While the Beltway media remain preoccupied with trivial, sometimes manufactured issues about Presidential records, drivers’ licenses, and kitchen metaphors, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote Tuesday on whether to confirm an Attorney General nominee who won’t declare waterboarding is torture and thus illegal, but who may shield the Bush Administration from accountability for violating the Constitution and the rule of law.
On the issues actually critical to American democracy, the great divide is between the leaders of the Constitutional Wing of the Democratic Party, like Russ Feingold, and members of the corrupt Beltway establishment like Dianne Feinstein. Russ Feingold joined at least five other Committee Democrats who care about the Constitution by announcing his opposition to Mukasey. Feingold’s statement (h/t C&L’s Amato) is honest, straightforward and clear in its principles:
“I will vote against the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General. This was a difficult decision, as Judge Mukasey has many impressive qualities. He is intelligent and experienced and appears to understand the need to depoliticize the Department of Justice and restore its credibility and reputation.
At this point in our history, however, the country also needs an Attorney General who will tell the President that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. Unfortunately, Judge Mukasey was unwilling to reject the extreme and dangerous theories of executive power that this administration has put forward.
The nation’s top law enforcement officer must be able to stand up to a chief executive who thinks he is above the law. The rule of law is too important to our country’s history and to its future to compromise on that bedrock principle.”
Feingold was probably aware of Scott Horton’s report that Mukasey met privately with members of the Federalist Society and reportedly gave them “vague assurances” that he would not take any steps — such as John Dean’s suggestion to designate a special prosecutor — to hold Administration officials accountable for ordering torture or other violations of the law. Is it possible Mukasey would have tolerated a discussion that bordered on obstruction of justice?
In contrast to Feingold’s principled stand, Senator Dianne Feinstein, appearing on CNN, was disingenuous defending her announcement to vote for Mukasey. She argued, as had Senator Schumer on Friday, that Mukasey promised to uphold a statute outlawing waterboarding. She forgot to mention she had already made her decision earlier last week, apparently before Mukasey made his commitment to Schumer.
As Marty Lederman reminded the Washington Post’s editorial board, the US Congress has repeatedly outlawed waterboarding and other forms of torture, only to exempt the CIA in the Military Commissions Act, while arguably immunizing those who enaged in torture. But immunity may not extend to the President or others who might have authorized torture. So Mukasey’s dissembling seems tailored to protect Bush and those around him, a realization that caused Horton, a previous Mukasey supporter, to conclude that Mukasey must be rejected on principle.
Feinstein not only voted for the unconstitutional MCA last year, she tried to cover up her abandonment of principle yesterday by suggesting that an amendment outlawing waterboarding be attached to the FISA bill, but that would be even more pernicious. She already voted for the disastrous Intelligence Committee version of the FISA bill, which contains serious violations of the 4th Amendment and extends immunity to the telecom companies. So she’s proposing to condition any prohibition of undisputed torture on accepting these further affronts to the Constitution.
Marty Lederman has more links to the history of waterboarding. And four previous Judge Advocates General, top military lawyers, sent a letter to members of the SJC, urging them to speak clearly on this issue:
The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. . . . In this instance, the relevant rule – the law – has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise – or even to give credence to such a suggestion – represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.
The Constitutional Wing of the Democratic Party is well short of a Senate majority, and still short votes in the Judiciary Committee. The numbers to call are here. If we lose in Committee, will someone mount a filibuster?
Update: FDL – NY activists are planning activities at Senator Schumer’s offices on Monday. See here for more details. (h/t Selise and RagingGurrl)
(Fantastic street sign intersection photo via Twolf1.)
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Good morning!
or maybe not so good.
This whole thing makes me so sick I can’t begin to describe it.
Pakistan here we come.
How can any Dem in the Senate let Mukasey get away with this ridiculous waffling? Good God almighty — we’ve prosecuted people for war crimes for waterboarding. What is wrong with these people???
Marion in Savannah @ 2
They have no shame. They have no decency. They are covering their own *sses. Follow the money. . . .
big week. here’s a preview of a few of this week’s congressional hearings:
Tuesday, 10 am – Senate Judiciary
Business meeting to continue consideration of the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey, of New York, to be Attorney General.
Wednesday, 2 pm – House Foreign Affairs
Oversight Hearing: Democracy, Authoritarianism, and Terrorism in Contemporary Pakistan
Witness: John Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State
Thursday, 9:30 am – House Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
Oversight Hearing on Torture and the Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment of Detainees: The Effectiveness and Consequences of “Enhanced” Interrogation
Thursday, 10 am – Senate Judiciary
Business meeting to consider several bills including S. 2248, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the provisions of that Act.
details and complete list here.
p.s. will chairman conyers be asking Daniel Levin to testify for the hearing on torture on thursday? if the hearing is something more than political theater he will.
I’m sick as well. And at a loss on how to change things.
