Ethan Wilenski-Lanford has a long article in today's Concord Monitor on Senator Dodd's service in the Peace Corps and his vision for national service in a Dodd administration. It's a great read and contains a few stories about Senator Dodd's time living in the Dominican Republic that I hadn't heard before.
Concord Monitor on Dodd's Peace Corps Service
posted by Matt Browner-Hamlin, Campaign Blogger on November 9, 2007 - 7:57am
tags:
- Matt Browner-Hamlin's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Why didn't Senator Dodd announce an intention to force a cloture vote on Mukasey? (As per TPM, here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/058376.php)
When he stood up against the FISA bill, wow, I was thrilled to find a candidate willing to put himself out there to do the right thing. But that also raises the bar. Why didn't the Senator stop this: the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, and he waffles on -torture-. On torture.
Please explain. I want to keep my passion for this candidacy alive.
I'd say one has to pick one's battles carefully.
One of the central tenets of our system of laws is that any actions we take occur AFTER an infraction has taken place. In the case of the immunity being considered for the telecoms, who have already violated the law or, at least, violated their contractual relationship with their customers, we are in response mode, rather than the pre-emptive mode Bush/Cheney seek to impose. That's not a pattern we want to follow.
While Mukasey's position on whether or not a particular behavior is torture is disturbing, part of the problem may lie in the fact that he's not versed in the Constitution and treaty requirements.
How do we enforce an agent of government's failure to uphold the Constitution and carry out the duties of his office? We remove him.
Thanks for the reply, hannah.
I strongly disagree, though. Accepting any nominee because they haven't yet violated the law is an unacceptably--ludicrously--low bar.
We're not talking about -punishing- Mukasey, simply about not hiring him as the chief law enforcement officer in the United States. He may not have committed any infractions of the law, but I think we can very confidently state that anyone who refuses to say waterboarding is still torture is not qualified.
If he's insufficiently versed in the Constitution and treaty requirements to know whether or not waterboarding is torture (which I don't for a single moment believe; that holds about as much, er, water as saying he's not sure if using thumbscrews is torture), then he was obliged to do his homework. I wouldn't support a police cadet graduating from the academy without the vaguest understanding the proper use of force, why should I--or Senator Dodd--accept that from the Attorney General?
hannah,
How would Thomas Dodd have voted? How would he have wanted his son to vote?
I second joel's comment. This was not even a close call. A filibuster would have sent a strong message to Bush and provided further ammunition for impeachment if Bush had gone ahead with a recess appointment of a truly awful candidate like Yoo or Addington. C'mon Senator Dodd. You are better than that!