Showing posts with label Michael Mukasey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Mukasey. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
US Attorney General Mukasey to light menorah
"Michael Mukasey, the U.S. attorney-general, will light the Chabad Lubavitch chanukiyyah on the Ellipse in front of the White House."
Friday, November 9, 2007
Mukasey confirmed as attorney general
by LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press - Nov 9, 2007
The Senate confirmed retired judge Michael Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night to replace Alberto Gonzales, who was forced from office in a scandal over his handling of the Justice Department.
President Bush thanked the Senate, even though the margin had been whittled down from nearly unanimous by a sharp debate over Mukasey's refusal to say whether the waterboarding interrogation technique is torture.
"He will be an outstanding attorney general," Bush said in a statement from his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Republicans were solidly behind Bush' nominee. Democrats said their votes were not so much for Mukasey as they were for restoring a leader to a Justice Department left adrift after Gonzales' resignation in September.
In the end, Mukasey was confirmed as the nation's 81st attorney general by a 53-40 vote. Six Democrats and one independent joined Republicans in sealing his confirmation.
The choice, according to one of those Democrats, was essentially between "whether to confirm Michael Mukasey as the next attorney general or whether to leave the Department of Justice without a real leader for the next 14 months," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California.
"This is the only chance we have," she said, referring to Bush's threat to appoint an acting attorney general not subject to Senate confirmation.
But members of her own party didn't agree. Mukasey, his opponents argued, refused to say whether waterboarding is torture and put the onus on Congress to pass a law against the practice.
"This is like saying when somebody murders somebody with a a baseball bat and you say, 'We had a law against murder but we never mentioned baseball bats,'" said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "Murder is murder. Torture is torture."
Being better than Gonzales or an acting attorney general is not enough qualification for the job, said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
"The next attorney general must restore confidence in the rule of law," he said. "We cannot afford to take the judgment of an attorney general who either does not know torture when he sees it or is willing to look the other way."
The confirmation vote capped 10 months of scandal and resignations at the Justice Department. Mukasey's chief Democratic patron, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., drove the probe into the purge of nine federal prosecutors that helped push Gonzales out.
The debate came after a tense day of negotiations that at one point featured Majority Leader Harry Reid threatening to postpone Mukasey's confirmation until December. His confirmation had long been certainty despite the debate over waterboarding.
Waterboarding, used by interrogators to make someone feel as if he is going to drown, is banned by domestic law and international treaties. But U.S. law applies to Pentagon personnel and not the CIA. The administration won't say whether it has allowed the agency's employees to use it against terror detainees.
"The United States will not be viewed kindly if we confirm as chief law enforcement officer of this country someone who is unwilling or unable to recognize torture when he sees it," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat.
Mukasey has called waterboarding personally "repugnant," and in a letter to senators said he did not know enough about how it has been used to define it as torture. He also said he thought it would be irresponsible to discuss it since doing so could make interrogators and other government officials vulnerable to lawsuits.
"He felt that he could not make that pronouncement without placing people at risk to be sued or perhaps even criminally prosecuted," said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mukasey, who received a strong endorsement from Schumer, was the White House's first choice to replace Gonzales. Gonzales announced his resignation on Aug. 27, and the White House interviewed Mukasey the same day. Three weeks later, Bush introduced the 66-year-old Mukasey as "a tough but fair judge" and asked the Senate to confirm him quickly.
Mukasey, the former chief U.S. district judge in the Manhattan courthouse just blocks from ground zero, was first appointed to the bench in 1987 by President Reagan. He also worked for four years as a trial prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York's Southern District — one of the Justice Department's busiest and highest-profile offices in the country.
Mukasey oversaw some of the nation's most significant terror trials in the years before and after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
He sentenced Omar Abdel Rahman, known as the "blind sheik," to life in prison for a plot to blow up New York City landmarks, and he signed in 2002 the material witness warrant that let the FBI arrest U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. That warrant marked the start of a case that wound its way through several federal courts as the government declared Padilla an enemy combatant and held him for 3 1/2 years before he was convicted last month on terrorism-related charges.
In an opinion article in The Wall Street Journal, Mukasey criticized U.S. national security law as too weak in some areas by noting that prosecutors are sometimes forced to reveal details of cases at the risk of tipping off terrorists. He is also a supporter of the government's anti-terror USA Patriot Act, wryly writing in 2004 that the "awkward name may very well be the worst thing about the statute."
Mukasey, a partner at New York-based law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, is also a close friend to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican. He stepped down as an adviser to Giuliani's presidential campaign, on which he served as part of an advisory committee on judicial nominations.
Besides Schumer and Feinstein, Democrats voting to confirm Mukasey were: Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Tom Carper of Delaware, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Of the Senate's two independents, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted for confirmation and Bernie Sanders of Vermont voted against.
