New Search

If you are not happy with the results below please do another search

1695 search results for: torture


Mukasey Confirmed

From which we can take the following lessons:It’s unclear that our political system has the fortitude to save itself anymore.If you’re running for President, it’s dangerous to take a stand against torture–even if, like John McCain, you’ve been tortured yourself.It takes a real beating–like the one Alberto Gonzales gave Richard (one good reason not to blog before coffee) Mark Pryor when he AGAG appointed Tim Griffin and attempted to “gum to


Bush and Schumer

David Kurtz reports that the Mukasey nomination will come down to the Senate Judiciary Committee vote (and TPM is tracking votes so far). I believe this sets up some really interesting tension between Bush and Chuck Schumer.

You see, events thus far have made it very important for Bush to get Mukasey approved.


Whitehouse Sniffing around Bush’s Executive Orders

Remarkably, Sheldon Whitehouse asked Mukasey very few written questions. But I am intrigued by this one.

2. Do you believe that the President may act contrary to a valid executive order? In the event he does, need he amend the executive order or provide any notice that he is acting contrary to the executive order?



Diplomatic Renditions?

Here’s a response from Mukasey that frankly stumps me. It comes in response to a Joe Biden question on extraordinary renditions.

If the purpose [of renditions] is to gather intelligence, why would the United States trust interrogations carried out by Egyptian or Syrian intelligence agencies–agencies that the United States has long acknowledged and criticized for engaging in torture and abuse?



We’ve Seen This Before

Kagro X has a post focusing, again, on Michael Mukasey’s evasions about the Constitution. Kagro focuses not on Mukasey’s confusion about whether water-boarding is torture, but whether the President can ignore existing laws.

Any president — and I mean any president — ought to beable to depend on a certain amount of deference from his or herAttorney General, of course.


Some Context on Hayden’s Witchhunt of Helgerson

As the NYT broke the other day, General Michael Hayden is conducting an investigation of the CIA’s Inspector General, John Helgerson. Their first report on the story intimated the reason why Hayden was conducting such an unusual investigation.

A report by Mr. Helgerson’s office completed in the spring of 2004warned that some C.I.A.-approved interrogation procedures appeared toconstitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as defined by theinternational Convention Against Torture.


Waterboarding Is Fair Game

I’m pooped so will have to return to this article. It explains how, after DOJ under Jack Goldsmith threw out John Yoo’s torture policies, Steven Bradbury came in and replaced them with still worse opinions.

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” ina legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared tohave abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authorityto order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R.


In Govt We Do Not Trust

I’m still following up on the question of the way in which the Rather complaint invokes the debate on Hamdi. I wanted to draw extended attention to this article. In it, Tim Grieve susses out precisely what seems to be the reason Rather included the Abu Ghraib details in his complaint.

Did Clement know he was misleading the justices, or was he kept out ofthe loop so that he could avoid revealing


Abu Ghraib, Hamdi, and Rather

I’ve been meaning to go back to compare the chronology laid out by Dan Rather in his complaint as it pertains to Abu Ghraib with the chronology of the Taguba investigation and the Hamdi case. Two things stick out. First, Myers pretended to be ignorant of the details of the abuse on May 6, several weeks after he called Dan Rather personally to spike–or delay–the story.


Wilkes Will Get an Enemy Combatant Lawyer for His Extraordinary Rendition-Related Trial

At least that’s what I infer from the comments of the lawyer from the public defender’s nonprofit that will now take on Wilkes’ defense in one of two cases (thanks to chrisc for sending this on) he has been charged on.

A lawyer from Federal Defenders of San Diego Inc., a nonprofit thatrepresents indigent people accused of federal crimes, will representWilkes in the criminal case with co-defendant Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, theformer third-highest-ranking