to take water-boarding for what it is -huh? torture?

   All of these clintonite new democrats are clothed in similar fabric, the lush and costly furs of corporatism. It blurs party distinction and vision, or most importantly, clarity of action.

   Posted by steve foster at 11/06/2007 @ 12:48pm

10. Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/06/2007 @ 12:04pm

    Well, that's kinda what I thought.

    But if they're too lazy to do something as simple as following a link, why bother?

    I leave a link, and when someone follows it, I think, "Hey! Here's someone who gives a shit; who may have an open thought process as well.".

    You can't make 'em drink, Frank.

    But if they seek out the water they're more likely to actually be thirsty.

    Posted by drhammer at 11/06/2007 @ 12:55pm

11. Steve Foster

    Not to get too stalker-like or anything, but I have enjoyed your posts.

    Keep it up.

    Posted by drhammer at 11/06/2007 @ 12:59pm

12. Posted by ABELL12CT 11/06/2007 @ 12:03pm

    Problem is most of the people being tortured end up not being terrorist, can be US citizens, and 100 of them 'that we know of', have been killed-- tortured to death and mostly innocent; are truly extemely bad odds of allowing evil for no good cause or close to being reasonable. Is without reason.

    Begs that old question times a thousand, if the death penalty kills a few innocent people do we keep the death penalty... most 'civilized first world nations' say no.

    Yet how much worse still is it being tortured to death and being innocent and a US citizen. And all because we're said to FEAR. We should be courageous, but have cowards for leaders.

    Do we have the courage to change that?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 12:59pm

13. A little torturing of terrorists is ok with me!

    Posted by ABELL12CT 11/06/2007 @ 12:03pm

    You're next.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/06/2007 @ 1:08pm

14. I remember when America used to have SOME morals... SOME ethics...

    We may not have been perfect, but we were a DAMN sight better off then with these law flouting treaty disavowing power mad bloodthirsty draft dodging MORONS running things.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/06/2007 @ 1:10pm

15. Posted by DR DECIBELS 11/06/2007 @ 1:08pm

    Actually, Doc...I find my question usually scares the bejeebus out of guys like ABELL, when it comes to powers he's happily investing in the Executive....in other words--

    "So, you don't mind President HILLARY getting those powers?"

    Throw in the fact that under the broad powers to declare any group "terrorist-related" by its association with violent factions within its own group....how about all the "pro-lifers" who can be labelled "terror sponsors" by relation to ANY abortion clinic bomber or abortion doctor shooter?

    Think they'll object to RANDALL TERRY getting renditioned to Uzbekistan for a little thumb-screwing (or worse)?

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 1:15pm

16. I second the thought that we should remember Feinstein and Schumer always for this disturbing cave-in.

    Meanwhile the miserable march into the miasmatic morass continues unabated.

    If this was actual combat we'd be getting close to the desperation tactic of calling in artillery rounds on our own position. With Schumer and Feinstein we've got our own version of "zips in the wire".

    Nice job of extraordinarily rendering the constitution, imbeciles.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/06/2007 @ 1:27pm

17. Thx drhammer. don't want to think that i'm spitting upwind.

    Posted by steve foster at 11/06/2007 @ 1:40pm

18. Here's an excerpt from a fine counterpunch piece today:

    Let's hear it for the Reagan Revolution.

    What is striking is how the new "structured finance" paradigm replicates a political system which is no longer guided by principle or integrity. It is not coincidental that the same flag that flies over Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib flutters over Wall Street as well. Nor is it accidental that the same system that peddles bogus, subprime tripe to gullible investors also elevates a "waterboarding advocate" to the highest position in the Justice Department. Both phenomena emerge from the same fetid swamp.

    For the entire piece click here [counterpunch.org]

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/06/2007 @ 2:07pm

19. ABell-It was good of you to admit that you are no different than the terrorists.Thank you for your honesty.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/06/2007 @ 2:10pm

20. Posted by ABELL12CT 11/06/2007 @ 12:03pm

    Okay, one more to your comment...how about the validity of info given by someone fearing for their life? Wouldn't you say anything if you thought you were about to die, and say what you thought your torturer wanted to hear?

