 | Mukasey Avoids Law to Protect Bush (Another Reason for Senators to Vote No) |
Why would Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey avoid answering the question, “Does waterboarding legally qualify as torture?” Why would he avoid answering the question three times now, over the course of two weeks? After all, nobody has publicly disputed that waterboarding is a procedure designed to make the subject feel as if she or he is about to drown. And federal law (specifically 18 U.S.C. 2340) classifies a “threat of imminent death” in the course of interrogation as a form of torture. Why would Mukasey deny the obvious?
Here’s why. 18 U.S.C. 2340 sets penalties for two offenses: torture and conspiracy to commit torture. Those who actually committed the torture are protected by other aspects of federal law from prosecution if they were doing so under government authorization and were erroneously told it was legal. But those who engaged in a government conspiracy and issued orders for other to commit torture via waterboarding are not protected from prosecution. If Mukasey utters the obvious, that waterboarding qualifies as an act of torture under federal law, then as Attorney General he is put in following the position: either he must openly ignore the law on torture as the nation’s top law enforcement official, or he must follow the law on torture and prosecute those members of the Bush administration — including George W. Bush himself — who authorized the use of waterboarding. To be an honest guardian of the law as Attorney General, Michael Mukasey would have to put multiple members of the Bush administration in prison.
And so Michael Mukasey, as Attorney General nominee, faced a test: either embrace the law or protect his political patrons. He chose the latter. That’s why the questions on waterboarding were important beyond the immediate subject matter of torture itself. Mukasey’s decision to put his patrons above the law is another reason why Michael Mukasey is unfit to safeguard the law as Attorney General.
If you haven’t already, call your Senators and ask them to uphold the rule of law by opposing the Mukasey nomination.
Contact Us
Wow, could we PLEASE use common sense? Assuming that the argument above is true (which I doubt), then we’re just going to be without an attorney general for the next year. That will NOT serve the country well, and serves as a reason to vote in favor of him instead of against him. Under your logic/argument:
1. Any attorney general candidate that believes waterboarding is torture/illegal is forced to believe George Bush is a criminal.
2. To be confirmed as attorney general, any candidate MUST state that waterboarding is torture/illegal.
3. Any candidate stating that waterboarding is torture/illegal therefore has an obligation to prosecute George Bush.
Okay…so…the second an attorney general candidate states that, Bush would be a total moron to not WITHDRAW HIS NOMINATION since he wouldn’t want to be convicted/investigates for criminal charges while in office. So, unless George Bush either will:
1. Not have an attorney general confirmed, which will seriously damage our federal judicial system.
2. Be forced out of office early.
3. Hope that people realize that he only has options 1 and 2, he’s not going to take option 2, so it might be best if we have a functioning justice department and leave congress/senate to impeaching and convicting Presidents.
I’m pretty sure that only option #1 or #3 are feasible, and I’d prefer #3 to a poor federal judicial system.
And, as an alternative argument, how about we accept that he has already decried waterboarding, is opposed to it, doesn’t like it, and has done everything except say it’s illegal, which is something that’s, at the very least, an ignorant thing to do BEFORE getting a job and having ALL the information. I’m not sure how the system works, but if he doesn’t have access to classified fedeal court rulings, and therefore federal CASE LAW, he can’t really make a determination on legality, now can he?
Comment by Joseph — 11/2/2007 @ 2:07 am
I think you’ve got the argument just about right, Joseph:
We want an Attorney General who will uphold the law.
Bush has broken the law.
Therefore the Attorney General should prosecute him.
You follow the argument pretty well, then somehow conclude that it would not be in keeping either with common sense or what is good for America to appoint an Attorney General who is committed to prosecuting criminals.
I disagree.
Comment by Ralph — 11/2/2007 @ 2:42 am
The problem, of course, is that you want the Attorney General to essentially state that he’ll prosecute him BEFORE GETTING CONIFRMED.
That leads to one thing. Bush withdrawing the nomination. And the US not having an Attorney General for the next year.
How about Congress and the Senate do their job to try and impeach Bush? Sure, it’s common sense to make sure he’ll prosecute criminals. But’s it’s against all desire for law and order to refuse to confirm someone until they agree that they’ll investigate the President, since the President will just say “no”. And then we don’t have an attorney general.
Comment by Joseph — 11/3/2007 @ 2:11 pm