Mr. Mukasey noted that Congress has not explicitly banned waterboarding by the C.I.A., though it was outlawed for use by the military in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. That left room for interpretation as to whether waterboarding or any other technique is prohibited as “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment, he wrote.“Legal questions must be answered based solely on the actual facts, circumstances and legal standards presented,” he wrote.
Now you can’t argue with his proposition that legal questions must be answered based on actual facts, though more than a few federal judges have, in my experienced, jumped to assumptions about the “actual facts” based upon whatever position the government took. But that was then, this is now.
The problem with defining torture is that it’s subjective. What is cruel? Is it something that offends are sensibilities as being the infliction of pain, fear or distress beyond what a civilized person would deem reasonable? See how we’re back to subjective limits.
What about inhuman? Given what people have done to each other, my guess is that nothing is inhuman. Drawing and quartering was a respectable punishment at one time. Want to give that some thought?
So what element of the “actual facts” is holding Mukasey back from saying the words that Waterboarding is torture? My guess is that he’s walking into a situation where is smells a rat, where the CIA and the other initials that run our government are doing things that we won’t find palatable, and he doesn’t want to end up on wikipedia as Alberto Gonzalez’s protégé. He’s trying so very hard to skirt the issue.
So, let’s turn to the experts.
Waterboarding has also been a flash point among Republican presidential candidates. Last week, after Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, said he was not sure about waterboarding because he thought “the liberal media” might not have described it properly.
Maybe it’s just people from New York who don’t know what Waterboarding is all about? Rudy knows pretty much everything about everything. Ask him. He’ll tell you. But like Judge Mukasey, he don’t know nothing about no Waterboarding. Then again, he rooted for the Red Sox, proving once and for all that he don’t know nothing about baseball either.
Senator John McCain of Arizona, who was tortured as a prisoner in North Vietnam, shot back, saying it was a torture method used since the Spanish Inquisition.
Now Senator McCain knows something about torture. Unlike Rudy, he didn’t have to read about it in the New York Post. Maybe the “actual facts” do make the difference when it comes to the law. In my book, John McCain’s idea of what constitutes torture carries a lot of weight. When Rudy, or Judge Mukasey, or anyone else in the current administration, has had the opportunity to experience what John McCain went through at the Hanoi Hilton, then they can equivocate and parse the legalese as to how to define torture. In the meantime, McCain wins.
Judge Mukasey, if you want to look to the “actual facts,” have a beer with John McCain and ask him. Then just answer the question so we can know whether you’re the same man you were on the bench, or whether you drank the Washington cool-aid. America is tired of watching the D.C. version of Dancing with the Stars. Stop dancing.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Your site has won a Blog of the Day Award (BOTDA)
Award Code.
Thank you,
famous quotes
The actual facts are that the use of waterboarding in this current war declared on us by the Islamists has saved US lives. Read George Tenet’s book and the fact is made plain. (See Khalid Sheikh Mohammend, and Abu Zubayeh) Folks that live in fairytale land and don’t want to deal with the world as it is, but rather would like us all to pretend that we can play nice and we can still protect our citizens from people that will slit their throats for no other reason that they are Americans or Jews or apostate muslims, or christians, those folks think they are taking a position on the high moral ground when in fact they are taking a position of inviting murder and mayhem and the destruction of Constitutional government. This whole thing with Mukasey is pure politics. The Dems are using this AG nominiation in an attempt stop the US from fighting the Islamists in Iraq and elsewhere because they were not able to get their surrender and appeasement measures passed by Congress. As for John McCain, I don’t doubt he has strong feeling on this matter, as he deserves them, but he is wrong on this issue, and the fact is that most of the military folks that need to protect their soldiers think he is wrong on this issue. By the way, John McCain is also against a woman’s right to choose, and against US citizens being able to speak out against politicians 30 days before an election (McCain Feingold) so if you want to use him as your standard, be consistent and take those positions. You trivialize the issue when you argue that one person with a strong and experienced point of view should trump the legislative process, sound reasoning and public policy considerations.
And frankly, when has a nomination for the AG become a means to legitimately make government policy? If that is the case then every AG that comes up can be asked a specific policy question and if their answer does not fit the latest whims of the Senate committee leaders then they will not get the job. Ditto for other cabinet posts. So much for contitutional government. Now we have legislation by fiat of a few. There goes the Constitution.
Hey Willie Ray. First thing, if you use paragraphs, your comment is much easier to read.
Second, torture is very effective, no doubt about it. But it’s still torture. If you want to get really effective, cut off the heads of a few people for fun, stick them on some stakes outside the White House, and the rest will just fall in line.
Third, accepting McCain’s experience with torture does not require anyone to love McCain or agree with any other position he takes. There’s just no logical nexus whatsoever between the two.
And finally, when the administration leaves it to the AG to decide how far along the torture spectrum we can go, it’s a fair question.
As for what American soldiers think or feel on the subject of torture, they don’t get any greater vote than anyone else. While they certainly have a stronger interest in avoiding getting killed, we don’t redefine American values based on what is convenient at any given moment. You’re an advocate of torture because it works. I’m not because I’m an American. There you have it.