Now, off to prepare for work.
I’m from the The Constitutional Wing of the Democratic Party. and proud of it!
I wonder if a Democratic President would tell the country what the Bush administration did it its name? It seems unlikely that the Bush people can erase the documentation that will show what happened, or that Bush could take all of the documents with him to his “library”. I am having trouble imagining that any of the candidates would actually prosecute anyone for their crimes. But maybe we could have our own Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
Good morning everyone. And thanks to Selise for this week’s hearing schedule. Big votes; lots at stake. It seems every week we find Congress voting on whether to uphold some piece of the Constitution.
Morning, Scarecrow and all the ups. What a way to start another week, with a new upcoming cave-in by our members of Congress. Still and all, perhaps all the hullaballoo over his appointment, will make it difficult for Mukasey to give in to Bush’s penchant for authoritarianism.
Of course some of us thought that about Judge Thomas. Bummer.
Good morning Scarecrow!
House Judiciary on torture is Thursday? I thought we just got done telling Heather it was Tuesday. She is trying to go in person with the story of her husband Dan who was tortured.
Elliott @ 6
the NY google group is in action and ready to go after Schumer today. Is there any hope of waking up the PA group?
Scarecrow @ 8
not sure why they bother with the kabuki anymore. They seem to have sold it down the river long ago.
RevDeb @ 11
NY google group? I missed this. Clue me in.
masaccio @ 7
The media focus on releasing White House papers from the Clinton years contrasts with their not asking for all the torture memos and records.
OT:
Karen Hughes stepped down from her post of overseeing public diplomacy efforts at the State Department. Ms Hughes, a close confidante of Mr Bush, endeavoured to improve relations with the Muslim world during her two years in the job. She admits that trying to turn around negative perceptions of America remains a “long-term challenge”.
Did she ever do anything? Wonder how much she took home and what she spent her time doing.
eCAHNomics @ 13
Me also.
RevDeb @ 11
Do you have a link to the google group?
eCAHNomics @ 13
About 18 months ago Jane and Christy and Pach started a netroots state network of google groups. We’ve got e-mail lists for 44 states. Granted some have only 3 members, but NY has upward of 70. They are planning some interesting things for today.
RevDev @ 18
How do we contact them?
RevDeb @ 3
… or they think torture (especially of those dirty muslims and/or arabs) and a president who is above the law is a good thing… or at least not a bad thing.
they don’t necessarily share our values. (self goverment by the people, free and open society, open and truthful government).
i have to consider the possibiltiy that many (or even most) of the dems in congress are, in their hearts, just as elistist and racist as many of the republicans. small differences in policy seem to be, generally, done more for the political benefit than the genuine benefit of the people.
Somewhere I have gotten the notion that there is tacit agreement between the parties that investigations will not be pursued once the office of the president flips party-wise. Sort of a “catch ‘em in the act or not at all” kinda deal. Is that true?
Glad someone is finally linking to Scott Hortorn and Harpers.org. Right now he is doing the most important reportage not just on the blogosphere, but anywhere as far as I can make out.
More of this Firedoglake, please. And couldn’t you amplify his stories a bit, maybe bring some more FDL investigatory assets to bear on the US attorney conspiracies?
anna belle @ 21
But we did catch them in the act. Hundreds of times.
Of course Schumer and Feinstein are going to vote for Mukasey — and they always were going to, and Specter too.
Justin Raimondo has a finger on it today at antiwar:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11856
There are millions of Jews in America who are Americans first
eCAHNomics @ 19
http://groups.google.com/group…..ct-newyork
I think this will do it. Try it out.
eCAHNomics @ 19
here’s your invitation from yesterday:
RagingGurrl @ 96
kalkaino @ 22
FDL’s Christy Hardin Smith has done extensive reporting on this, and so has emptywheel at The Last Hurrah, who also posts here at FDL. I and others at FDL have also posted on this many times, particularly during the period when Gonzales and his cronies were testifying.
I don’t know why the Democrats keep giving Bush all this crap that goes totally against their principles while the Republicans, in the minority, manage to thwart any and every little thing they don’t like before it even gets voted on.
Why don’t the Democrats stop doing this? Why is Congress, Republicans included, so willing to let the President take all their power away? What could possibly be in it for them?
Of course Schumer and Feinstein are going to vote for Mukasey — and they always were going to, and Specter too.
Justin Raimondo has a finger on it today at antiwar:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11856
There are millions of Jews in America who are Americans first (pushed te wrong button) —
and I have seen large groups of them demonstrating against the harm the US does itself in supporting Zionism.
What a pity that our Congress is so loaded with members who are prepared to put the A*P*C line before the US’s interests.
selise @ 26
Drat. I’m in the country, for a meeting at 2:30 this afternoon. Otherwise Id be there with bells on.
egregious @ 10
two different hearings. the mukasey nomination is scheduled to be considered by the SJC on tuesday – that’s the one i think she wants.
