Michael Mukasey was approved by the Senate as the next Attorney General. The issue calling his confirmation into question was the fact that he refused to commit to the proposition that drowning an interrogation subject constituted torture. (Technically not drowning, but “waterboarding” in which the subject only thinks he or she is drowning.)
Among those who are comfortable with such ambiguity in America’s position on torture are Indiana’s own Evan Bayh and Richard Lugar. Not voting on the confirmation were Presidential candidates Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John McCain, and Barack Obama.
I tend to agree with Patrick Leahy on this. He suggests that Mukasey is a solid individual, but moral ambiguity on torture is unacceptable. Leahy said, “I am not going to aid and abet the confirmation contortions of this administration. I do not vote to allow torture.” He spoke at more length during the committee hearings:
Nothing is more fundamental to our constitutional democracy than our basic notion that no one is above the law. This Administration has undercut that precept time after time. They are now trying to do it again, with an issue as fundamental as whether the United States of America will join the ranks of those governments that approve of torture. This President and Vice President should not be allowed to violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions or disregard U.S. statutes such as our Detainee Treatment Act and War Crimes Act. They should not be allowed to overturn more than 200 years of our Nation’s human rights and moral leadership around the world.
The Administration has compounded its lawlessness by cloaking its policies and miscalculations under a veil of secrecy, leaving Congress, the courts, and the American people in the dark about what they are doing. The President says that we do not torture, but had his lawyers redefine torture down in secret memos, in fundamental conflict with American values and law. …
Some have sought to find comfort in Judge Mukasey’s personal assurance that he would enforce a future, new law against waterboarding if this Congress were to pass one. Unsaid, of course, is the fact that any such prohibition would have to be enacted over the veto of this President.
But the real damage of this argument is not its futility. The real harm is that it presupposes that we do not already have laws and treaty obligations against waterboarding. In fact, we do. No Senator should abet this Administration’s legalistic obfuscations by those such as Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, and David Addington by agreeing that the laws on the books do not already make waterboarding illegal. We have been prosecuting water torture for more than 100 years. …
I wish that I could support Judge Mukasey’s nomination. I like Michael Mukasey. But this is an Administration that has been acting outside the law and an Administration that has now created a “confirmation contortion.” When many of us voted to confirm General Petreas, the Administration turned around and, for political advantage, tried to claim that when we voted to confirm the nominee, we also voted for the President’s war policies. Just as I do not support this President’s Iraq policy, I do not support his torture policy or his views of unaccountability or unlimited Executive power.
No one is more eager to restore strong leadership and independence to the Department of Justice than I. What we need most right now is an Attorney General who believes and understands that there must be limitations on Executive power. America needs to be certain of the bedrock principles in our laws and our values that no President and no American can be authorized to violate. Accordingly, I vote no on the President’s nomination.
Doug, you were right the first time. No need to back off with something like this:
The subject doesn’t “think” that water is filling their lungs – it is.
This description of waterboarding as “simulated drowning” is a pro-torture distraction. There’s nothing simulated about the water being poured into the lungs.
Whether Mukasey approves, believes, or condones waterboarding, drowning, or strangling puppies is a moot point. He was nominated to be Attorney General, a position in the executive branch of government charged with ENFORCING laws enacted by schmucks like Leahy.
If Leahy (and his colleagues)are appalled by waterboarding, strangling puppies, or any other damn thing, they, as legislators (the law MAKING branch of government) can simply sponsor a bill and make it law.
Beating the bejesus out of a nominee on something he has no control over (obviously) just to look pious is really reaching a new low, even for Leahy.
That’s not quite the case. As I understand it, the AG’s office, while occupied by the likes of John Yoo, has been busily writing opinions condoning torture that provide legal cover for other members of the executive branch. It’s a fools game to try to draft your legislation too narrowly. (Oh, it’s illegal to pour more than 4 gallons into a suspect’s mouth? We’ll pour 3 gallons while we smother him just a little bit.)
Sooooo, those opinions are then meant to “sway” legislators towards Yoo’s way of thinking, correct? Who actually drafts and approves the legislation??????????
Oh yeah, that would be the LEGISLATORS, not the employee’s of the AG’s office.
The AG can write “opinions” espousing the merits of taking the chips out of chocolate cookies, it has NO legal bearing on anyone or anything until Leahy & friends actually make it a law,right?
right????
Tim, the suggestion that there’s some sort of perfect congruence between the law and its prosecution is something you might want to consider a little more fully before placing a substantial financial wager.
Not to mention that Mukasey is nominated to replace a man who has written extensively on the idea that the Executive branch is under no obligation to obey laws it doesn’t like.
If executive branch employees are operating relying on an Attorney General’s opinion they are protected from liability and/or prosecution for their actions because executive branch personnel can use attorney general opinion letters as proof of “good faith.” In other words, absolved of personal responsibility for their actions.
You both completely miss the obvious.
Doghouse, the lack of congruence between the law and it’s prosecution (which may or may not be a problem at this time) is an entirely seperate issue with remedies of it’s own. To try and block the nomination of anyone because you didn’t like his predecessors’ actions is absurd. Legislators make laws, AG enforces laws on the books MADE by legislators, should AG not enforce laws made by legislators, there are criminal and civil remedies available. It ain’t rocket science.
Doug, if the employee’s are operating outside the law based on the AG’s opinions, interpretations, they most certainly can be prosecuted. The “acting in good faith” is only a defense deemed valid or invalid by the judicial branch after the fact.
My point is, partisan democrats made a big deal out of mukasey’s nomination for no good reason. You can agrue the minutae, but it’s just really obvious all Leahy & friends want to do on a daily basis is shove a big stick in the spokes of the administrations wheel…..Hell Mukasey won’t even be in office long enough to do anything good, much less anything bad, as he’ll be under 24-7 scrutiny by hacks on the left…
Classic obfuscation of a very simple issue.