Tortured Logic
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will
vote on the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to become Attorney
General. When President Bush nominated Mukasey
in September, he touted him as a potential "consensus
nominee" who could avoid a divisive confirmation fight.
Following the first day of his confirmation hearing, where he denounced
torture as "antithetical to what" America "stands for," Mukasey
appeared to be sailing towards confirmation. But that changed the
following day when Mukasey
refused to classify the practice of waterboarding -- an
interrogation method in which
a suspect has water poured over his face to simulate
drowning -- as unconstitutional, repeatedly claiming it
depended on how one defines "torture." Mukasey's "massive
hedge," as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) called it, immediately
put his nomination in jeopardy. Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
then requested that the
nominee clarify his views in written answers to the committee. When
Mukasey responded by offering "unconvincing
and contradictory" answers on the legality of
waterboarding, his support
from Democrats on thecommittee dissipated. Though Leahy eventually
announced
that he would oppose the nominee, Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said they
would vote in his favor, all but guaranteeing he would make it out
of committee. With Feinstein and Schumer's support in the Judiciary
Committee, Mukasey is expected to eventually be
approved by the Senate. But his confirmation fight brings the
debate over waterboarding into sharp focus by highlighting the
right wing's embrace of an interrogation technique that is widely
regarded to
be illegal torture.
THE EXPERTS AGREE: In written
testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
Allen Keller, M.D., director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New
York
University Program
for Survivors of Torture, said that "to think that abusive methods"
such as waterboarding "are harmless psychological ploys is contradictory
to well established medical knowledge and clinical experience." Dr.
Keller added that "there is a real risk of death" involved in the
technique and that the "long term effects include panic attacks,
depression and PTSD," noting one recipient "who would panic and gasp
for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse." In
2004, then-acting assistant attorney general Daniel Levin was so
concerned
about the administration's use of waterboarding that he went to a
military base near Washington and underwent
the procedure himself. After experiencing it, Levin concluded that "waterboarding
could be illegal torture." For his efforts, "Levin
was forced out of the Justice Department when Alberto Gonzales
became Attorney General." In light of Mukasey's refusal to call
waterboarding torture, experts have spoken out against the
procedure. In a letter
to Leahy last Friday, four
retired Judge Advocates General (JAGs) -- the judicial arm of the
U.S.
military -- unequivocally
called waterboarding torture. In a memo yesterday, 24 former
intelligence officials demanded
a hold on Mukasey's nomination until he further clarifies his
views. Four retired generals also wrote to Leahy, calling waterboarding
"illegal
torture in all circumstances."
THE RIGHT-WING EMBRACE: With
the Bush administration facing "a
potential legal quagmire" if Mukasey were to declare waterboarding
torture, prominent voices on the right are twisting morality and reason
to defend the technique. In a National Review Online column titled "Waterboading Has Its Benefits," Hoover Institution media fellow Deroy Murdock
writes that "waterboarding is something of which every American should
be proud." His National Review colleague, Rich Lowry, claims that
"common sense suggests that the
practice belongs in a murky space short of unambiguous torture"
because the Senate has not "put itself clearly on record forbidding
waterboarding." As the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan notes,
Lowry's position is tantamount to saying "that if the Congress does not
explicitly forbid specific torture techniques as illegal, then they're
legal." Defending the practice, Commentary editor John Podhoretz
has redefined
torture away from the actual
legal definition, claiming that it is "universally understood" to
only be "the infliction of physical injury through the application of
physical force." Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Mark Agrast
writes that the
embrace of waterboarding has increased "the risk that our own men and
women
will be subjected to such treatment in the event of their
capture." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's legal
adviser, John
Bellinger, appeared willing to concede this risk.
Bellinger refused to call waterboarding torture, even if it were
used "on
an
American national by a foreign intelligence service."
GIULIANI BLURS THE LINES: Asked
last month about Mukasey's refusal to call waterboarding torture,
former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told an audience in Iowa that
he was "not sure" if the
technique was torture because "it
depends on how it's done. It depends on the circumstances. It
depends on who does it." After claiming that "liberal newspapers
have exaggerated" the use of techniques such as waterboarding, Giuliani
joked about another questionable interrogation technique, sleep
deprivation, saying "on
that theory, I'm getting tortured running for president of the
United States." Giuliani applied the same lighthearted dismissal of
torture concerns to waterboarding last week when he said, "[I]intensive
questioning works. If
I didn't use intensive questioning, there would be a lot of mafia guys
running around New York right now and crime would be a lot higher
in New York than it is." Giuliani never explained what exact
"intensive questioning" techniques he used and how they relate to the
specific technique of waterboarding. The Washington Post's Richard
Cohen writes today, "Is
he serious? Did he waterboard the Gambinos?" Giuliani's comparison
of waterboarding to police interrogation serves only to blur the lines
and normalize torture, which has already been
much
too normalized by the Bush administration.
|
|
|
|
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) yesterday introduced the Caging Prohibition Act, a bill that would outlaw a "long-recognized voter suppression tactic which has often been used to target minority voters."
COLORADO:
Gov. Bill Ritter (D) unveils a plan to tackle global warming.
OREGON:
Residents vote today on "whether to raise the state's cigarette tax to
pay for an expansion of children's health care."
VERMONT:
State is ranked the healthiest in the nation.
THINK
PROGRESS: Former vice president Al Gore rips the media: "don't give
equal time to someone who believes the earth is flat."
DEMOCRACY
ARSENAL: The State Department misfires in Iraq pitch to diplomats.
NO
QUARTER: Twenty-four former intelligence officials demand a hold on
Attorney
General nominee Michael Mukasey's nomination.
SWAMPLAND:
Conservative website pans new Eagles album because there is "not a word
about Islamofascists trying to blow us all up" on it.
Q: Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in
the name of fighting terrorism?
PERINO: In our opinion, no.
-- White House spokesperson Dana Perino, 11/5/07,
on the recent anti-democratic crackdown in Pakistan
VERSUS
"A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic
eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended
immediately."
-- CNN, 8/17/06