HJC on thursday is an oversight hearing to get info – the list of witnesses has not yet been posted.
redx @ 15
The answers: No, and not much.
Cali and NY need to Chuckie and DiFi, buh-bye.
selise @ 26
Thanks, Selise — I’ve added an update link to the post.
selise @ 31
Right. But the fact that the date that the proposed Attorney General will be heard is considered “the torture hearing” is sobering. How did it ever get this far?
This probably Feinstein’s last term although she could lie like Boxer and chose to run again. She has one of her many homes near me so I drove over yesterday and left a note in her mailbox –pointing out that she of all people could afford to do the right thing and yet she was a big ole wimp for Shrub.
anna belle @ 21
I think the biggest failure of the Bill Clinton administration was the decision not to publicize the many questionable actions of Bush I and Reagan. If we don’t call the creeps out, they come back like zombies the next time the republicans get in office.
re waterboarding
this is from persiflage last night:
It kind of bothers me that whether waterboarding is or isn’t torture has become the issue here. It’s like arguing over which knife and fork is the right one to use when eating roast baby. Isn’t roasting the baby the issue? Why are we quibbling about what level of physical and psychological abuse is acceptable? NO level of abuse is acceptable and, even if it were, I understand there’s ample evidence that it just doesn’t work. Just like a roast baby won’t go far in feeding a family of four.
public thank you to RevDeb – i was feeling pretty pissed off at schumer (ok, still am *g*) and looking for something to do… as taking action is, imo, the cure. RevDeb suggested the NY group and i signed up saturday morning.
they are great!
i encourage all NYers to get on the googlegroup email list.
katherine Graham Cracker @ 36
She likes her many homes and cushy life…it’s the Republican way you know.
Sort of o/t, but has anyone been catching Bolton around the press promoting his book? What a crazy son of a bitch! I can’t believe the people Bush puts out there to represent us. Mukasey is probably another Bush nut. Real psychopaths. Bolton says that it is generally accepted that invading Iraq was a good idea, but also says that it proves that nation building is a bad idea. That’s what they call a neo-con. Conservative when it suits them.
selise @ 39
Just joined, Selise.
George Simian @ 41
not really ot – let’s not forget who was the senator working hard behind the scenes to get bush’s nomination of bolton approved – once again, senator schumer.
‘morning all… coffee is ready…
gonna be quite a week.
dipper @ 40
It surprises me that you still think of Republicans as the rich elite. All we are seeing in the news is how Hillary and Obama (or Osama, whatever works) are going to these big parties with the Hollywood elite, with enormous amounts of money being spent. Why is that always forgotten?
Now on the flip side of that, I understand that the majority of the Corps out there primarily supports Republicans, but the tide is turning on that as well. It won’t be long before you can’t play that card anymore.
Toby Wollin @ 42
excellent! i’m just a carpet bagger from MA, but somethings can be done without leaving the house.
So, Pakistan is having problems with extremists in the Northern Territories, so that is the justification for suspending the Constitution, cancelling the elections and arresting the Supreme Court. The US has been supplying $10 billion in weapons to prop up the Prez, which according to today’s NYT, we will probably continue. Long live Democracy.
We should send Karen Hughes to explain this to the Pakistanis.
Scarecrow @ 23
I wouldn’t dispute that, but that doesn’t answer the question. Is there such a tacit agreement? Because it will matter come 2009 if there is, and in light of the fact that nothing is happening to stop the lawbreaking or enforce the law. I’ve tried to google the question a few ways, but get no hits. I dunno, maybe that indicates that it’s just junk I heard and erroneously assimilated. I would really like to know, though, because Reagan and Bush did get huge passes for their lawlessness, and I want to be prepared for the future.
um, i love me some feingold, but he should not get total props on this one. his declaration opposing mukasey came AFTER chuck and di had declared their support — that is, ballgame over.
had he made his declaration earlier, it might have had an impact, helping to give the committee democrats something like momentum. announcing when he did was the very essence of a safe vote after it counted.
and weirdly, russ has trod this ground before. remember when he was the swing democratic vote on the committee approving john ashcroft as a.g.?
selise @ 45
Sometimes it’s easy to feel that you are the only one out there, sitting in front of the PC wherever it is…not realizing that perhaps your neighbors down the street – or someone you work with – feels the same way you do or would be willing to work with you or needed your help.
dmg – I don’t think Feingold’s decision would have had one iota of impact – particularly on Difi…
Toby Wollin @ 42
Toby,
You might want to go to the web site and read up on what they have been doing. All the past e-mails are stored there for the Feds to see.
another hearing i didn’t put on the list (i can’t put them all in the comments!):
Thursday, 10 am – Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings to examine localism, diversity, and media ownership.
coastie, maybe it wouldn’t. but i don’t think feingold should get to wear the laurels of having fought the good fight. not on this one.
