dem's once again playing partisian politics with Judge Mukasey?

Question

"Congress has twice had the chance to ban waterboarding, or simulated drowning, but has twice declined to do so. In both the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress only barred "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment. While some Members have said they believe waterboarding is banned by that language, when given the chance to say so specifically in a statute and be accountable for it, they refused. "

yet they want him to discuss classified policy in public, he can't and to condemn waterboarding which he did, said that toruture was against the contsitution, not good enough, they again speak out of both sides of their mouths for political purposes.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010797

they should define torture and if waterboarding which does NOT include bodily harm but mental anquish and has been proven a valuable tool at times to save lives is a valid method of interregation or is indeed defined as torture. their failure to do so is the issue, they want it both ways. they want it but also want to use it against the AG.

Answer 1

It is time to answer the question in a way that blows their socks off & puts it square in their court. I acknowledge I don't know the verbiage; I'm not a wordsmith. The Democrats after 9/11 wanted to know why the Bush administration failed to connect the dots. They don't wish to accept any of the responsibility for destroying the US's intelligence community.

They know their questions are totally trick questions set up for I gotcha. They are playing the game the Pharisees played with Jesus.

Answer 2

I'm sorry, but what does "playing politics" mean here?
Democrats are soundly against torture; they want an attorney general who will stand up to the administration and say that torturing suspects (a) doesn't lead to effective results, (b) sends the wrong message, (c) leads to recripriocal torture against Americans in foreign custody, (d) and is offensive to the ideas of freedom and democracy.

If this person cannot say that, the democrats believe that he's not qualified to be the nation's top law enforcement official. How is that playing politics?

(As far as the legislation goes, remember that the democrats had to get a law that would be passed by both houses and signed by the president... and the president's not going to sign, and republicans are going to filibuster, any law that prevented any particular form of "interrogation technique." So don't blame them for doing the best that they can in divided government.)

Answer 3

All politicians play partisan politics -- that's the nature of politics.

Here, the questions are very valid -- they want the (proposed) chief legal officer of the country do say what would and what would not fall under the legal definitions of various statutes.

The Constitution REQUIRES such things to be clearly defined in advance -- it's one of the Due Process requirements. And not knowing whether a particular action would or would not violate federal law makes the law ambiguous -- and thus constitutionally invalid.

It's not a political issue -- either the US considers that type of activity illegal -- under the laws it has enacted -- or it considers it legal -- that's not a political or security issue -- that's a basic simple legal question on something that is a current concern for many people -- regardless of party.

Answer 4

Both sides are playing partisan politics on a lot of issues. The Republicans are obstructions and the Democrats are spineless.

I'm sick of the whole rotten bunch.

Answer 5

That is how they operate. Until republicans get spines and start fighting back, the nonsense will continue