As evidenced by the spectacular failures regarding intelligence, the war in Iraq, Katrina, and energy policy, the Bush administration has pursued a policy of rewarding slavish political allegiance ahead of merit and open, constructive debate. In the latest example, the Justice Department’s own inspector general has found that political affiliation has been used, illegally, as a screening criterion for recruiting programs aimed at attracting highly qualified candidates to the Justice Department. The facts are crystal clear—the report found that applicants with Democratic affiliation were turned away “at a significantly higher rate” than candidates with Republican ties.
The relevance of these facts is that Fairfield County’s representative in Congress, Christopher Shays, has steadfastly stood by Bush throughout his tenure in office. While Shays may have expressed muted disagreement here and there, he has not evidenced the independent, principled thinking that we need to solve the many crises that threaten our country. He has strongly supported Bush on disproportionate tax breaks for the wealthy, violating constitutional protections in the name of national security, and waging a war in Iraq that has done anything but made the U.S. more secure. Like so many other Bush loyalists, Shays is unable or unwilling to break free from President Bush and his ill-conceived policies.
Fortunately, it’s within our power to break free from Christopher Shays. With Jim Himes, running for Congress in the Connecticut 4th District, we have an intelligent, independent and socially conscious candidate who can help set America back on course. I urge voters in the 4th District to learn more about Jim Himes in what Time Magazine is calling one of the top 15 Congressional races to watch.
Showing posts with label Attorney General. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Attorney General. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Mukasey: Another Attorney General Like Gonzales?
There is now well-documented evidence that the Bush administration is running roughshod over the rule of law, demonstrated by actions such as its warrantless wiretapping and repeated court rebuffs on military tribunals. It is also clear that President Bush has seriously damaged the United States’ moral authority through use of torture, withholding the right to challenge detention and extraordinary rendition.
I would have therefore expected that the Democratic-led Congress would demand that Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey unambiguously declare his opposition to these policies. But the apparent green light from the Senate Judiciary Committee to move forward on the nomination is not reassuring.
As it is clear from Mukasey’s testimony that he cannot be trusted to return integrity to the Department of Justice, he should not be confirmed.
Mukasey has been unable to decide if the practice of waterboarding is torture. Despite the fact that the State Department has criticized other countries for using it. Despite the fact that after World War II, the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for engaging in the practice against U.S. soldiers. Despite that fact that U.S. military officials have called it torture. Even administration apologist Senator John McCain has called it “very exquisite torture.” If Mukasey’s powers of inquiry are so feeble that he can’t collect the facts he needs to come to a decision, then surely he isn’t fit to lead the nation’s law enforcement activities.
Mukasey’s view of executive privilege has more far-reaching consequences for the principles which are the cornerstone of our country’s moral clarity—namely the rule of law. In his testimony, Mukasey stated that it is acceptable for the President to violate laws written by Congress, as long as his actions are within the Constitution. That is dangerous thinking for a country founded upon the separation of powers. It is precisely this arrogance on the part of the Bush administration—that believes it can ignore, rather than challenge, the legislative branch—that is seriously eroding the protection of our constitutional and civil rights.
Hopefully the Democratic controlled Congress will stand up to Bush’s attacks on our country’s principles—as the electorate signaled they wanted last November—by refusing to support the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General.
I would have therefore expected that the Democratic-led Congress would demand that Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey unambiguously declare his opposition to these policies. But the apparent green light from the Senate Judiciary Committee to move forward on the nomination is not reassuring.
As it is clear from Mukasey’s testimony that he cannot be trusted to return integrity to the Department of Justice, he should not be confirmed.
Mukasey has been unable to decide if the practice of waterboarding is torture. Despite the fact that the State Department has criticized other countries for using it. Despite the fact that after World War II, the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for engaging in the practice against U.S. soldiers. Despite that fact that U.S. military officials have called it torture. Even administration apologist Senator John McCain has called it “very exquisite torture.” If Mukasey’s powers of inquiry are so feeble that he can’t collect the facts he needs to come to a decision, then surely he isn’t fit to lead the nation’s law enforcement activities.
Mukasey’s view of executive privilege has more far-reaching consequences for the principles which are the cornerstone of our country’s moral clarity—namely the rule of law. In his testimony, Mukasey stated that it is acceptable for the President to violate laws written by Congress, as long as his actions are within the Constitution. That is dangerous thinking for a country founded upon the separation of powers. It is precisely this arrogance on the part of the Bush administration—that believes it can ignore, rather than challenge, the legislative branch—that is seriously eroding the protection of our constitutional and civil rights.
Hopefully the Democratic controlled Congress will stand up to Bush’s attacks on our country’s principles—as the electorate signaled they wanted last November—by refusing to support the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General.
Thursday, January 6, 2005
Oppose Gonzales Nomination
A letter I sent to my CT Senators...
I am writing to urge you to do everything in your power to deny confirmation to President Bush’s nomination of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general of the United States.
It as an absolute disgrace for the Senate to have to even consider the nomination of an administration official who has so little regard for the values embodied in our constitution. While Mr. Gonzales’ exact role is still unclear, it is without doubt that he was party to the deliberations and policies of the Bush administration that created a climate leading to widespread and continuing abuse and torture of prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. And practices at Guantanamo in which detainees may be held forever without access to due process.
As a recent Op-Ed column in The New York Times stated, “By using torture, the country relinquishes the very ideological advantage – the promotion of democracy, freedom and human rights – that the president has so persistently claimed is America’s most powerful weapon in defeating Islamic extremism.”
