vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

11.02.2007

Leahy says no to Mukasey

Sen. Patrick Leahy stiffed the Washington press corps by coming home and having his press conference on the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey as attorney general here in Vermont. Nothing personal, he said, he just had planned a long weekend at home.

So it was that Leahy announced this afternoon in his Burlington office that he would not be supporting Mukasey because the retired judge had not come out and explicitly said waterboarding is illegal under any circumstances.

How many of you out there knew what waterboarding was before this all hit the waves? Not wakeboarding, not waterskiing, though sometimes when you wipe out while waterskiing you do get more water up your nose than you'd like.

It'll drive you nuts, though, as you read the national stories about this nomination many of them assume you know what waterboarding is. This is an ABC News explanation:

The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly
below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is
poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of
drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts
to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton
of Human Rights Watch.

Mukasey, in his response to Leahy's questions, called the practice repugnant, said it was against U.S. military rules but when it came to the CIA, he said didn't have access to classified details of the agency's interrogation program.

As a result, Leahy's not voting for him next Tuesday when the committee votes. Whether the committee goes as the chairman goes remains to be seen.

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 3:46 PM |

Comments:

Is anybody really surprised?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:47 PM, November 02, 2007

Wow. What a meaningless statement by Leahy to simply protect his political future in VT. He knows there are enough votes to pass it with or without him so now he can take his typical obstructionist position with no risk. It is a strong statement about how far removed he is from reality when senators like Schumer and Feinstein indicate they will vote for approval. Clearly there is no AG this administration could present him that he would approve...entirely on partisan politics.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:01 AM, November 03, 2007

You have to remember that Leahy, along with Sanders, are nothing more than money-grubbing water carriers for moveon.org, code pink, and the rest of the far-left idiots that pay their way. How could Vermont have sunk this low!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:56 AM, November 03, 2007

Boring.....

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:47 PM, November 03, 2007

"“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”
Colin Powell on Bush's policy of torture

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:52 PM, November 03, 2007

"Beyond the basic fact that torture is illegal, history shows that it is neither useful nor necessary."

General David Petraeus

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:57 PM, November 03, 2007

"my concern in the case of the torture issue, is that this is a very slippery slope, and could very easily find its way into not only the torture of (quote) "enemy combatants," but also American citizens, and it just needs to be stopped."

General Joseph Hoar, USMC

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:06 PM, November 03, 2007

"The French in Algeria justified torturing terrorists, because of the timeliness of the information they were trying to extract, but there's no evidence that they were able to achieve any kind of a better record than anybody else."

General Joseph Hoar, USMC

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:07 PM, November 03, 2007

I remember what the French did in Algeria, as well as Indo-China (Vietnam for you liberals). If you think this even BEGINS to compare with our frat-hazing of child-killing terrorists, then maybe you ought to start thinking about early retirement in Canada.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:37 PM, November 03, 2007

Tell it to General Hoar.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:32 PM, November 03, 2007

Why does Leahy continue to torture us with his presense in DC.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:13 PM, November 03, 2007

Because we reelect him

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:18 PM, November 03, 2007

what is presense ?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:12 PM, November 03, 2007

Interestly enough, Congress has had two opportunities to make Waterboarding illegal and hasn't.

If they aren't willing to take a stand and do so, why are the Leahy goons berating Mukasey to rule one way or the other if not only out of unproductive partisan politics?