    But I'm sure it's your gut telling you that this IS a TERRORIST we've got...no thinking necessary!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/06/2007 @ 2:22pm

21. Posted by B_KOOL_66 11/06/2007 @ 1:27pm

    Absolutely. If the democrats acted and voted on party lines, and quit tying to pander to the center, I believe congress' approval rating just may not be AT 11%!! I can't understand the strategy behind bipartisanship by the democrats at this point in time, especially since the republicans haven't once acted accordingly! Cutting off their noses to spite their faces!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/06/2007 @ 2:26pm

22. Think they'll object to RANDALL TERRY getting renditioned to Uzbekistan for a little thumb-screwing (or worse)?

    Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 1:15pm

    If I'm the one that gets ahold of that sonofabitch it will be worse.

    And yes, they would howl like scalded cats. Hypocrites.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/06/2007 @ 2:30pm

23. "So, you don't mind President HILLARY getting those powers?"

    Throw in the fact that under the broad powers to declare any group "terrorist-related" by its association with violent factions within its own group....how about all the "pro-lifers" who can be labelled "terror sponsors" by relation to ANY abortion clinic bomber or abortion doctor shooter?

    Think they'll object to RANDALL TERRY getting renditioned to Uzbekistan for a little thumb-screwing (or worse)?

    Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 1:15pm

    Mask,

    You conveniently for whatever reason you give yourself, forget that I told you I don't mind a "President Hillary" having those powers.

    Secondly, you make two serious mistakes in your Randall Terry analogy. First of all, anyone who murders others involved in the genocide of abortion should be and would be tried and punished under existing laws. There is no justification for citing terrorism and SCOTUS would undoubtedly overrule such an attempt. Secondly, Rendition involved sending terrorists for interrogation back to the country of their origin/citizenship. Thus your point has no validity.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/06/2007 @ 2:58pm

24. We had better "pander to the center" if we want to win the next election. Elections are won in the center, just like chess. We have two choices, Mukesy as Attorney General or no Attorney General. The justice justice department is a mess. It has other functions than indicting Bush, Cheney, and Rummey for torture. As Paul Krugman said in this week's Rolling Stone, the Dems will have a huge job putting the Federal Government back together after they take over the government in '09. At least Mukesy will do something positive. I don't think the statute of limitations for torture will run out by then. These guys can still be indicted and tried after Bush leaves office. I think it's highly unlikely they will waterboard anyone from now on. They are scared stiff of going to jail for what they have already done. Waterboarding is a felony already we don't need any new laws to prosecute them.

    Posted by richschneid at 11/06/2007 @ 3:02pm

25. My earlier posting of this monster-piece got time warped, so I'm reposting it again for reader's enjoyment:

    Let's hear it for the Reagan Revolution.

    What is striking is how the new "structured finance" paradigm replicates a political system which is no longer guided by principle or integrity. It is not coincidental that the same flag that flies over Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib flutters over Wall Street as well. Nor is it accidental that the same system that peddles bogus, subprime tripe to gullible investors also elevates a "waterboarding advocate" to the highest position in the Justice Department. Both phenomena emerge from the same fetid swamp."

    The entire piece is devastating; click here [counterpunch.org]

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/06/2007 @ 3:05pm

26. Oh joy - a new Grand Inquisitor will be appointed. Torquemada would be proud to see his Christian torturer legacy reborn under the watchful eye of Dumbya.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/06/2007 @ 3:17pm

27. Posted by MATTMAN 11/06/2007 @ 2:22pm

    I remember a time not so long ago when the governor of Texas, who was being roundly criticized for the number of executions in his state, stated that he had absolutely no doubt that all those dispatched were guilty.

    Who are we to question a man to whom God speaks personally?

    Posted by drhammer at 11/06/2007 @ 3:17pm

28. It would be most beneficial for all of us if people like Hillary, Gore, and on the other side Romney, never get ANY powers.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/06/2007 @ 3:18pm

29. "At least Mukesy will do something positive."

    Posted by RICHSCHNEID 11/06/2007 @ 3:02pm

    I have a few names for you, Rich, (in no particular order).