If it were up to me, I would disqualify Mukasey because he doesn’t know torture when it’s presented to him. I would also fix all our laws to bring the Constitution back into full effect. That means we would once again have Habeas Corpus, wiretapping without probable cause and/or without a court warrant would be illegal once again, and all other laws that this President suspended in his power grab would be restored. However, I do have some questions regarding holding this administration accountable.
Most of the laws in this country seem to include provisions that someone must commit the offense deliberately, that the individual must have the intention of committing the crime when the crime was committed. Therefore, I wonder if it is possible to bring members of this administration to “justice” since all they have to say is that they thought their actions were legal. In fact, they had conferred with the highest authority in the land, the Attorney General, on the legality of the programs that they employed in the course of doing their duty to keep Americans safe, and the Justice Department lawyers issued several memoranda in support of the legality of the programs. I don’t see that past offenses can now be rectified for this reason anyway.
I wonder if even international law would find them guilty for misinterpreting existing international law within this scenario. Yes, they committed war crimes, but they didn’t mean to. It’s the “I didn’t know the gun was loaded” defense, in essence.
Thornburgh on CSPAN 1 on why we should give telcoms immunity
RevDeb @ 51
Will do
dmg @ 48
I suspect there was some thought as to how to create the right momentum, as you can see from Feingold’s statement last Friday. There were early announcements to vote no, followed by others, including Leahy, and Feingold’s would have added further momentum. Schumer’s timing may have surprised some, as a way of derailing any momentum. But I’m guessing.
Ann in AZ @ 54
accountable, in my book, is an open and fair trial. if they have a good defense, then they should be found ‘not guilty’
it is the lack of full and public accounting that is especially frustrating.
selise @ 58
Sorry – if Mukasy is going to be Ok’d – I want a Special Prosecutor. With big teeth.
Rev Deb is there a PA group?
Excellent blog. It should be emphasized that a law against waterboarding would be redundant and moreover ruled a bill of attainder in the courts. It would also effectively up-end any argument that torture in general is already prohibited by law. Feinstein has become pure evil.
Toby Wollin @ 59
Exactly. Me too!
tjb @ 61
There is. But for the longest time all that has been heard is *crickets*.
You interested? ANYONE interested? Now that I’m in PA I’m eager to rouse some rabble.
katherine Graham Cracker @ 36
umm, you know that that’s a federal offense… what did I just say? I’ve forgotten already. Good on ya.
Another interesting item since we are on the torture subject again. My wife and in-laws were watching The Vanishing (http://imdb.com/title/tt0108473/) yesterday, and I posed the question to them “What would you do if your daughter was buried like the characters in the movie, and you were face to face confrontation with the psychopath”? Keep in mind that I am talking to three people who do not believe in torture in any way, shape, or form. Interestingly, the father stated that he would “beat” the information out of him. The two women stated “they would try to reason with him”. The follow up question to that was “What is the definition of a psychopath”? My wife actually looked it up under this weblink: http://www.answers.com/topic/psychopath.
So my question to all of you is:
What would you do if the person you loved the most was captured in a life-threatening situation and time was of the essence, AND you had access to the perpetrator?
seems to me there is a protest going on at Difi’s L.A. office… but the details escape me…
jayt @ 65
I meant to say I left by the mailbox in the Press Republicans newspaper holder :)
alank @ 61
I was looking for this last night, but I think w-b is defined as torture in the UCMJ, which applies to US Armed Forces, but not CIA, under the Military Commissions Act. And the Prez has the authority to define permissible “enhanced interrogation techniques” for the CIA, if not military. So there’s apparently a statutory gap, even if not a constitutional gap.
Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani says he always used “intensive” interrogation against the Mafia when he was a prosecutor, so what’s the problem?
Code Pink, Monday, 2:30 – 3:30 in Westwood.
Toby and Selise,
I would like to see this administration brought up on charges, too. But in fact, I think a conviction would be more likely in an international court. Also in fact, I think the best accountability measure for all of these particular offenses is the one that the Constitution provides when it talks about “high crimes and misdemeanors.” That is, impeachment is the actual expected accountability for abuses of power that is this administration, unfortunately, since Nancy took that off the table. That is the way and the time that a deal was made. Once she took the remedy off the table, she gave free reign to any and all of the offenses that we find so obnoxious.
Prospects for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting in 2009?
Including appropriate criminal referrals, of course.
Toby Wollin @ 59
more than one.
1) to investigate torture
2) to investigate warrantless spying
3) to investigate sibel edmonds case
4) intelligence manipulation
5) doj polliticalization
6) others
DiFi is CA’s own Joe Lieberman. She can’t get out of her skin.
Mukasey is a spineless hack.
Already in the tank for Bush’s crimes. What a man of honor!
Stick a fork in this miserable nation.
