A growing number of Senate Democrats who had previously praised attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey are now focusing on his refusal to answer a question about torture as a pivotal issue for his confirmation.
read more digg story
I fail to see how any individual of reasonable intelligence can not provide a definition of torture. Could it be that Mr. Mukasey was unprepared for this question? Did he seek to avoid embarrassing the Bush Administration because it has advocated and approved the use of torture, in violation of domestic and international law, while at the same time denying that it had authorized the use of torture?
If an individual cannot distinguish right from wrong, how can he or she ever hope to lead effectively as the chief law enforcement agent in the land? If Mr. MuKasey was not prepared for this line of questioning, is he fit to serve in any administrative capacity? This matter is not a partisan issue - several prominent Republicans have questioned Mr. Mukasey on this point, only to receive an entirely inadequate response.
The Senate should have no problem in rejecting this nominee.
No comments:
Post a Comment