Granted, the war on terror requires new ways of prosecuting war to be successful. But to subvert the very ideals that we are fighting to protect is not an option.
It is clear that President Bush will not hold members of his administration accountable for their moral, strategic and tactical errors. Nor is it likely that the Republican leadership will force Bush to do so. It is incumbent upon you to bring this administration to account for its moral lapses, and for the tremendous harm it has done to the reputation and integrity of the United States.
You can begin that process by denying confirmation to Alberto Gonzales for attorney general.
I am writing to urge you to do everything in your power to deny confirmation to President Bush’s nomination of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general of the United States.
It as an absolute disgrace for the Senate to have to even consider the nomination of an administration official who has so little regard for the values embodied in our constitution. While Mr. Gonzales’ exact role is still unclear, it is without doubt that he was party to the deliberations and policies of the Bush administration that created a climate leading to widespread and continuing abuse and torture of prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. And practices at Guantanamo in which detainees may be held forever without access to due process.
As a recent Op-Ed column in The New York Times stated, “By using torture, the country relinquishes the very ideological advantage – the promotion of democracy, freedom and human rights – that the president has so persistently claimed is America’s most powerful weapon in defeating Islamic extremism.”
Granted, the war on terror requires new ways of prosecuting war to be successful. But to subvert the very ideals that we are fighting to protect is not an option.
It is clear that President Bush will not hold members of his administration accountable for their moral, strategic and tactical errors. Nor is it likely that the Republican leadership will force Bush to do so. It is incumbent upon you to bring this administration to account for its moral lapses, and for the tremendous harm it has done to the reputation and integrity of the United States.
You can begin that process by denying confirmation to Alberto Gonzales for attorney general.
Monday, January 1, 2001
Oppose Ashcroft Nomination
Letter to Congress opposing the nomination of John Ashcroft for attorney general...
I am writing to you to strongly urge that you oppose the nomination of John Ashcroft for attorney general. His positions and actions on a wide range of legislative issues make him an exceptionally poor choice to uphold and protect the nation’s laws. This is not merely a matter of political philosophies – Mr. Ashcroft’s record demonstrates that he is not fit to be the custodian of our citizens’ rights.
Mr. Ashcroft clearly does not believe in protecting women’s constitutionally protected right to reproductive choice. He has actively pursued legislation that would criminalize abortion even in cases of rape, incest and threats to a woman’s health. He has been so extreme is his quest as to propose legislation that would ban common forms of contraception.
Mr. Ashcroft’s cavalier approach to offering constitutional amendments – whether for banning flag burning, imposing term limits or outlawing abortion make it clear that he would be eager to use our precious Constitution as a tool of partisan politics – hardly the level of integrity that this great country needs in its attorney general.
Mr. Ashcroft has little respect for our citizens’ hard won civil rights – as evidenced in his position against legislation to deal with hate crimes, his opposition to even voluntary busing to support desegregation, his extremely obstructive activities to block confirmation of judicial appointments during the Clinton administration. His integrity is further in doubt when he created blatant misrepresentations of Justice Ronnie White’s positions in order to derail his nomination. Finally, how can we believe Mr. Ashcroft will protect minorities if he accepted a degree from Bob Jones University, whose racial policies are suspect, to say the least.
President-elect Bush promised to unite the country. John Ashcroft for attorney general is about as divisive a nomination as I could personally contemplate. If he is confirmed, it will be sad day for the protection of Americans’ rights – let alone bipartisanship for the next four years.
Again, I urge you to vote against the confirmation of John Ashcroft for attorney general. I’ll be watching the votes closely.
I am writing to you to strongly urge that you oppose the nomination of John Ashcroft for attorney general. His positions and actions on a wide range of legislative issues make him an exceptionally poor choice to uphold and protect the nation’s laws. This is not merely a matter of political philosophies – Mr. Ashcroft’s record demonstrates that he is not fit to be the custodian of our citizens’ rights.
Mr. Ashcroft clearly does not believe in protecting women’s constitutionally protected right to reproductive choice. He has actively pursued legislation that would criminalize abortion even in cases of rape, incest and threats to a woman’s health. He has been so extreme is his quest as to propose legislation that would ban common forms of contraception.
Mr. Ashcroft’s cavalier approach to offering constitutional amendments – whether for banning flag burning, imposing term limits or outlawing abortion make it clear that he would be eager to use our precious Constitution as a tool of partisan politics – hardly the level of integrity that this great country needs in its attorney general.
Mr. Ashcroft has little respect for our citizens’ hard won civil rights – as evidenced in his position against legislation to deal with hate crimes, his opposition to even voluntary busing to support desegregation, his extremely obstructive activities to block confirmation of judicial appointments during the Clinton administration. His integrity is further in doubt when he created blatant misrepresentations of Justice Ronnie White’s positions in order to derail his nomination. Finally, how can we believe Mr. Ashcroft will protect minorities if he accepted a degree from Bob Jones University, whose racial policies are suspect, to say the least.
President-elect Bush promised to unite the country. John Ashcroft for attorney general is about as divisive a nomination as I could personally contemplate. If he is confirmed, it will be sad day for the protection of Americans’ rights – let alone bipartisanship for the next four years.
Again, I urge you to vote against the confirmation of John Ashcroft for attorney general. I’ll be watching the votes closely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
