Comments on: Mukasey’s Moral Ambiguity Fuels Torture

By: Grady Coker

Grady Coker — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:19:34 +0000

I doubt if Mukasey is going to be involved with torture. Doesn’t the AG have other duties that would put him at odds to favor, or not favor torture. Our senator should be able to relax that there is going to be no torture. Sounds like nothing of importance to me.

By: Wildflower

Wildflower — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:29:41 +0000

Mukasey has defended the Patriot Act in the past.The way I understand it, he and his son are “justice” advisors to Giulani’s campaign.
Sure would be convenient for Giulani to have his “man” in place if he’s elected wouldn’t it?
Vote no, Salazar.

By: usersuz

usersuz — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:32:54 +0000

Congress has got to put its squeamish little foot down. Since when was taking a moral stand supposed to be comfortable, convenient or cheap? This conduct removes the “Honor” from Duty, Honor, Country. If refusing to confirm Mukasey will leave us with an interim AG, so be it. If the department is demoralized, so be it. To confirm this guy, with his weaseling answers, is to condone these practices, to indemnify the perpetrators, and to create a precedent by default - the deception that we need to better define “torture.”

By: LHKMAN

LHKMAN — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:58:29 +0000

For all those who have blathered for the past eight or so years about Bill Clinton and his effort to dissemble over the “meaning of is,” I want to hear you dismiss Mukasey and his “meaning of torture.” He’s a credit to Bill Clinton, he is, in his ability to parse words.