Michael Mukasey is certainly qualified to be Attorney General of the United States, if Alberto Gonzales sets any precedent.

And while that may be the least convincing recommendation anyone can ever be given for the job, consider that Mukasey yesterday gave perhaps the least convincing answer to one of the most important questions asked of him — by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)– in his confirmation hearing:

WHITEHOUSE: Is waterboarding constitutional?

MUKASEY: I don’t know what is involved in the technique. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.

WHITEHOUSE: “If waterboarding is constitutional” is a massive hedge.

MUKASEY: No, I said, “If it’s torture.” I’m sorry. I said, “If it’s torture.”

WHITEHOUSE: “If it’s torture.” That’s a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn’t. Do you have an opinion on whether waterboarding, which is the practice of putting somebody in a reclining position, strapping them down, putting cloth over their faces, and pouring water over the cloth to simulate the feeling of drowning. Is that constitutional?

MUKASEY: If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.

WHITEHOUSE: I’m very disappointed in that answer – I think it is purely semantic.

MUKASEY: I’m sorry.

And Whitehouse is right, of course. To say torture is not constitutional is — or should be, in a sane world — to say nothing at all. That is the response one might expect from a junior high school civics student, not a nominee for Attorney General.

But Mukasey, and his putative boss, George W. Bush, have a much bigger problem than being able to get away with massive hedges. The problem is that Bush’s policies have made it impossible for any nominee for Attorney General who hopes to retain any amount of faith with this “administration” to answer these threshold questions with any amount of honesty.

It is simply bedrock truth that no one can answer the torture questions honestly without exposing the fact that the “administration” hinges its entire detainee policy on semantics.

It is similarly unfathomable — or once was unfathomable in America — that a nominee for Attorney General of the United States would ever have to say anything other than “no” to the question of “Is waterboarding constitutional?”

George W. Bush’s detainee policies have, quite simply, rendered honest and conscientious service as an Attorney General impossible. One simply cannot serve both this president and the law faithfully. It is a paradox and an impossibility, because this president does not serve the law faithfully. And what it means, at bottom, is that George W. Bush’s “administration” is an enemy of the rule of law, and has so diminished our capacity to live by it that no honest Senator should permit him the charade of attending to it with the window dressing of confirming an Attorney General.

Anyone who would hold that job in this “administration” will by definition be reduced to serving as a placeholder only — a mere figurehead to whom everyone will, out of pure habit only, refer to as the “Attorney General,” but who will at the end of the day be prevented from administering the law he will have sworn to uphold.

From Carl Etnier's blog:

If the 100+ citizens gathered by the Department of Public Service at the Montpelier Elks Club last Thursday had their way, the state would shut down Vermont Yankee, invest heavily in in-state hydro, and landscape the ridgelines with wind turbines in view of participants’ homes.

The meeting was the third of five public workshops in a series called (for some reason) “Vermont’s Energy Future.” The workshops are actually about electricity, just one of the many forms of energy used in Vermont. Transportation and heating, which also represent large (and increasingly pricey) chunks of the state’s energy budget, were ignored. The workshops are part of the public engagement process the legislature directed the Department to go through to help develop a good policy response to the scheduled shut-down of Vermont Yankee in 2012 and the expiration of the state’s utilities’ very favorable, long-term contracts with Hydro Quebec over the period 2012-2015.

On the GMD polling matter; “Should Anthony Pollina be the Democratic candidate for Governor (assuming he would accept the Democratic nomination)? – it seems consensus eludes us. Democracy's just so messy, aint it?

This morning’s Rutland Herald Piece on Vermont Yankee has a couple interesting items in it. It talks generally about the safety concerns, but it has one specific item that was news to me, even though it probably shouldn’t have been:

Since Entergy received final approval for the power uprate in March 2006, Vermont Yankee has produced 20 percent more electricity ? about 100 megawatts more, for a total of 640 megawatts, with little of the new energy staying in Vermont. Less than half of its total power generation is sold to Vermonters.

In other words, when Vermont Yankee wants an uprate to produce more energy, they’re not doing it to meet the demands of Vermonters. They’re doing it to make more money out of state.

Why on earth would anyone think that the increased risk that comes with the uprate is worth it if it doesn’t even benefit our own state?

(I know infrastructure isn’t top of the food chain for everyone, but it’s important. – promoted by JulieWaters)

The draw bridge connecting the town of Grand Isle to the town of North Hero has been deemed unsafe for two-way traffic. It has been made one way by use of traffic lights, and still continues to open for boat traffic. The drawbridge sits on US Route 2 and is the only gateway for sailboats to access the Inland Sea section of Lake Champlain.

This is more than an inconvenience for Grand Isle County, as Route 2 is the only north/south connecting road through the islands. Traffic bottlenecks have already been had, but the concern is the ability of the island communties emergency responders to cross during periods of high volume traffic. This is more than a hindrance for the two communities on one side, and three communities on the other who rely on the ability to provide mutual aid.

Word about town is that it will be four years before the bridge can be replaced. Studies need to be done, etc. The sad part is it was known that this bridge was in decline, long before the incident occurred to the west that caused all bridges to be checked. This bridge is so old the book “History of South Hero Island”, shows a picture of it with an out house attached to the back. Deposits were quick and direct to the lake.

