Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said it would "really bother" him if Holder refused to rule out torture prosecutions.

That doesn't sound like a Republican. Could this be a typo?

Your last two words, "painfully ridiculous," sum up the GOP nicely.

Holder should respond with, "I don't recollect whether I will prosecute torture crimes." I'm sure he'd get a standing ovation from the Republican caucus.

Didn't these folks, the Republicans give us Alberto Gonzalez/Mukasy to rule the judicial roost? Obviously Cronyn has no sense of integrity just obstructionism.Especially regarding the management of the problems beset upon Americans by Cronyn's very own party of croynism and greed.

How about Holder gives them an answer along the lines of "It is the responsibility of the Attorney General to follow the laws. The supreme law of the United States, as previously passed by the Senate, based upon treaties we ourselves negotiated and cajoled the rest of the world to agree to, make torture illegal. More, they make the failure to prosecute torture ALSO illegal. It isn't an option; it's the law. It's OUR law.

If the Senate wants the Attorney General to ignore the laws it has passed, it should perhaps make a list of which ones it wants enforced when, and pass it in appropriate legislation, so that the people know what the rules are."

They're probably buying time to shred the evidence.

That doesn't sound like a Republican. Could this be a typo?

And actually it is a mistake. Wha Hatch said was he would be really bothered if Holder did not promise to eschew torture prosecutions,

Utterly idiotic on the part of Cornyn, Hatch, Spectre and the other torture-loving Republicans in the Senate. Do they honestly believe they're going to get any helpful attention from this? I've watched Holder under questioning by the Judiciary Committee and he's not just smarter than the boys on the committee, he's as likable as Obama.

My first response to the Republican's stunt was anger. Why are they holding things up? Today I say go right ahead. It makes them look even worse after eight years of Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Mukasey. Republicans just don't care about justice anymore.

It's the GRAND OBSTRUCTION PARTY. Truly pitiful, and it won't go over with most Americans.

I hope Harry Reid gets tough soon. Schedule override votes on weekends.

Of all the laws the Republicans don't want the DOJ to enforce, torture was the issue they thought was most marketable? I suspect the real reason is that they are trying to delay something. There are only so many shredders to go around, you know.

I don't quite get this tactic either, except for two reasons: (1) to look "tough" to the mouth-breathers in the base, who are the only reason these guys are able to hang onto office, and (2) to smear Holder in the most indirect and general way, e.g., now his nomination will be described as "controversial" for a week.

But either way, I have to say, I don't think it's a net positive for them or for the Republican party. They're painting themselves very neatly into the "obstructionist" box that the Democrats mapped out for them as long as a year ago, and they're looking like buffoons to anyone that isn't already a dyed-in-the-wool Obama-hater.

Maybe they just don't know what else to do?

This farce is painfully ridiculous.

Of course it is, what would you expect from Cornyn?

he'd threaten the rule of law,

The GOP seriously believe Holder will threaten Bush's 8-year rule of lawlessness.

The appropriate answer to Hatch is "If you insist that I prosecute every torturer who worked in the Bush administration, I will strongly consider it."

IIRC, Cornyn's initial objection to Holder was that, in the Marc Rich pardon situation, Holder had proved himself to be insufficiently independent of the President's political wishes.

Now the line of 'reasoning' seems to be that Holder is not sufficiently committed to President Obama's political philosopy of "looking forward, not backward."

Hmmm. I think what we need is a new, cabinet-level department - the Department of Irony.

If Obama were really clever, he would pardon all the CIA folks who waterboarded anyone (or who even looked cross-eyed at some any detainee) as well as all the Administration officials who authorized them to do so, as well as all the Congressmen and Senators who went along with it. That would eliminate all the nonsense from the fever swamp about prosecuting anyone (such prosecutions would ruin the Obama presidency, as he surely knows) while allowing Obama to maintain that such conduct was illegal and would not be allowed in his adminstration.

Here in Left Blogistan there's agreement that torture is wrong, and I think most of us would encourage the Obama Justice Department to prosecute those in OLC who approved torture (why yes, we're looking at you, Professor Yoo).

But out in the real world, there are lots of people who have approved of torturing the so-called terrorists, and who would be screaming mad if we prosecuted Kiefer Sutherland.

Obama and his Justice team, starting with Holder, have to walk a careful path, and the Republicans in the Senate want to set as many booby-traps as possible.

According to Glenn Greenwald's analysis, if Holder believes that waterboarding is torture, and that torture is a crime, he is *required* to pursue prosecution. So in that sense, Hatch is correct.

But I think prosecuting the little guys is the wrong way to go about it. If we're going to fry fish, let's fry big fish.

Corynyn's a Texan nitwit and Hatch is a Moron, er, I mean a Mormon. No further explanations for either of them necessary.

As to prosecuting torture, "I was only following orders" was found not to be a defense against a charge of war crimes back in 1946 at a little event known as the Nuremberg Trials.

This is not a farce. This is an attempt to lock in the Obama administration into a no-prosecutions stance while everyone is in the post-Inauguration bipartisan afterglow. They have a week for them to get the Village to ask the question: "Why can't Holder just rule out prosecutions for torture?" Tell me in a week whether this is a farce or a serious fight.

I'm starting to get an ulcer from all these nomination delays.

"I was only following orders" was found not to be a defense against a charge of war crimes back in 1946 at a little event known as the Nuremberg Trials."

And back then, just as today, the defendants really thought they had a good defense. Right up until they were found guilty and hanged.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said it would "really bother" him if Holder refused to rule out torture prosecutions.

Perhaps Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has something to hide; a "felonious skeleton or two" rummaging around in the old political closet, one might say....

DBL said:

"If Obama were really clever, he would pardon all the CIA folks who waterboarded anyone (or who even looked cross-eyed at some any detainee) as well as all the Administration officials who authorized them to do so, as well as all the Congressmen and Senators who went along with it."

My response:

FUCK YOU! If there are not investigations and charges leveled as found appropriate, the moral stature of the U.S. will continue the downward spiral initiated by the Bush years. If there are not investigations and charges leveled as found appropriate, we can look forward to a future president doing the same bushshit over again. To regain moral stature around the world and to regain the ability to lead the world from a moral perspective, it is imperative that investigations and appropriate charges occur.

To do otherwise is to repeat one of the multitude of mistakes of the Clinton administration. Billy Bob stopped the Iran-Contra investigations in the name of comity and it got us many of the same criminals and criminal attitudes back in the Bush administration.

To not clean up our mess of disregard of the Constitution and our laws will put us on a circular path back to eventually walking in the same pile of crap again!

The Repubs are upset because Jack Bauer would be prosecuted and would not have anything to watch besides American Idol.

If that aide read this thread...

The expression "having it both ways" traditionally means the two things desired are contradictory.

Going North because good skiing is there and going south because it's warmer and more comfortable...

Do you follow?

You could have said, "you can't have both", though I'm not sure why you think it's okay for him to have either one unless you disagree with your party that
a) Waterboarding is not torture
or
b) Intelligence community personnel should be prosecuted.

If you drop by, weigh in, I'd like to pick your brain.