It seems Congress could use some spine on this issue too!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:59 AM, November 04, 2007

Congress and the Senate both have no spine or they would have stopped funding this war.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:29 AM, November 04, 2007

Waterboarding is already illegal. Is Congress supposed to pass legislation stating separately that every reprehensible practice is illegal, otherwise is is OK? Common sense says otherwise.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:57 AM, November 04, 2007

If its already illegal, why the grilling? It would be a matter of fact, not a debatable issue?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:53 PM, November 04, 2007

Torture is illegal; the bush administration has used it anyway, evidently and its defense is one reason the previous attorney general was forced to resign. For example, The law doesn't specify every means of murdering someone separately with those who use others than those specified free to do as they please. Why is it necessary to do this with means of torture?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:15 PM, November 04, 2007

Repeatedly in our past, the United States has confronted foes that, at the time they emerged, posed threats of a scope or nature unlike any we had previously faced. But we have been far more steadfast in the past in keeping faith with our national commitment to the rule of law. During the Second World War, General Dwight D. Eisenhower explained that the allies adhered to the law of war in their treatment of prisoners because “the Germans had some thousands of American and British
prisoners and I did not want to give Hitler the excuse or justification for treating our prisoners more harshly than he already was doing.”

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:55 PM, November 04, 2007

I agree.

But I think you can make the argument that spies were treated differently from soldiers who were captured.

I also think you can make the argument that terrorists are different from enemy soldiers who are captured.

However, I do agree that the U.S. should not be engaging in torture of captured people.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:58 PM, November 04, 2007

"The United States’ commitment to the Geneva Conventions – the laws of war – flows not only from field experience, but also from the moral principles on which this country was founded, and by which we all continue to be guided. We have learned first hand the value of adhering to the Geneva Conventions and practicing what we preach on the international stage."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:17 AM, November 05, 2007

Bloated Government (First In Series)

James Douglas -- $150,051
Michael Smith -- $135,803
Linda McIntyre -- $90,396*
Tim Hayward -- $129,251
Betsy Bishop -- $93,974
Jason Gibbs -- $69,825
Denise Casey -- $62,420

Average Vermonter -- $40,000

There's a reason they call it the Golden Dome!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:59 AM, November 05, 2007

There are other obligations that arise out of International law that we seem less inclined to adhere to including the obligation to stick around long enough to rebuild a government after you displace its leaders.

For good or bad, it makes it difficult to cut and run.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:00 AM, November 05, 2007

In the Governor's announcement about stae employee job cuts, he said that critical staffing would not be cut.

I wonder if he will see to it to cut any of 14 or so Communications people at a taxpayer expense of approx. $800,000!

I would hardly defend that they are critical - except to Gov Jim DoesLess re-election campaign!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:15 AM, November 05, 2007

And how about all the "deputy" commissioners Doesless has hired since taking office? Funny how he ignores this reality in favor of lopping off the heads of good honest working Vermonters. The vacancies will have to be filled by some poor working stiff doing twice the work, while Doesless and his high-priced "yes" people sit around planning their next road or field trip. What a joke!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:27 AM, November 05, 2007

Yeah, let's hope the legislators who voted to keep Douglas's 14 PR people (who earn close to $1 million) are asked by the press to defend that vote while allowing Douglas to cut 400 state jobs.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:31 AM, November 05, 2007

"truthwillsetyoufree said..."

I am sure you think this is inflated but when I look at the salaries listed, it is incredibly clear what the issue is.

You are trying to attract experienced professionals to important positions that affect each of our lives but are paying them wages that are far below anything they could realize in the private sector.

If you want to attract talented people with the wherewithal to address the complex issues we face, begin by paying a market rate to make it worth their time and efforts to take on the task.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:37 AM, November 05, 2007

Why does he need 14 PR people; talented and experience or not: that's the key issue. It a gross waste of taxpayers money.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:48 AM, November 05, 2007

These communications people are there dor one reason - MAKE THE GOVERNOR LOOK GOOD!

Just read the press releases they send out - inc. George Crombie's Op ED this weekend in the Times Argus. It's all about the Governor's leadership etc.

What a joke - and our media (like the Freeps) is also to blame because they rarely ask tough questions (and if they do) they don't follow up to make the Governor PROVE his statements or even worse when he doesn't answer the original question.