    John Roberts

    Samuel Alito

    Alberto Gonzales

    Go ahead, dems. Let 'em squeeze a little more toothpaste out of the tube.

    Posted by drhammer at 11/06/2007 @ 3:25pm

30. Dear DRHAMMER, The Mukesy appointment is just for a little over a year. I doubt he can do much more damage than Gonzales has already done. Do you think Bush will nominate anyone who will actually declare waterboarding to be torture. He can't because it would open himself up to be indicted. Do you think he will nominate anyone better than Mukesy. No, he will just refuse to nominate anyone and do some kind of recess or acting appointment. This one is just not winnable for the Dems. We are just not going to be able to turn this country around until a Dem is President and we get 60 seats in the Senate, which I think is probable in the next election. But I do think we can slow the rate at which Bush does his damage.

    Posted by richschneid at 11/06/2007 @ 3:49pm

31. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2007 @ 2:58pm

    So, LL, you ONLY support going after the ones who perpetrate the crime of terrorism and not those that might support (if only in word, not deed or finance) their terrorism?

    As for rendition of a US citizen, can you cite a law PREVENTING a President from doing that? As Jose Padilla showed, we can do quite a bit more than we used to, to citizens....why not rendition?

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 3:55pm

32. This is such a waste of time when you think about who defines "terrorism".

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/06/2007 @ 4:02pm

33. A problem with the proposed law against water boarding (that I saw some other poster mention in the WaPo) that Mukasey has indicated that he may support if it were enacted is that it may, hell, WILL, be used to give blanket immunity to everyone who has been involved in past episodes of any kind of torture. In addition, it will be written with enough loop holes to drive a HumVee through so in effect, it will give the Bushies cover to continue doing what they want, when they want, to whomever they want. It will also mean that they can go to other forms of torture with the excuse that whatever it is wasn't explicitly forbidden.

    Posted by danmiller at 11/06/2007 @ 5:03pm

34. Randall Terry - LUVVIE

    In case you haven't noticed, LUVVY dear, Randall Terry is a homegrown TERRORIST.

    And you, LUVVY, are a terrorist sympathizer.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/06/2007 @ 5:11pm

35. So, LL, you ONLY support going after the ones who perpetrate the crime of terrorism and not those that might support (if only in word, not deed or finance) their terrorism?

    As for rendition of a US citizen, can you cite a law PREVENTING a President from doing that? As Jose Padilla showed, we can do quite a bit more than we used to, to citizens....why not rendition?

    Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 3:55pm

    I don't follow the first question. Pertaining to the abortion issue and terrorism, SCOTUS has already ruled 9-0 in Scheidler v NOW that the attempts to use RICCO was unconstitutional. Why would any government even need to use anything but laws against murder, attempted murder or assault for domestic crimes? Your hyperbolic hypothetical argument just doesn't carry weight.

    Whereas their is clearly an argument to be made that terrorism, esepecially with regards to Islamic terrorism is a stated war by the attackers and planners of these acts.

    As to your 2nd point, you will need to find another word than rendition. Furthermore and I'm sure much to the chagrin of Frankgrits and Bushfools, Clinton issued PDD39 instituting rendition with enthusiastic support by Al Gore.

    The procedure was developed by CIA officials in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda [14].

    According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke...

    " 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'[15]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

    here is PDD39

    http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/06/2007 @ 5:17pm

36. Posted by RICHSCHNEID 11/06/2007 @ 3:49pm

    Why continue to poison the justice system? Do we really want to keep the justice department as a political arm of a unitary executive branch? I'd say let the dept swirl in its own chaos abit so cynical unjust decisions will not rise to the top.

    Unfortunately, until we are able to address core issues that lie in the democratic decline in this country, the tidy divide between dems and reps will remain only a useful fiction. dems will not save us. We will save us!

    When hasn't there been a time in U.S. history that the non-elites have not had to fight for basic human rights under the declaration of independence. Look at the history of the right to vote in this country, or our ability to organize in the workplace?

    Fundamentally, we need the right to choose to organize at the work site, campaign finance reform to chain the K-street beasts, stringent lobbying laws to limit former "public servants'" ability to leverage corporate interests, openness in use of public money (Naomi Klein indicates 2003 - 3,512 private security contracts; 2005-115,000 +$200bl; who the hell knew this!), and the litany continues. The dems, reps, or even a choir of archangels, will not make these changes for us. We need grassroots support for change.

