So the acting head of "justice" is a bad guy too? So what? How is this justification for confirming a man who will not call waterboarding torture and who feels that there should be little, if any, limit on presidential power even though the Constitution says otherwise?

The Senate has to say no to Mukasey! If they confirm him that it amounts to them agreeing with torture and unchecked presidential power.

Whatever George W's hand-picked lackey does is not reflective of the United States in the same way a Senate-confirmed appointment is.

This "appoint my more moderate guy or you'll be stuck with my temporary wingnut until I leave office," tactic must not succeed.

It'd be really sweet to impeach him, but the least these weak-kneed Dems can do is stand up to this.

The key words are "limit on presidential power even though the Constitution". Part of what is going on is Congress wants him to say that Waterboarding is illegal because they said it is so. He can't do that.

The Constitution gives control over the armed forces and intelligence gathering agencies to the President, not Congress.

This means that Congress's ability to micromanage how intelligence is gathered is limited. Is Waterboarding illegal? "Yes" if THE CONSTITUTION says it is, but "No" if it's "only" Congress that says it is.

This is a political power play, you get someone to appear to defend something that can't be defended, and hopefully by doing so get them to yield something else entirely.

DBuss:

The key words are "limit on presidential power even though the Constitution". Part of what is going on is Congress wants him to say that Waterboarding is illegal because they said it is so. He can't do that.

The Constitution gives control over the armed forces and intelligence gathering agencies to the President, not Congress.

This means that Congress's ability to micromanage how intelligence is gathered is limited. Is Waterboarding illegal? "Yes" if THE CONSTITUTION says it is, but "No" if it's "only" Congress that says it is.

This is a political power play, you get someone to appear to defend something that can't be defended, and hopefully by doing so get them to yield something else entirely.

Wrong on three counts:

1. The Constitution clearly states that there should be no "cruel and unusual punishments." Waterboarding seems to be cruel and unusual.

2. The courts have ruled that coerced testimony is inadmissable in court. Yes we have three coequal branches, not just two.

3. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make law. So if Congress says something is illegal than it is illegal unless the courts say their law violates the Constitution.

Our government was designed so that no one branch has unchecked power and that includes the president. He is the commander in chief of the armed forces but it is Congress, not the President, who has the power to declare war. It is Congress, not the President that votes for funding for wars. It is Congress not the President that makes the law.

Please read the Constitution before making your arguments.

RE: 1; True, it does say that. Which means that if Waterboarding counts as a punishment when it's used as an integrigation technique, then it's illegal. But that sounds like something for the courts and not Congress.

RE: 2; I never said otherwise, I said we're seeing a fight between two of the branches. If you wish I'll amend that to "2 of the 3" branches.

RE: 3; Also true... but this is also the point I'm trying to make. The Constitution gives control over this sort of thing TO THE PRESIDENT. This means that many of Congress's attempts to pass laws on this subject are likely to be unconstitutional.

And I'm not saying they're good or bad laws, and I'm not trying to defend water boarding.

And you're also right in that no one branch has unchecked power. But that works both ways. The ability to pass laws isn't the same as the unlimited ability to pass laws. For example Congress can't pass a law ordering the army to pull out of Iraq. If they want us to pull out of Iraq, they can de-fund the war. But they can't micro-manage the army, the Constitution says the Prez is in charge there.

Congress' problem is they don't like how the Prez is doing his job. But they don't have the power to step in and do it for him. They could impeach him, but that's a different issue.

Folks, It doesn't matter what the Constitution defines as torture -- at least no with respect to waterboarding. We have laws against torture, we have signed international treaties against torture, thereby becoming US law as per the Constitution. And we set the precedent during war-crime trials against the Japanese, right after WWII, that waterboarding was torture; we had Japanese official put away for years -- and in some cases hung -- for waterboarding US military personnel, as well as other their atrocities.

The US government has acknowledged that they have used waterboarding; ergo it has admitted to war crimes. Period, end of story. Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Tenet, etc. have all either signed off on it, or have knowingly let it occur. They are all war criminals, and should be tried for such. If hanging was good enough for Tojo, Goering and company, it's good enough for these neo-con goons.

"...we have signed international treaties against torture, thereby becoming US law as per the Constitution..."

I'm no lawyer, but I thought we sign treaties and then we pass laws to enforce them. For example The Supreme Court is hearing a case right now on whether or not Texas can execute a Mexican citizen dispite the various treaties we've signed.

In any case I seriously doubt we've ever signed any treaty which stipulates people breaking it should be hanged by the state. Generally speaking punishment is left up to the country in question.

But you have a point, this is exactly the sort of thing that Congress could use to impeach Bush. Problem is lots of Americans don't view the torture of terrorists for the purpose of saving American lives as a crime.

DBuss,

The fact that "lots of Americans don't view the toruture of terrorists for the purpose of saving American lives as a crime." Well, torture is a crime and even the Bushies say so. In any event, please do not fall into the trap that just because many or even most people don't view something as wrong means that it is acceptable.

If your point is that the D's won't impeach Bush because of the views of "lots of Americans", then I take your point. The current crop of D's have no guts.

But, I truly believe that it is necessary to do whatever it takes to get the R's out of power. I think that is what is holding the D's back.

"...please do not fall into the trap that just because many or even most people don't view something as wrong means that it is acceptable..."

This country should have an open and resonable discussion about torture, and the what and why on why we shouldn't be doing it. It's an ugly practice and if we want to stamp it out we need to confront it and stop hiding from it. IMHO the opponents of torture are correct, but they're afraid they'd lose the argument (the nuclear terrorist problem). It reminds me of ugly adn/or hate speach. Bring it out into the daylight and let people see it for what it is.

I think the last time we had this discussion was back in the 40's after WWII and from that we got the current batch of rules. But laws don't exist in a vacuum, the people need to believe in them if they're going to be followed. Right now a significant amount of the population doesn't believe in them.

The current crop of D's have no guts....But, I truly believe that it is necessary to do whatever it takes to get the R's out of power. I think that is what is holding the D's back.

The D's aren't attacking Bush on this issue because he has a point. Under Clinton we treated every terror attack as an unrelated criminal action, arrested them, tried them, and broadcast how all this was done. The "criminals" had the right to see everything and the result was better terrorists.

Bush saw that a military approach was needed. But one of his failings is after seeing the law as part of the problem, he decided to ignore rule of law rather than try to fix it.

If the D's start letting terrorists go because their rights were violated, either we'll start losing buildings again or the D's will lose elections. No one has the right to knock down buildings, and the rules need to be different when dealing with people who are willing to do so. Laws exist to help us, not hurt us. If they aren't working then change them, maybe even retroactively. If it takes an army to arrest someone, then that's someone we should be keeping behind bars and not letting them go because soliders aren't cops/lawyers.

DBuss,

Good points, especially about getting the discussions out in the open. Bush's ignoring the law, IMHO, is the worst thing that he could have done. I think most Americans would agree with changing the law to make them more uptodate, but not if it is all done in secret. What is the hoary old phrase?, "Sunshine is the best anti-septic".

wow!!!....It makes me feel good to read your opinion on holding Bush, Cheney, and most of his corrupt administration accountable for WAR CRIMES against Americans and Iraquis. I think they should all hang... I'm so glad others know this torture isn't alrig as long as Americans are doing it.