C'mon Nancy and Terri - Ask him tough questions and followups?
Don't let him off the hook.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:00 AM, November 05, 2007

Yeah. Ask him how he defends keeping the 14 PR hacks while not filling empty public service positions that actually serve Vermonters, as opposed to serving just the governor.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:20 PM, November 05, 2007

Which positions have not been filled and exactly how do they serve me? I am not feeling any lack of service.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:02 PM, November 05, 2007

"Which positions have not been filled and exactly how do they serve me? I am not feeling any lack of service."

Thanks Governor, but we already know how you feel.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:17 PM, November 05, 2007

Um, that's because the cut back hasn't happened yet.

The Gov just made the announcement a day or two ago.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:17 PM, November 05, 2007

"Which positions have not been filled and exactly how do they serve me? I am not feeling any lack of service."

Wait until they start cutting back on community corrections positions. The caseloads are already outrageous.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:43 PM, November 05, 2007

Try getting help finding employment through a Labor Department office. Staffing levels suck already and now they'll get worse. Trust me.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:46 PM, November 05, 2007

Actually, when the Governor proposed his budget for 2008 he included 0 for pay act - the legislature at least increased to 58% of required.

However, the mantra from the Administration has been " Agencies and departments will manage their budgets" meaning quite simply they will hold vacancies as long as possible including Parole and Probation! So just as the Governor releases more inmates into our communities he is cutting back on the services and protections they need.

Thanks Governor for making Vermont less safe!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:26 PM, November 05, 2007

"Funny how he ignores this reality in favor of lopping off the heads of good honest working Vermonters."

Name one state employee who will los his/her job. Name one.

The Gov. has said the reduction will NOT come by firong anyone.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:08 PM, November 05, 2007

"The Gov. has said the reduction will NOT come by firong anyone"

Exactly! On this board, facts will never get in the way of an opinion against Douglas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:06 AM, November 06, 2007

Just as the Governor releases more inmates into our communities he is cutting back on the services and protections they need.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:43 AM, November 06, 2007

I agree with the Free Press editorial today. Let's start the reduction in force with the governor's 14 PR people--a saving of almost a million right there.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:54 AM, November 06, 2007

"The Gov. has said the reduction will NOT come by firong anyone."

Especially his high-priced press cadre, his multiple deputy commissioners, all the expensive out-of-state private contractors he's hired or anyone else Jim wants to insulate himself with.

It's "firing" by the way.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:17 AM, November 06, 2007

But you have to admit -- it's true that nobody will be firoed.

It just isn't going to happen.

I doubt that Jim Douglas has ever firoed someone -- well -- perhaps one time, in college ...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:26 PM, November 06, 2007

Yeah, he fired the big guy he hired to keep the normal kids from beating the crap out of him--the nerd.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:35 PM, November 06, 2007

Professional street fighter was my game. Defending little stick Jimmy prepared me well. Thanks for asking.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:46 PM, November 06, 2007

There are some nutty things going on with this blog.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:52 PM, November 06, 2007

"Professional street fighter was my game. Defending little stick Jimmy prepared me well. Thanks for asking."

Ahhh...you make me laugh :)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:13 PM, November 06, 2007

How does New Hampshire survive on the same number of state employees as Vermont, with twice the population? And continually come in far ahead in any meaningful comparisons?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:17 PM, November 06, 2007

Bubba, there's room for you in N.H. Why stay here? Isn't it bad for your health? You fighting a losing battle so give up, shut up, and head on up to N.H. where everything is wonderful!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:50 PM, November 06, 2007

Here's a thought: let's look at facts instead of Bubba's uninformed ravings.

First, according to the NH Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages, there were 21,405 state employees in NH in Dec. 2006; there were also 61,622 local gov't. employees for a total of 83,027 public employees. Census reports that NH's population in 2006 was 1,314,895. That means there was one public employee for every 16 people.

The comparable figures for VT show that there is one public employee for every 13 people (16,456 state + 31,342 local = 47,798 public employees and 623,908 people).