This is a serious issue facing an entire Vermont county, and needs to be at the forefront of everyone's minds. Four years is too long. There are several of these traffic choke points throughout US Route 2 as you travel through the Champlain Islands. This is the fastest growing county in the state of Vermont, it needs to be treated better than the bastard child of Chittenden County.

I implore any and all, if you see Governor Jim Douglas, ask about that drawbridge in Grand Isle? If you see Representatives Mitzi Johnson or Ira Trombley, ask what they are doing to get the drawbridge fixed? If you run across Senator Dick Mazza, ask him why his constituents have travel every day over an unsafe bridge, when he is the Chair of the Senate Transportation committee?

Burlington Black Blog is promoting National Black Out Day, Friday November 2nd. The day is a national boycott by African Americans of any commercial activity – sort of a 2 billion dollar wake up call on the continued rampant racial inequalities in the country. Think racism is “none of your damn business?” Maybe you think racism is just a Marxist plot to keep the poor, beset-upon white man down? Or maybe you're simply in denial. In any event, check the post for a sobering rundown of reality in today's USA.

Here's a front page link to usual suspect Chittendem Dem Sam Osborne's new Douglas-needling site. We'll give Sam a few weeks to get the feel of the medium before taking stock.

This is the difference between a Democratic State Treasurer and a Republican one.

Nose intact. Face remains un-spited. UVM will not ban Red Cross blood drives because of their compliance with a stupid homophobic law preventing gay men from donating. Maybe they can turn their efforts to changing the stupid homophobic law, rather than taking it out on people in need of blood (FYI: The Red Cross opposes the law).

There will be heavy sighs and the concerned shaking of heads aplenty, as former Kunin and Dean Chief of Staff Kathleen Hoyt, former Douglas Secretary of Administration Charlie Smith, and Progressive State Chair Martha Abbott take the stage at a Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce event on October 30th to bemoan how uncivil politics have become in Vermont. Chris Graff will moderate. I have an idea: let's a bunch of us go, have a shot everytime somebody mentions the word “blog” or “blogger,” and see how far we get into the event before passing out.

While Douglas and the GOP relentlessly talk down Vermont's business environment as compared to New Hampshire, reality offers a different perspective.

For those who haven't gotten the scoop yet, there's a new blog by Sam Osborne called “Cutting Ribbons.”  (h/t to Baruth.)

Just two days old, the purpose of the blog is to figure out exactly what Governor Douglas has acheived.  

In his introductory post, Osborne writes:

  Where in the heck in Governor Douglas 

This is my first attempt at a blog, but if you are like most Vermonters you wonder what Governor Douglas does all day. We know he has an official schedule more on that later, we know he cuts ribbons and does that once a week press conference with the mainstream press, but what does he do the rest of the day.

Ah, the mystery begins to unfold.  What, exactly, has Governor Douglas done in his three terms?  As with unsolveable riddles, circular arguments, and valiant attempts to locate the end of a rainbow, I expect Osborne will be chasing this elusive goal for some time to come.

In the meantime, I'm adding it to my list of bookmarked blogs.

Nate

Yesterday in another thread I posted a brief mention of John Campbell's record, referring to him as “anti-flag-burning resolution conservative”.

Well, people are definitely reading. I had a long conversation with John at lunch time, and I think it's fair to fill in the gaps of my comment with a more complete version of what happened with the flag resolution.

This is from my conversation with John, although it squares with my recollection of the controversy. It was the 2002 legislative session and John Campbell was a new senator from Windsor County. The R's, led by Julius Canns, had been pushing an anti-flag-burning resolution as part of a nationwide campaign by right-wingers across the country.

In an effort to deflect this push and to take the flag issue off the table as a campaign issue, Campbell and other senators sponsored J.R.S. 9, to protect the American flag. Campbell was the lead sponsor, although he was not the only sponsor. It included the following language:

That the General Assembly expresses its respect, love and admiration for our United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly expresses its condemnation of all acts of flag desecration, and similar displays of disrespect for the United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly respectfully urges the Congress of the United States to take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag, and be it further

 Eventually the resolution passed after conference committee, although in slightly different form. The resolution was amended by its supporters to express more devotion to true American values than the original resolution:

Whereas, these principles include the protection of individual freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including free speech, free press, peaceable assembly, and petitions for the redress of grievances, now therefore be it

     Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives:

That the General Assembly expresses its respect and admiration for our United States Flag, and be it further

Resolved:  That the General Assembly expresses its condemnation of all acts of flag desecration, and similar displays of disrespect for the United States Flag, and be it further

Resolved:  That the General Assembly urges the Congress of the United States to ensure that proper respect and treatment will always be afforded to the United States Flag, and that the Congress explore all avenues available,  which may include a constitutional amendment, a statutory change and a public education program, to protect the United States Flag from physical desecration,

 In one way I think this new language is worse than the original, since it specifically supports any action the Congress deems necessary to protect the flag, up to and including amending the Constitution. On the other hand, the new resolution does express Vermont's support for the freedoms enunciated in the First Amendment, 

including free speech, free press, peaceable assembly, and petitions for the redress of grievances, 

(How you support free speech by suppressing it is beyond me, but I wasn't the one writing the resolution.)