-GSD
The Wall Street Journal’s columnist and deputy editorial page editor Dan Henninger weighs in with an expert opinion…
(You need a subscription to link up)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/…..;ojrss=wsj
Shoot, guess we got all up and worried for nothing.
GSD @ 74
Kinda harsh, don’t you think??
Also if this nation is this “miserable” why are you still living here?
selise @ 73
]
How about election tampering?
(Demonstrations yesterday and more today. More people needed. Please join them if you can!)
Sharing this info from a friend who was there and asked me to post this info.
From this morning:
http://codepinkdc.blogspot.com/
Dianne Feinstein stated on CNN today that Mukasey is the best we can expect and that if he isn’t confirmed now, Bush will probably appoint someone worse during the holiday recess. This is unacceptable! Our senators are second-guessing what George W. Bush will do and this drives the votes of the U.S. Senate? Incredible!!
A small group of concerned citizens turned out at CNN this morning to voice our dissent to this confirmation. Karen, Liz, Leslie, Medea, Gael, Allison, Mona, Marietta, Carol, Jess, Steve, Dick, Clark, Mahboud, Vernon and I arrived around 10:30 this morning at the doors to the CNN studios to pressure Sen. Feinstein to change her mind. We staged a mock waterboarding on her way in and after the program. As we cornered Ms. Feinstein all she said and I paraphrase, “We’re going to pass legislation to declare waterboarding illegal”. On Wolf Blitzer’s Late Edition she stated that only the CIA can waterboard legally.
***
And for tomorrow:
Press Release
For release: Monday November 5, 2007
Demonstration of Torture for Mukasey at Justice
Live Waterboarding at 10th and Pennsylvania NW
(Washington, DC) On the eve of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the nomination of Judge Michael B. Mukasey, anti-torture activists will demonstrate waterboarding at the Justice Department, 10th & Pennsylvania, NW, at noon on Monday November 5.
“Waterboarding is torture, and we’re here at the Justice Department to show the world and Judge Mukasey just exactly what this torture looks like,” said Clark Kissinger, organizer of the event. “Waterboarding is illegal under U.S. and international law, and it is shameful for anyone to pretend otherwise.”
Waterboarding is not “simulated drowning”—it IS drowning. The torturer forces water into the victim’s lungs, making breathing in a controlled manner impossible.
“Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein are trying to have it both ways,” said Kissinger. “But no amount of equivocating can hide their craven failure to condemn criminal acts. A vote for Mukasey is a vote to leave the door open for torture.”
What: Live demonstration of waterboarding torture technique
Where: 10th and Pennsylvania NW in front of the Dept. of Justice
When: Noon, Monday November 5, 2007
So, if waterboarding is really nothing at all, why all the secrecy, why the necessity to use it?
Lynchings were just a little tightening on the neck too.
This is the cesspool that America has become.
-GSD
Kurt @ 66
What if I had mental powers and could predict the future of this lame, suspense thriller plot?
-GSD
Specter says he will back AG nominee
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/n…..k_ag_n.php
gee what a surprise….once again, he folds
Thanks to those who were promoting the stateproject on google groups in this thread. I’ve now located the Indiana group and applied for membership.
GSD @ 79
Lynchings were just an early enhanced interrogation technique – they just forgot about about the interrogation part…
guess not much has changed, now that I’ve thought about it…
anna belle @ 83
yes thanks, I’m signing up too
Difi won’t be influenced. It’s her last term and she’s going to do whatever the hell she wants.
Kurt @ 66
I’d use the Vulcan Mind Probe, of course. Next fictional hypothetical with no real application to LAW or society?
Scarecrow @ 69
Here’s a brief treatment of the subject: Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody. It covers everyone who might engage in torture, U.S. national and the military. The exception noted for military contractors is moot. Any attempt to circumvent these prohibitions shouldn’t hold up in court. Authorization of anything prohibited by law wouldn’t change the effect of the law, imho.
Kurt,
That is a hypothetical and not the basis for policy. If you asked a non related party the answer would be completely different.
Glorfindel @ 85
Ok so for you and GSD, let’s pull this out of the realm of fiction. Your in Tokyo and a canister of Sarin Gas is set to go off in a short period of time. You have access to one of the known suspects of the soon-to-be attack. Your family is on one of the trains. What would you do?
For reference: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9610/…..index.html
Kurt,
A hypothetical.
The Joker and the Riddler have the president on a gangplank over a tank of sharks. The plank is slowly moving back into the wall of the tank and will plunge the president into the shark tank.
You have King Tut and The Egghead in custody and they know how to turn off the plank from moving inwards, thus saving the life of our fictional, hypothetical leader.
Do you torture the two fictional characters in order to solve this phony hypothetical dilemma?
-GSD
RevDeb, I know your not from MA anymore but do you know if there is an MA group?
