The Democrats Who Voted to Confirm Torture

A nation cannot be free when the government has the ability to coerce false confessions out of torture, or the fear of torture. That’s why protection against cruel and unusual punishments was included in the Bill of Rights.

Yesterday, six Democrats in the U.S. Senate forgot about that fundamental principle of American democracy, and confirmed as Attorney General of the United States a man who has refused to support the Bill of Rights and block the torture being planned and set in motion by the President of the United States. Waterboarding is clearly a form of torture, and torture is against the law and a violation of the Constitution. However, although it is the job of the Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey has refused to commit to stopping the practice of waterboarding.

jcliffordThe following six Democrats voted for Mukasey anyway, signaling that it’s just fine with them if the Attorney General of the United States doesn’t enforce laws against torture:

Evan Bayh of Indiana
Tom Carper of Delaware
Dianne Feinstein of California
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Charles Schumer of New York

The Democratic Party ought to have no place for pro-torture politicians like these. If the Democratic Party leadership was truly opposed to torture, it would find strong challengers to these unworthy incumbents. Given the Democratic leadership’s apathy, it’s up to the grassroots Democrats to reform the Democratic Party – by only voting for Democratic candidates who are truly progressive.

(Source: Library of Thomas)

About jclifford

A senior writer for Irregular Times. Formerly an antiaquarian speech pathologist.
This entry was posted in 2008 Reasons, Democrats, Liberty. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Democrats Who Voted to Confirm Torture

  1. John Stracke says:

    Kennedy had said he’d filibuster the nomination. What happened there? Did he try?

  2. J. Clifford says:

    I’m finding nothing on this. Nothing even discussing the possibility of a filibuster against Mukasey after the 7th of November. Sorry.

  3. John Stracke says:

    OK, I must have been misremembering. Thanks.

  4. J. Clifford says:

    Well, maybe you’re right. Certainly, however, there was not a filibuster.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>