I still disagree with this. As a matter of principle, I don't think we can go around suppressing speech, even if it's symbolic speech like flag-burning. As a matter of strategy, I also think it makes us weaker, rather than stronger, to play into the Republicans' hands with moves like this.

On the other hand, the strategem worked. We haven't heard a peep from the anti-flag-burners in the State House since 2002, which is a good thing.

Also, by the time the resolution was adopted it had gained all the Democratic Senators as sponsors, including such liberal heroes as Jean Ankeney, Cheryl Rivers, and Janet Munt. Although Campbell was the lead sponsor, I don't think most of us would refer to the whole Democratic caucus as “anti-flag-burning resolution conservative”.

I'm not sure if John Campbell is going to run for governor, and I don't think he knows yet. It's a big challenge with no guarantee of success. On the other hand, whoever winds up being the candidate, it will be someone who stood up, took a chance, and put a lot of work into it, and we'll owe that person our support this year at least for doing it.

One more thing. This diary isn't really a bio, but you can search for legislation Campbell has sponsored by following this link and fillling his name in.

Bush's latest statement about Iran's nuclear program causes me to wonder on what legal basis he is asserting “Iran must be prevented from having the KNOWLEDGE of making nuclear weapons.” (sic)

Excuse me, but when did KNOWLEDGE become an international crime?

Am I the only one who finds this peculiar? Knowledge is the basis of freedom. Bush is asserting “Iran cannot be free.” Knowledge provides the power of choice. You don't have a choice until you have the knowledge of how to do something. But just because you have the knowledge does not mean you will actually do it.

Crimes have always been actions, not KNOWLEDGE of actions. Knowledge must be free so we can be free to choose our own course in life, whether we are considering a choice as an individual or a nation.

The result of this kind of rhetoric is a justification for war based on a false idea, that we are better off ignorant. It is akin to a “thought crime” at the nation-state level of human organization.

Bush is telling Iran “Don't even think about making a nuclear weapon. We consider it a crime.” That's a threat for war and Bush is totally wrong for making it. Nobody has the right to assert ignorance is necessary for another.

We must learn to develop human systems which “trust and verify” our abilities to make good decisions.

Trying to control access to knowledge is foolhardiness at best and a recipe for war at worst.

Bush is trying to assert the right to wage war based on “fear of knowledge.”

Impeachment is necessary.

Justice requires it.

Steve Moyer

http://stevemoyer.us

It's Time to Make a Choice in Iraq

By Governor Bill Richardson

Yesterday,twelve former Army captains wrote that short of reinstating the draft, “our best option is to leave Iraq immediately.” In an extraordinary editorial in the Washington Post, these captains–all of whom served in Iraq–made it clear that we need to end this war and we need to end it now. They wrote that a ” scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.”

I strongly urge every American to read this important report from those who served in the failed conflict in Iraq. Army captains are the staff officers who plan operations against insurgent strongholds. They are the company commanders who lead our soldiers through the streets of Baghdad. And they are the soldiers who will direct our withdrawal from Iraq.

These men and women know the score. They know that we must leave Iraq. As they put it, “It's time to make a choice.” Americans are fed up with the President's stalling and Congressional failure to act. Frankly, it is well past time we make a choice. And the only responsible choice left to us is to get all of our troops out of Iraq, with no residual forces left behind–no combat forces, no non-combat forces. As President, I will do it. I will get all of our troops out within a year after I take office – sooner if we can get it done safely.

The other major candidates in this race have said–again and again–that they will not. Senators Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have all refused to commit to getting all of our troops out of Iraq by 2013. None of them are willing to be clear about removing all troops – combat and non-combat. It's unbelievable. Are they looking at the same war the rest of us are? Furthermore, they are all advocating precisely the sort of scaled withdrawal that these  twelve captains are warning against. It doesn't make any sense. Real leadership  is about making the tough choices, and knowing when it is time to make bold  moves. Now is the time for action, not hesitation. Ending this war requires  real change, not more incrementalism.

Ending this war is the most important issue of our time. And it is the fundamental  difference between me and Senators Edwards, Obama, and Clinton. I will end  the war; they will not. I will get all of our troops out; they will leave  troops behind indefinitely. I will order a safe and rapid withdrawal and have  our troops out within a year. They have proposed a long, protracted withdrawal  that will only increase the danger to our fighting men and women and drag  out the war.

2013 is six years from now – six years. In six years, will  we have lost 6,000 men and women in Iraq? 10,000? More? In six years will  this be a $2 trillion mistake? Or $3 trillion? The war has been going on for  four and half years already. Six years from now, we will have been there for  more than a decade. Are you okay with that? I'm not.

The choice in Iraq is clear. We need to get all our troops out quickly. We  need to end this war for real. Go to getourtroopsout.com  to join Americans across the country in calling for a quick, clear, responsible  end to the war in Iraq.