Glorfindel @ 87
kurt and his question and the line of thinking it suggests mark an interesting psychological divide.
stipulate that he is not being intellectually dishonest, or trying to start a pointless flamewar. stipulate that he honestly believes his premise is valid, and analagous to what the u.s. should, nay, NEEDS, to do in the face of an unrelenting enemy with the capacity to destroy us.
it is exactly this sort of thinking — where his reality focuses on the “one percent” possibility of the horrific that ron suskind wrote about — that shows how unmoored the thought process is in these folks.
it is the reality of the mentally unbalanced.
Just to grab a Republican talking point: Why hasn’t Congress passed a law explicitly banning waterboarding because it is torture?
So my question to all of you is:
What would you do if the person you loved the most was captured in a life-threatening situation and time was of the essence, AND you had access to the perpetrator?
That’s the goddamned Jack Bauer question and is more properly asked in a Republican forum – where everyone could compete as to how cruel they would be and how far they would go – and then flash a big grin.
The only proper answer is that, in that never-gonna-happen situation – you do what you gotta do – and then suffer the consequences.
George Simian @ 93
Because the parties in Congress are Republican and Republican-Lite.
To RevDeb
Are you aware or coming to the coalition for peace action in Princeton ,NJ Sunday conference on” Stopping nuclear terrorism & proliiferation” @ 1:30? Open to all for further info http://www.peacecoilition.org Hope to see you there
Condi is a pervert.
But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Musharraf to follow through on past promises to “take off his uniform.”
An international dilemma is unfolding and she’s trying to get General Musharraff naked.
Dirty Rice, indeed.
-GSD
Kurt @ 66
Please don’t take it personally, but I am really tired of this old warhorse arguement being trotted out time and again. Here’s is how one resolves the your instance or the “ticking bomb” scenario.
First, lets agree that this really isn’t all that common. When it is, one can then make the personal sacrifice to go extra-legal as a matter of principle. Some interragator must make the sacrifice to suffer legal exposure for their actions. That is the only way that “enhanced techniques” will truly be a measure of last and necessary resort.
We have asked tens of thousands of young people to come back from Iraq in pieces or in a box for reasons that are at best highly ambiguous and at worst illegal and immoral. I think the least we can expect is for some intelligence professional, supposedly also “serving” our country, to make a sacrifice like this when absolutely necessary. I’m sure the courts will take this into account and show some leniency in the sentence as a result.
The reason you cannot make this legal in any way, shape, or form is that it will not be reserved for absolute neccessity. We have seen that time and time again.
Now, can we retire the “ticking bomb” scenario and its more personalized variants like the one you cite?
George Simian @ 94
Because it is already a law and it was understood by the previous 40 some-odd presidents.
Only Dim Chimpy needs clarity from the Stalinesque tactics.
-GSD
Message Control upstairs!
Feingold is a johnny come lately! He waited for cover and got it when the AIPAC Stooges -schumer and feinstein- were told how to vote on the muckster. And don’t forget that there were backups waiting in the wings if needed- cardin and kohl!
These are true traitors!
SanderO @ 87
Understood Sander, thanks for not being sarcastic in your reply.
I agree it is a hypothetical situation, I was trying to make my argument smaller in nature and more personal. I just posted a reply to GSD and Glorfindel which uses a real life senario.
One thing to consider, hypothetical situations do sometimes make policy. The DOJ and DOD (for example) make recommendations all the time to Congress for ‘could-happen’ scenario’s, be it war, natural disasters, etc. Larwence Livermore Labs is one of the big think tanks that spearheads many of these recommendations on the military and disaster recovery.
So let me think, murder is illegal. However, there probably isn’t any law stating explicitly that you can’t kill someone by throwing them out of a building. So does that man that unless that is specifically outlawed, murder by throwing someone out of a building can’t be prosecuted and the victims families can’t sue for wrongful death?
I’d like to see this argument made in any court that ruled against a suit brought by a waterboarding victim. The real way such suits will be shut down will be by invoking state secrets laws anyways. This is all so much bullshit.
Sorry to rant but I also blame BClinton for this for agreeing not to pursue any of the pappi Bush’s outlaw behavior and if HClinton get’s in I bet she does the same.
…chimpy up on cspam1
Per Christy:
From my reading of the DTA and the MCA, they lend legitimacy to the good-faith defense but do not provide immunity. Scott Horton, however, says that Michael Chertoff, while head of the Criminal Division of DoJ, did provide immunity to CIA and contract torturers. But last week, when writing about DoS granting immunity to Blackwater in the Baghdad shooting, Looseheadprop noted that “immunity requires a court order.” So I’m very confused as to how these lower-level torturers got their immunity.
anna belle @ 83
Could you provide a link to the Indiana group? I’d like to join too.
I think this torture issue is a great opportunity to re-frame the perception of the Republican Party in the eyes of a significant chunk of the “values voters.”