Not voting were Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden of Delaware, Hillary Clinton of New York, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Barack Obama of Illinois. All four had said they opposed Mukasey's nomination.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona also was absent, as were GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Cornyn of Texas.
The Senate confirmed retired judge Michael Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night to replace Alberto Gonzales, who was forced from office in a scandal over his handling of the Justice Department.
President Bush thanked the Senate, even though the margin had been whittled down from nearly unanimous by a sharp debate over Mukasey's refusal to say whether the waterboarding interrogation technique is torture.
"He will be an outstanding attorney general," Bush said in a statement from his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Republicans were solidly behind Bush' nominee. Democrats said their votes were not so much for Mukasey as they were for restoring a leader to a Justice Department left adrift after Gonzales' resignation in September.
In the end, Mukasey was confirmed as the nation's 81st attorney general by a 53-40 vote. Six Democrats and one independent joined Republicans in sealing his confirmation.
The choice, according to one of those Democrats, was essentially between "whether to confirm Michael Mukasey as the next attorney general or whether to leave the Department of Justice without a real leader for the next 14 months," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California.
"This is the only chance we have," she said, referring to Bush's threat to appoint an acting attorney general not subject to Senate confirmation.
But members of her own party didn't agree. Mukasey, his opponents argued, refused to say whether waterboarding is torture and put the onus on Congress to pass a law against the practice.
"This is like saying when somebody murders somebody with a a baseball bat and you say, 'We had a law against murder but we never mentioned baseball bats,'" said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "Murder is murder. Torture is torture."
Being better than Gonzales or an acting attorney general is not enough qualification for the job, said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
"The next attorney general must restore confidence in the rule of law," he said. "We cannot afford to take the judgment of an attorney general who either does not know torture when he sees it or is willing to look the other way."
The confirmation vote capped 10 months of scandal and resignations at the Justice Department. Mukasey's chief Democratic patron, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., drove the probe into the purge of nine federal prosecutors that helped push Gonzales out.
The debate came after a tense day of negotiations that at one point featured Majority Leader Harry Reid threatening to postpone Mukasey's confirmation until December. His confirmation had long been certainty despite the debate over waterboarding.
Waterboarding, used by interrogators to make someone feel as if he is going to drown, is banned by domestic law and international treaties. But U.S. law applies to Pentagon personnel and not the CIA. The administration won't say whether it has allowed the agency's employees to use it against terror detainees.
"The United States will not be viewed kindly if we confirm as chief law enforcement officer of this country someone who is unwilling or unable to recognize torture when he sees it," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat.
Mukasey has called waterboarding personally "repugnant," and in a letter to senators said he did not know enough about how it has been used to define it as torture. He also said he thought it would be irresponsible to discuss it since doing so could make interrogators and other government officials vulnerable to lawsuits.
"He felt that he could not make that pronouncement without placing people at risk to be sued or perhaps even criminally prosecuted," said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mukasey, who received a strong endorsement from Schumer, was the White House's first choice to replace Gonzales. Gonzales announced his resignation on Aug. 27, and the White House interviewed Mukasey the same day. Three weeks later, Bush introduced the 66-year-old Mukasey as "a tough but fair judge" and asked the Senate to confirm him quickly.
Mukasey, the former chief U.S. district judge in the Manhattan courthouse just blocks from ground zero, was first appointed to the bench in 1987 by President Reagan. He also worked for four years as a trial prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York's Southern District — one of the Justice Department's busiest and highest-profile offices in the country.
Mukasey oversaw some of the nation's most significant terror trials in the years before and after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
He sentenced Omar Abdel Rahman, known as the "blind sheik," to life in prison for a plot to blow up New York City landmarks, and he signed in 2002 the material witness warrant that let the FBI arrest U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. That warrant marked the start of a case that wound its way through several federal courts as the government declared Padilla an enemy combatant and held him for 3 1/2 years before he was convicted last month on terrorism-related charges.
In an opinion article in The Wall Street Journal, Mukasey criticized U.S. national security law as too weak in some areas by noting that prosecutors are sometimes forced to reveal details of cases at the risk of tipping off terrorists. He is also a supporter of the government's anti-terror USA Patriot Act, wryly writing in 2004 that the "awkward name may very well be the worst thing about the statute."
Mukasey, a partner at New York-based law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, is also a close friend to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican. He stepped down as an adviser to Giuliani's presidential campaign, on which he served as part of an advisory committee on judicial nominations.
Besides Schumer and Feinstein, Democrats voting to confirm Mukasey were: Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Tom Carper of Delaware, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Of the Senate's two independents, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted for confirmation and Bernie Sanders of Vermont voted against.
