newsobserver.com projects - Michael Mukasey - Comments

Re: Political dustup at UNC law school

freemktnc — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:19:16 -0500

Let's think. FREE-SPEECH. It's amazing how liberals hate it when someone who opposes thier views won't let them speech. Liberals are like Hitler and Chavez. They hate it when someone opposes them.

Re: Political dustup at UNC law school

ecnidas — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:24:31 -0500

I have no interest in getting into a discussion with you. All I will say is that America should aspire to be the greatest country in the world. Justifying its own reprehensible behavior by claiming that other people did it first is not showing that kind of aspiration. It is simply sinking to the level of those people that you yourself refer to as "baby-killers." Most of us Americans believe we are better than that. I'm sorry you don't agree.

Re: Political dustup at UNC law school

maxlynda — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:42:58 -0500

If they did wish to invite Hugo Chavez, they might be able to persuade former Republican Rep. Cass Ballenger of Hickory to help in that effort. Ballenger, a prominent conservative and former chairman of a House subcommittee on international relations, once served as the host of a visit to Hickory by Chavez.

It may be difficult to "lump" people based on who they would be inclined to listen to or talk with. For example, while I might not agree with the former attorney general, I would probably be interested in hearing what he has to say about the Bush administration's management of the Department of Justice. Does he believe the U.S. should be bound by the International Geneva Conventions? Should the new Congress investigate possible crimes committed by Bush appointees in the selection of district attorneys and other DOJ officials? Should an attorney general consider political philosophy when selecting appointees to key administrative positions?

Re: Political dustup at UNC law school

tangoz — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:14:54 -0500

Since you are writitng here I can say for certainty you not a intelligence agent with inside information. I have heard from Non Barack media sources that it did provide information in one known case.

My issue is that waterboarding is not permamnent physical injury and should be allowed to used by Presidential order only. We do not know the information Obama is privy to. But I would bet he would use it in a exceptional circumstance if he needed to.

Oh did you know we test our own military in courses using sleep deprivation, loud music, and yes water boarding. But we have not figured out how to train our military in being beheaded. You need to read up on how our prisoners have been treated starting with Revolutionary War to today, it may open your eyes.

And please answer me why Obama has not once used the Phrase War on Terror and why he is in favor of giving American civil rights to foreign murders and baby killers known as Al Queda and associates.

Final note: Read up on what happened to our Mr Pearl.

Re: Political dustup at UNC law school

ecnidas — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:30:41 -0500

In addition to being inhumane, cruel and a violation of international law, waterboarding and other forms of torture have never produced any actionable piece of intelligence. Were there a situation where the choice was see Americans die or torture somebody to prevent it, then we would have a real moral dilemma on our hands. Unfortunately for torture supporters, those types of situation only happen on "24" and not in the real world.

Re: Political dustup at UNC law school

tangoz — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:53:58 -0500

I bet the liberals who dominate UNC-CH would love to have that domestic terrorist Ayers or that even hugo Chavez from Venezuela speak. Looks like I can lump everyone who opposes Mukasey into the pile of people who would rather see Americans die than terrorist waterboarded.

Re: Neal: No on Mukasey nomination

persondem — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:38:51 -0500

"Thank God we did not have to fight World War II with today's Democrats."

That post is the biggest nonsequitur I have encountered in quite some time.

Re: Neal: No on Mukasey nomination

cornax — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:53:44 -0500

Thank God we did not have to fight World War II with today's Democrats.

Glad to see this

Anglico — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:17:50 -0500

Hagan may have the backing of the Democratic Establishment, but she'll be hard pressed to gain the backing of men and women in uniform.

It's really difficult to understand how anyone could be "not sure" about torture.

Substance and style

Anglico — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:17:50 -0500

My take on your Hagan and Neal blurbs today:

Hagan's disappointing response sounds a lot like Mukasey's own equivocating to the Senate committee, with echoes of "I don't recall" from Alberto Gonzales. The proper response would have been: "Based on what I know about Mr. Mukasey's reluctance to take a stand against torture, I would not vote to confirm him as Attorney General."

Hagan's willingness to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt does not bode well.

I hope you've asked Neal the same question, instead of worrying about whether he makes it to all 100 counties. I suspect he'll stand squarely against any appointee who would not automatically condemn the practice of torture.