There are some of the conservative Christians who have drunk the Kool-aid of “evil Muslims out to get America.” But I think a good chunk of them are more than a little uncomfortable with endorsing torture.
With Ghoulianni already driving a wedge through the Republican Party, I think this issue can help whither support for the radical extremists who run that party now.
We need to do everything we can to make this a BIG, public issue.
Hypothetical.
There is a ticking nuclear bomb in LA or NY.
You are a special agent and you find one of the culprits who knows where the bomb is and how to defuse it.
After hearing about the wonderful benefits of torture in solving this very scenario, you then torture the subject.
The subject is a plump, guy, sort of like Khalid Sheikh Mohammad who promptly goes into cardiac arrest after severe beatings and waterboarding.
He dies and the bomb blows up killing hundreds of thousands.
Do you tell anyone or do you just kill yourself?
-GSD
I have a weak stomach after watching that late night Lieberman video. It really gets me that he uses the same rhetoric arguing against congressional scruples against torture that he uses against “violent” video games.
mui @ 107
I’m on a strict no-Joe diet.
Bad for the blood pressure.
-GSD
GSD @ 108
you hyperclassify it and put in Cheney’s file cabinet.
Mui,
No, you blame an underling and get the medal of freedom for being a whistleblower!
-GSD
GSD @ 108
Or better yet, you torture the guy and he gives you faulty intelligence, which is what usually happens with torture, and the bomb you try to defuse turns out to be an electric mixer.
But lucky for you some smart, young upstart over at a neighboring FBI branch uses actual, tried-and-true investigative techniques, locates the real bomb and saves the city. And he didn’t have to cross any fine ethical lines to do it.
Yay!
Kurt @ 66
That is a personal emergency matter — not a policy issue.
Tonster @ 99
Good well thought out argument!
I agree this sounds like a 24 episode, and that it doesn’t happen all that often….but it has happened. We had our’s on 9/11, the Japanese had their’s, and Spain just recently had an episode. Thats 3 in the last few years and it should be alarming the hell out of everyone. On the flip side to that argument, waterboarding/torture is not used all that much either. It is being used on targeted individuals to extract information to hopefully avoid the attacks I listed previously. Also to say this senario is “an old warhorse”, is a little premature. We know another attack is coming, it is just a matter of when and how big. When that happens, it won’t be considered an “old warhorse”.
Please don’t misunderstand my intentions with this argument, I don’t want to see anyone tortured….it is absolutely disgusting. But if it means saving your’s, mine, or anyone of our family members lives, you can bet the bad guy is going to be having a really bad day if I have access to that person.
I have been trying to find all SJC members’ stance on whether they view waterboarding as torture. Does anyone have this? I would think a battering of their words (if they confirm waterboarding as torture) would be effective in showing inconsistant thinking.
Can anyone speak to the accountability of each senator should the Hague pursue torture cases on behalf of victims? Would not each be culpable along with the AG, President and Veep?
GSD @ 112
Oh *smacks head*. Before you say the underlings done a heckuva job?
GSD @ 108
Ok, then on the flip side of this, what do you do if the “plump guy” is tight lipped and just waits out the timer on the weapon and it goes off. Either way in your scenario the bomb goes off. The common factor here is time.
The information you get may be bad information, but you also may get useful information. That has apparently helped in the capture of various high-rollers in Iraq, and even with the Iranian Republican Guard operatives.
GSD @ 110
Wise. I should stop rubbernecking. It’s bad for my stomach.
Kurt @ 115
The wisest words from my College advisor, who happens to be a world expert on war, peace and terrorism, once said, “Move from what if thinking to thinking.”
RealWorld @ 104
Invoking state secrets or sovereign immunity is the ultimate trump card for the lawbreakers in government. If you file a lawsuit against the federal government you have to meet the onerous criteria to establish a valid claim in accord with the Federal Tort Claims Act for it to proceed to the next stage.
Regarding the Bivens action:
Quotes from: Suing Your Federal Government for Civil Rights Violations
KLynn @ 120
I couldn’t agree with you more.
Unfortunately thinking is a rational process. Because of this, you need rational beings using this process. Unfortunately the people we are dealing with in this “war on terror” are not rational people, both on the terrorist side, and unfortunately some on our side as well. This war itself is not rational. The Cold War however was. This was basically the battle between two superpowers who understood if X happened (X equating to some action like launching a nuke), then Y is going to happen (a response to X). Whether you agree with what happened or not, it was a very rational process.
Point being, when you are dealing with irrational people, you can’t expect to apply rational thought and have it stick.
Anyway, its been fun guys. Keep the thoughts flowing, and an open mind to others opinions. I’m doing the same on my side.
RevDeb @ 11
To march on Snarlin’ Arlen’s office? When?