[Note: I think both states count all those who work at the state university and state colleges as state employees, which is why VT's is so much higher than the figure we usually see for "state" employees]

So NH does NOT have half as many state empoyees. In fact, it has 30% MORE than VT. But it also has almost twice as many local gov't. employees, which is how they've chosen to deliver services.

In the end, I hardly think the difference (1 for 16 vs. 1 for 13) is a big deal.

As for meaningful comparisons, the two states are nearly identical in most social indicators (e.g., infant mortality, pre-teen births, HS drop-outs, etc.). On the other hand, NH has a much higher rate of violent crime per 100,000 residents. Overall, it's pretty close.

Economic indicators in NH are heavily influenced by the southern part of the state (greater Boston actually) so it's not surprising that wages are higher - but so is the cost of home ownership.

NH's private sector job growth since 2000 was 3.5%, while VT's was 2.8%. NH was better but hardly "far ahead".

At some point, facts have to trump assumptions. Don't you think so?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:11 PM, November 06, 2007

"... and continually come in far ahead in any meaningful comparisons?"

Well, their crime rate is a lot higher per capita. I guess you think that's "far ahead".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:12 PM, November 06, 2007

The southern half of NH is a Boston Bedroom community with the same costs.

BTW, don't you get nailed for MA income and NH property tax that way.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:22 PM, November 06, 2007

"Especially his high-priced press cadre, his multiple deputy commissioners, all the expensive out-of-state private contractors he's hired or anyone else Jim wants to insulate himself with."

Does the Executive Office have more staff now than it did during Dean?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:22 PM, November 06, 2007

"Doug Hoffer Said . . ."

Hey everyone, once again Doug is right and you're wrong.

Now he's an expert on New Hampshire.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:33 PM, November 06, 2007

"Does the Executive Office have more staff now than it did during Dean?"

Ask Doug. He would know. He is so smart.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:18 AM, November 07, 2007

Why don't we have better leadership in the house and senate?

We got control (numbers wise) in 2006 and the Speaker and the Senate Pro Tem have gotten nothing done and can't seem to work with the Governor - what is going on?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:06 AM, November 07, 2007

Aren't Republicans supposed to be the party of smaller government? If so, why would it matter if Douglas's staff size (ewww!) is the same as Dean's? It should be smaller just based on GOP principle.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:44 AM, November 07, 2007

Boy, you've really set the bar pretty low for expertise. All I did was read a little bit. You might want to try it sometime.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:45 AM, November 07, 2007

"Aren't Republicans supposed to be the party of smaller government? If so, why would it matter if Douglas's staff size (ewww!) is the same as Dean's? It should be smaller just based on GOP principle."

That's a ridiculous double standard.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:59 PM, November 07, 2007

"All I did was read a little bit. You might want to try it sometime."

Doug, how about you listen more, and talk (lecture) less. Ok?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:36 PM, November 07, 2007

I am listening. What you call "lecturing" is in response to other comments. Isn't that the nature of a dialogue? You say something, I say something back. Or are you suggesting that I not participate?

And are you suggesting that I (we) should just accept blatantly false information? And that such comments should go unchallenged? Or that I should withhold facts that might be of interest to others?

If you don't like "lecturing", please tell us what is acceptable for this blog.

Finally, there have been 61 comments in this thread. Prior to this, I have contributed two. Seems like a lot more listening then "lecturing".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:22 AM, November 08, 2007

Schoolmarm.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:27 PM, November 08, 2007

That's deep.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:08 PM, November 08, 2007

Waterboarding torture? see Washington Post A04 11/9/07

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:28 AM, November 09, 2007

Deep? No. True? Yes.

Sanctimonious schoolmarm.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:32 AM, November 10, 2007

Name-caller.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:15 AM, November 10, 2007

Don't you just love the irony when Teddy Kennedy lectures us on the evils of waterboarding?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:30 AM, November 10, 2007

It's the NAVY expert who talks about the fact the waterboarding is torture. But let's ignore that; we can't let facts get in the way of our prejudices.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:52 AM, November 10, 2007