Thanks Steve.

Mukasey also apparently thinks the President is above the law.

From an opinion piece by Jed Rubinfeld, a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School, in last week's New York Times (10/23/07)...

"At his confirmation hearings last week, Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, was asked whether the president is required to obey federal statutes. Judge Mukasey replied, “That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country.”"

Where is Gordon Smith on torture, and putting the President above the law?

Senator Gordon Smith Portland office: (503) 326-3386 Washington, DC: (202) 224-3753

Few outrages pain me more than my own countrymen's acceptance of torture as a legitimate tool. What do we deserve ourselves if we countenance such inhumanity?

It is interesting that on TV this weekend it sounded like Lindsey Graham and John McCain want to know whether this AG nominee believes waterboarding is torture before they vote on the nomination. So does Gordon agree with former POW McCain and current Reserve JAG Graham? Or doesn't Gordon want to talk about this in public?

It is interesting that on TV this weekend it sounded like Lindsey Graham and John McCain want to know whether this AG nominee believes waterboarding is torture before they vote on the nomination. So does Gordon agree with former POW McCain and current Reserve JAG Graham? Or doesn't Gordon want to talk about this in public?

Lindsey Graham, John McCain and John Warner talk tough when people might be watching, but when it comes to putting their votes where their mouths are they vote the way the White House wants them to. Same for Gordon Smith.

Thanks, Steve, for standing up on this issue. Unlike Gordon Smith, we can count on you doing the right thing in the senate. That's the kind of representation we need.

[Off-topic comment deleted. -editor.]

Lets look at the law. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Which according to the US Constitution is the "Supreme law of the land." (Article VI)

Article 1 1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. Article 2 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. Article 3 1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Article 4 1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offenses punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Seems to be a no brainer to me. Just one more reason that impeachment should be "on the table."