Pelosi feeling light-headed with no Bush or Repub check on her power

I love the "completely destroys the economy." Because, you know...it's flying so high right now after 8 years of GOP stewardship...
 
uscitizen said:
yeah the repubs have just folded up.
94-2 confirmation vote on Hillary?
Click to expand...


Pampers Vitter and Jim "WOLVERINES!!!1!11!" DeMint voted against.

But they haven't totally folded up just yet. "Big John" Cornyn is fighting against the nomination of Eric Holder to be nation's chief law enforcement officer on the grounds that Holder actually might enforce the law.
 
Dungheap said:
But they haven't totally folded up just yet. "Big John" Cornyn is fighting against the nomination of Eric Holder to be nation's chief law enforcement officer on the grounds that Holder actually might enforce the law.
Click to expand...
Yep it's true alright, here's the quote:
"I em aginst this here nomernation of Eric Holder cause he might ackshually inforce the lawwww!" - John Cornyn

Sorry no link.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Yep it's true alright, here's the quote:
"I em aginst this here nomernation of Eric Holder cause he might ackshually inforce the lawwww!" - John Cornyn

Sorry no link.
Click to expand...


I've got the actual quote and link for you:

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is seeking more information from Holder on whether the Department of Justice will pursue criminal prosecutions of "intelligence personnel" involved in detainee interrogations.

Holder declared that "waterboarding is torture" during last week's session in the Judiciary Committee. That statement raises the possibility that the government agents who used the method, which simulates drowning, could be prosecuted.

Holder said that the Obama administration does not want to "crimilinalize policy disputes" with the Bush White House during that hearing, but Republicans want a more firm commitment from the prospective attorney general.

"It could well be there will be a request to delay the markup for a week so those questions can be asked and answered," Cornyn said. "Part of my concern relates to his statements at the hearing with regard to torture and what his intentions are toward our intelligence personnel who were operating in good faith based on their understanding of what the law was."
Click to expand...


You're welcome.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17747.html
 
KingCondanomation said:
Ok that's what I thought, he has questions on Holder's interpretation of the law, which of course happens all the time.
You don't need to lie next time.
Click to expand...


It isn't an issue of interpretation. It's an issue of enforcement. Here's the quote again by Cornyn with respect to torture:

Part of my concern relates to his statements at the hearing with regard to torture and what his intentions are toward our intelligence personnel who were operating in good faith based on their understanding of what the law was."
Click to expand...


Cornyn isn't saying that he disagrees with respect to whether waterboarding is torture. He just wants to know whether Holder intends to pursue prosecution of intelligence officials (and, presumably, those that ordered it) for torturing detainees.

Note also that Cornyn says that the intelligence officials were operating in good faith based on their understanding of what the law was, not that the intelligence officials were operating in accordance with what the law actually is.

Not really a question of interpretation. It's solely a question of enforcement. People broke the law. Now what is Holder going to do about it. Cornyn objects to the chief law enforcement officer enforcing the law.

Nice try, though.
 
Dungheap said:
It isn't an issue of interpretation. It's an issue of enforcement. Here's the quote again by Cornyn with respect to torture:




Cornyn isn't saying that he disagrees with respect to whether waterboarding is torture. He just wants to know whether Holder intends to pursue prosecution of intelligence officials (and, presumably, those that ordered it) for torturing detainees.

Note also that Cornyn says that the intelligence officials were operating in good faith based on their understanding of what the law was, not that the intelligence officials were operating in accordance with what the law actually is.

Not really a question of interpretation. It's solely a question of enforcement. People broke the law. Now what is Holder going to do about it. Cornyn objects to the chief law enforcement officer enforcing the law.

Nice try, though.
Click to expand...
What on earth? Are only lawyers allowed to dispute interpretations of the law? The intelligence officials went with their understanding of the law like a lot do, perhaps they are wrong, perhaps if they were wrong they saw an argument for how they were not and went with that.
You assume they are talking of waterboarding, I see no evidence of that and even if they were, don't assume that just because Cornyn doesn't come out and say he disputes waterboarding is torture means he agrees that it is. More than likely he simply does not want to say waterboarding because it's one of those buzzwords that attract more of the wrong attention.


In any event, it was only in 2007 that Bush signed an executive order banning torture (which still did not specifically include waterboarding but one could argue it does which is too long to get into here), thus the actual waterboarding acts of 2002 and 2003 should not be retroactively prosecuted anyway and perhaps THAT is the assurance that Cornyn is looking for.
Not all senators are looking to pass the buck and let the little people get it because someone wants some retribution for a particularly irksome act that offended the left more than most other acts did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top