 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 9, 2007 at 06:56:33
by Steve Fournier Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
Senate Democrats Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and four others teamed up with the entire Republican caucus to subvert the rule of law yesterday by appointing an openly fascist lawyer to serve as attorney general. Michael Mukasey, former federal judge and confidant of mobster-mayor Rudolph Giuliani, had testified that he would not be enforcing laws meant to restrain the executive branch of government from holding people without legal process and torturing them during their imprisonment. Besides Feinstein and Schumer, who shepherded their kinsman's nomination through the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Tom Carper, and Ben Nelson cast votes for Mukasey. All remain in good standing with their party, though they differed, ostensibly, with leader Harry Reid, who voted with the minority against the nomination. It's a big tent, the Democratic party, with the people crowded at the edges and the leaders gathered around the trough at the center. They may disagree on such trivial issues as the sanctity of the rule of law, but they all feed at the same buffet. Noted Judeo-terrorist Joe Lieberman, who claims fealty to no party and no nation, voted with the majority. Presidential candidates Obama, Clinton, Dodd, and Biden were allowed to miss the vote, which couldn't have happened without and wink and a nod from Reid. The Senate's mission--to preserve the illusion of a government of laws and not of thugs--was accomplished. Mukasey will bring no wrongdoers to account. He will now be able to give his full attention to the prosecution of donors to Muslim charities and critics of our various military adventures. We should probably assume that Kucinich will be carted off to jail at some point. Maybe that will convince him to put some distance between himself and the corrupt party he seeks to lead. 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 8 comments |
|
Thank you...
Your post portrayed the frustration I feel so perfectly. my least favorite moment of all of this is Mukasey's non sequitur that apparently wasn't all that bad: "If waterboarding is torture, then torture is illegal." The other thing that angers me is that dems need 60 votes to do anything but the repubs need 50 votes. No filibustering by the majority party to stop Mukasey and to save the republic. How many times have I heard this year from NPR stories that you need 60 votes in the senate to pass anything, but then the Republicans get their nominee with 53 votes? Different rules for different parties according to the "liberal" NPR I suppose. Maybe I should quit being so wonky, but if the Republicans are the only ones who will filibuster when they have 40 votes (which is how many we had this time), then I'm for the Nuclear Option to end this stupid rule that our representatives only allow to be used against themselves or the troops and never against the Christofascist torture enablers. Jerks in the Plains states: stop holding our democracy (as well as our troops in Iraq) hostage! I'm so pissed. By the way, I'm sick of sitting senators campaigning around the country for president while the Republicans in Washington rape our founding principles. Paging Senators Dodd, Clinton, Obama, Biden...did I miss any? Is there a leader in the bunch? I thought it was Dodd but now I'm not sure... by dave (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 8:54:06 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Motivation
You ask yourself what motivation the neocrats could possibly have for such transparent pretense, how they could allow themselves to descend to this level of corruption, and you end up, by a process of elimination, with only one possible explanation: blackmail. They're all crooks, and they all have the goods on each other. by Steve Fournier (32 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 43 comments) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 9:01:31 AM (0+)
|
|
appointing an openly fascist lawyer.....
He received Federal Bar Council’s (an organization that was created because the "NATIONAL Bar Council" refused to admit Black members,) Learned Hand Medal for excellence in federal jurisprudence. Last year, he ordered a mentally ill woman released from jail after she was charged with helping an Iraqi spy agency under Saddam Hussein. - - NPR Yet you call Michael Mukasey openly Fascist.... I never really read about Mukasey until now.... From what I read, I have to wonder where someone comes up with the facist charge.. do you know what a facist is?? Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 11:56:37 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Fascist is:
Somebody that defends imprisonment without trial. Somebody that defends torture as a means of interrogation. Somebody that puts executive actions above the rule of law. By his own testimony, Mukasey satisifies the criteria that define totalitarianism and fascism. by Steve Fournier (32 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 43 comments) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 12:03:09 PM (0+)
|
|
I think
Mr, Fournier rigthfully states that it was a mockery of the real confirmation process. Questions were not asked and if asked were not answered. The legislative body behaved like a bunch of children in the debate class. A crucial issue of AG's function under the new ACTs was not even touched. Neither were the ways to improve the Justice Department. The arguments that Mukasey is not the same as Gonzales were laughable to say the least- Mukasey's personality was irrelevant. I do not know much about Mukasey but it was clear as Hell that we witnessed another theater performance in Congress and that is scary. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 12:47:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Here is the actual definition....
It would seem that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox hunting, bullfighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else. - - George Orwell Fascism: 1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 1:00:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Definition of fascism
Thanks. I think I'm vindicated. by Steve Fournier (32 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 43 comments) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 1:05:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: if you think so
then you really have a creative view of reality... Regards by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 3:02:50 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