    Unfortunately, those of the likes of George Soros predict "corrections" in the financial markets and U.S. debt driven adjustments that may very well give us an economic downturn of proportions not experienced since 1929. I'd rather not let this be the impetus of rebuilding and positive change. The U.S. may not get up from the ten count this time.

    Posted by steve foster at 11/06/2007 @ 5:19pm

37. In case you haven't noticed, LUVVY dear, Randall Terry is a homegrown TERRORIST.

    And you, LUVVY, are a terrorist sympathizer.

    Posted by DR DECIBELS 11/06/2007 @ 5:11pm

    What utter nonsense. I have stated repeatedly that anyone who attacks or murders anyone including abortion doctors should be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law. How on earth does that make me a terrorist supporter or sympathizer?

    And can you cite any arrest of Randall Terry for terrorism?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/06/2007 @ 5:22pm

38. I have to laugh at frankgrits. He's so funny! MadTV should do a sketch on him showing a fanatical, wild-eyed wingnut screaming his personal opinions at the audience, then demanding that they agree with him. I remember when Chuck Schumer was ol' frank's darlin' whenever Schumer voted against another judicial nomination. Now ol' frank calls for New Yawkers to vote Schumer out next time around because Schumer voted to send Mukasey's nomination to the full Senate. Sad ol' frankgrits. Angry at the world and nowhere else to go.

    Posted by bckonfirst at 11/06/2007 @ 6:56pm

39. So, LL, you ONLY support going after the ones who perpetrate the crime of terrorism and not those that might support (if only in word, not deed or finance) their terrorism?---Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 3:55pm

    I don't follow the first question.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2007 @ 5:17pm |

    I'm sorry allow me to explain.

    If you "ONLY support going after the ones who perpetrate the crime of terrorism and not those that might support (if only in word, not deed or finance) their terrorism" as indicated in your statement-

    "First of all, anyone who murders others involved in the genocide of abortion should be and would be tried and punished under existing laws. There is no justification for citing terrorism and SCOTUS would undoubtedly overrule such an attempt."

    then why not....Al Qaeda? Also, why invade Iraq?

    Just as much "evidence" that Randall Terry was supportive of Eric Rudolph....as Saddam was supportive of bin Laden. More so, Saddam hated the Islamists and was secular...Terry shares Rudolph's religious and moral beliefs.

    So...by cutting the "wide net" theory out for "pro-lifers"...you've got to throw out the same "wide net" for the "Islamo-fascists". Keep the "wide net" theory and "President Hillary" gets to use the same theory for guys who blow up clinics...to the guys who share their beliefs.

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 9:45pm

40. Recommending mukasy for attorney general doesn't OK water boarding. The practice is still illegal.

    All the vote does is give one more hamster the chance to show his true face.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/06/2007 @ 10:40pm

41. When an administration is as ideologically driven as the Bushies, and has nothing to lose, it can do a great deal of damage in a year.

    Unless leaders with principle can be inspired to take action to neuter those bent on neutering our Constitution, we won't know how much damage they've done until it's too late.

    Impeach. Indict. Incarcerate.

    I want my America back.

    Posted by drhammer at 11/07/2007 @ 08:58am

42. What do Schumer & Feinstein care about the torturing of Arabs-Muslims?

    What Israel wants, they want.

    Posted by Lil at 11/07/2007 @ 09:30am

43. Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 9:45pm

    I understand more clearly. I would refer you to the first amendment on free speech. There are people who use our constitutionally provided guarantees to utter speech that I find contemptible and potentially dangerous. However, I am not one who leans towards restricting speech, no matter how much I might disagree with it.

    That said, anyone who openly advocates the destruction and/or overthrow of our government is no longer merely exercising free speech but inciting rebellion and treason.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/07/2007 @ 12:52pm

44. back to the country of their origin/citizenship. Thus your point has no validity.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2007 @ 2:58pm

    ¿polish and romanian terrorists?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2007 @ 12:52pm