In other words (re Scarecrow’s question about a filibuster): Will Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Charles Schumer – and all the other Senators who have the ability to raise their voices to object and/or to place a hold – be playing by the Republican Rules of Harry Reid’s Senate (requiring a 60-vote threshold for passage of Democratic initiatives and favored nominees), or by the Democratic Rules of Harry Reid’s Senate (requiring a simple 51-vote majority threshold for scheduling and passage of Republican and White House initiatives and favored nominees), if and when the Mukasey AG nomination is scheduled for floor action by the passive-aggressively fearful, corrupt little man who holds the position of Senate Majority Leader on behalf of the Democratic Party’s Senate caucus?
Kurt @ 66
Well let’s say YOU tortured him and he said, “OK I’ll show you where she is…just stop…just stop!” Then you drive out to some remote area as the critical time approached.
And then he says…”You know I don’t really know where she is. I just told you a lie to get you to stop beating me.”
jayt @ 95
Exactly juries have do determine what a reasonable person would do in an actual emergency situation all the time. They must make a judgement as to what an emergency contingency might be that would result in a person violating a statute. What was the individuals state-of-mind? Were they provoked? Was the event actually believed to be a time-limited emergency. Quite simplyb juries are able to consider “exigent circumstances”
The law against the use of torture (and BTW nothing in the exemption granted to the CIA would offer any protection in the sceanario you present) still would hold in your scenario. But part of all legal determinations deal with “exigent circumstances”.
The problem with a general amnesty is that the same behavior performed by your psychopath (i.e. making someone believe that they are being buried alive; drowning someone on the installment plan) is what is being done by the “Jack Bauer” agent…when there is no evidence of an emergency. Yet this psychotic behavior would be protected by any allowance that pre-existing statutes needed some “clarification”.
And because it has been decriminalized ex post facto…we will never be able to know whether torture was ever performed to obtain a confession, and even the most illegitimate uses of the method against innocent individuals would be legitimized.
Kurt @ 115
Kurt…in none of the scenarios above was
a) foreknowledge of an imminent terrorist attack
(unless you are suggesting that the CIA, Condi Rice, and George Bush did know of an imminent attack on 9/11 and did nothing about it?).
b) a terrorist in custody who would have knowledge of such attacks
So your idea that 9/11, the Spanish Railroad attacks, or the japanese subway attacks could have been averted by torturing anyone is, quite frankly, absurd. The situation you are suggesting are likely to occur only one in a hundred thousand cases. And the risk is that the application of torture will result in misleading information that strains resources from factual leads (after all one has actually arrested a suspect). If that suspect is actually trained s/he WILL give false information. If they are innocent they will also give false information under torture.
In fact, if one really knows that an individual is involved in an imminent terrorist attack (and isn’t carrying the bomb himself…in which apprehension solves that issue) the best thing is to TAIL the suspect to acquire as much information , without false leads, as possible.
manufactured issues about Presidential records
Speaking of Presidential records, anybody recall how one of Bush’s first acts as President was to block the scheduled release of papers from Reagan’s presidency?
Actually, you probably don’t recall, largely because right-wing boot-licking pieces of crap like Timmeh completely ignored it and gave Bush the usual pass. Timmeh is the last person who has any right to ask anybody else about the release of Presidential records.
I don’t understand how Feingold can call this a difficult decision. I used to respect Feingold. not any more. If this asshole, Mukasey hasn’t got the stones to call waterboarding torture, he’s either stupid, incompetant, a liar, a crook, or someone who has his head shoved into the sand or so far up his ass an Xray should look like he’s got 2 digestive systems.
Lieberstein!
Senator Feingold states that we need an AG to show the President he is not above the law….apparently we do since Congress is unwilling to do what the are REQUIRED to do when a President breaks the law….it’s called IMPEACHMENT. but hey, let’s put all the responsibility on the AG, then Congress can continue to be irrelevant.
They have to filibuster. Jeez, they have to make a stand *somewhere*. What is wrong with these people?
Re: Bush’s early action to keep presidential records secret much, much longer–never got a question from Timmeh, did it?
Well, it’s simply understood that IOKIYAR, plus there’s no expectation that ReThugs will honor openness.
Arrrrgh.
This Mukasey thing has me in a really bad mood–where are the Dems who will honor our nation’s values? the Party’s values? The Constitution?
I see on Crooks & Liars that Project Censored rates DiFi’s conflicts of interest in Iraq at #23 of the top 25 unreported news stories of the year.
An open secret in San Fran; Dianne loooves a man in uniform.
Kurt @ 118
The “ticking time bomb” scenario seems to be the favorite argument in support of torture. Well, according to an intelligence officer interviewed on NPR who was involved in three wars, this situation was never encountered in real life. It’s a chimera, advanced to win an argument. This man also said young interrogators in Iraq took their cues from “24!”where the “ticking time bomb” scenario gets a lot of play, so I hear. Get it, fiction!
Scarecrow @ 23
—–
Abu Ghraib photos and stories to match care of an Army sergeant are the smoking gun.