Here’s the lowdown:
1. Waterboarding, which in all of its various methods holds constant the simulation of drowning, qualifies under the legal definition of torture specified in 18 U.S.C. 2340 — see “threat of imminent death.”
2. Three times, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey refused, when specifically asked, to state that waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture.
3. The United States has engaged in waterboarding, making the question germane even though the Congress has provided some retroactive immunity to those who actually did the waterboarding, because conspiracy to commit torture is also a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. 2340, and word on the street in Washington DC is that the waterboarding was authorized, specifically by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State (and former National Security Adviser) Condoleezza Rice and President George W. Bush himself.
4. If the Attorney General is on the record stating that waterboarding qualifies under the legal definition of torture, then the investigation, impeachment and/or arrest of executive branch individuals involved in conspiracy to commit torture becomes not only clearly justified but also imperative. It is the Attorney General’s responsibility to initiate such a course of investigation.
5. Confirmation hearings are the only procedural moment during which Congress can compel testimony on waterboarding by a nominee or withhold from that nominee the power of the Attorney General’s position. After confirmation, the Attorney General can refuse to answer any question about waterboarding without any consequence.
6. In order to successfully hold the consequence of rejection over Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s head, all that had to be done was for the ten Senate Democrats holding the majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee to affirm that they would vote “NO” without the appropriate statement by Mukasey on waterboarding.
7. Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Schumer of New York instead made their way to the microphones today to announce that they would vote for Mukasey, regardless of his refusal to answer the questions of the Senate.
Senators Feinstein and Schumer destroyed a moment of accountability for the Bush administration and its criminal behavior. Senator Schumer and Senator Feinstein not only were weak on Mukasey and weak on Bush — they were weak on crime, weak on violent crime, weak on violent crime perpetuated by the state itself. Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer have abandoned their commitment to the rule of law in the United States of America. Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer have abandoned their oath of office in which they swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, which regardless of any particular law forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Schumer and Feinstein have abandoned the nation to torture. Shame on them. Shame on them.
This, readers, is why I will never register as a Democrat, and why I will never donate so much as a red cent to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), or the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Any money I would give them not only would go toward the re-election of progressive stalwarts such as Patrick Leahy and Russell Feingold, but would also go to the campaign warchests of anti-legal, anti-constitutional, incontinent, unreliable, soft-on-torture candidates such as Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein.
The next time the DNC, DSCC or DCCC calls me on the phone and tells me how urgent it is that I send them money so they can air advertisements praising the likes of Senator Schumer and Senator Feinstein, complete with fine music and patriotic bunting and makeup artists and the best lighting technicians money can buy, I will utter the name “Mukasey.” Then I will utter the word “Torture.” And then I will tell the Democratic Party it can Kiss. My. Sorry. Ass.
Being Democratic is never enough, and sometimes it’s part of the problem. That’s why my money and my effort go to the promotion of specific candidates who not only speak but act in accordance with the principles I hold dear. I suggest you go that way, too. Otherwise, your resources may be turned against you.
First, your #1 point, stating that Waterboarding qualifies as torture, is asserting your own conclusion. While it may be true (as I don’t know all of the case law), you can’t say it’s illegal because you think it is. There needs to be legal authority (i.e. the Attorney General or a federal case ruling that can no longer be appealed) stating that it is torture.
As for the rest, lets 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/his administration is 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/investigated for criminal charges. So, 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 options #1 or #3 are feasible, and I’d prefer #3 to a poor federal judicial system. If the standard for confirmation is “stating he’ll prosecute the administration”, then we won’t have an AG for over a year. How about the Senate and the House deal with proescuting the President?
He’s not refusing to answer all of the senate’s questions either, he’s refusing to comment on the legality of certain actions before having a complete view of the situation. And, as an alternative argument, how about we accept that he has already SAID/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?
Oh yeah, and by the way, of course Jim wouldn’t sign up or give money to the democratic party, as that’d be a waste. Wouldn’t it simply be better if they were giving money to Jim? After all, various campaigns DO fund bloggers.
Jim,
You may be interested in this article:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/
Waterboarding is not merely simulated drowning, it is “controlled” drowning.
I have long suspected that the torture the U.S, carries out sometimes is not “simulated” and does end in death. How would we know? After all, there is no more habeas corpus. Anyone could be secretly arrested, secretly killed, and the corpse secretly disposed of without the public being any the wiser.
PM,
Thanks for the link. I did find it quite interesting and heartfelt. The word “drowning” is interesting, because I’d always thought of drowning as a way of dying, not as something that could happen to you without you dying. And that’s the sense I used the word in — that this is something that is done to you to make you feel as though you will die from being submerged, or the water filling your lungs.
Also, that link doesn’t mention it, but there IS a variety of waterboarding in which the face is covered with cellophane (why do they call it “cellophane,” I wonder? Everybody on the radio and the papers uses the word “cellophane” in this context and before this I hadn’t heard the word “cellophane” since the 1970s) so the water doesn’t go in, and yet the person is yet made to feel as though they are drowning as the water’s poured over (and maybe having your head wrapped in plastic has something to do with that, too). So in that variety of waterboarding, no matter how one would define “drowning”, the drowning is simulated.
Feinstein and Schumer have betrayed the Democratic voters in their states. They ought to resign in shame.