Not voting were Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden of Delaware, Hillary Clinton of New York, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Barack Obama of Illinois. All four had said they opposed Mukasey's nomination.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona also was absent, as were GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Cornyn of Texas.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Former interrogator: Waterboarding Should be Banned
by LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press - Nov 8, 2007
A former interrogation instructor for the Navy said the words Thursday that congressional Democrats wanted to hear from Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey: "Waterboarding is torture, period."
"Waterboarding is torture and should be banned," Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a former Navy instructor of prisoner of war and terrorist hostage survival programs, told a House constitutional subcommittee. "I believe that we must reject the use of the waterboard for prisoners and captives and cleanse this stain from our national honor."
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said at the panel's hearing that he is against torture but that "sometimes we have to take measures to protect the innocent that we do not like."
"Severe interrogations are sometimes part of doing that," added Franks, the ranking Republican on the panel.
The exchange came as Senate leaders struggled to agree on the timing of a confirmation vote for Mukasey, who has refused to equate waterboarding with illegal torture.
The former retired judge is expected to win confirmation handily, but his nomination has sparked a fresh round of bitter debate about the legality of waterboarding.
The interrogation procedure makes the subject think he's drowning, and has been banned by domestic law and international treaties. Those policies don't cover the CIA's use of the technique, however, and the Bush administration has sidestepped questions about whether it has allowed the agency's employees to use it against terror detainees.
Mukasey's repeated refusal to testify that waterboarding is illegal torture cost him the votes of numerous Democrats in the Senate. But with an assurance that he would enforce any ban on the practice passed by Congress, he won back the votes of two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, enough for a majority on the panel and a vote by the full chamber.
Both houses of Congress are considering legislation to ban the procedure in all circumstances.
The debate shifted to the House Thursday morning, as the subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., convened a hearing on how the procedure is carried out and whether it meets the legal definition of torture.
As a former master training specialist in survival programs, Nance said that he underwent waterboarding as part of his training and that he personally led or was involved in using the procedure on hundreds of other trainees at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School.
Nance described the experience as a "slow motion suffocation" that provides enough time for the subject to consider what's happening: "water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel(ing) your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs."
"The victim is drowning," Nance said in materials submitted with his testimony. The intent during training, he added, is to stop the process before death occurs.
Training sessions are where waterboarding belongs, not as part of efforts to gain intelligence information from foreign agents, said a second witness.
Such "coercive" interrogation techniques aren't as effective as those that elicit cooperation, because false information is often elicited under harsher methods, said Col. Steven Kleinman, a senior intelligence officer and military interrogator for the U.S. Air Force Reserves.
"Tragically, many of these same tactics have migrated into the repertoire of interrogators seeking intelligence information," Kleinman said.
Others have said, however, that suspected terrorists have revealed information under harsh interrogation techniques that include waterboarding, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
A third witness who had agreed to testify said the Pentagon prohibited him from appearing.
Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, appellate judge of the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, said he was willing to testify when permitted to do so by the Department of Defense.
In a March 31 Wall Street Journal story, Couch said he had refused to prosecute a suspected terrorist because he believed the evidence had been tainted by torture.
A former interrogation instructor for the Navy said the words Thursday that congressional Democrats wanted to hear from Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey: "Waterboarding is torture, period."
"Waterboarding is torture and should be banned," Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a former Navy instructor of prisoner of war and terrorist hostage survival programs, told a House constitutional subcommittee. "I believe that we must reject the use of the waterboard for prisoners and captives and cleanse this stain from our national honor."
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said at the panel's hearing that he is against torture but that "sometimes we have to take measures to protect the innocent that we do not like."
"Severe interrogations are sometimes part of doing that," added Franks, the ranking Republican on the panel.
The exchange came as Senate leaders struggled to agree on the timing of a confirmation vote for Mukasey, who has refused to equate waterboarding with illegal torture.
The former retired judge is expected to win confirmation handily, but his nomination has sparked a fresh round of bitter debate about the legality of waterboarding.
The interrogation procedure makes the subject think he's drowning, and has been banned by domestic law and international treaties. Those policies don't cover the CIA's use of the technique, however, and the Bush administration has sidestepped questions about whether it has allowed the agency's employees to use it against terror detainees.
Mukasey's repeated refusal to testify that waterboarding is illegal torture cost him the votes of numerous Democrats in the Senate. But with an assurance that he would enforce any ban on the practice passed by Congress, he won back the votes of two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, enough for a majority on the panel and a vote by the full chamber.
Both houses of Congress are considering legislation to ban the procedure in all circumstances.
The debate shifted to the House Thursday morning, as the subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., convened a hearing on how the procedure is carried out and whether it meets the legal definition of torture.
As a former master training specialist in survival programs, Nance said that he underwent waterboarding as part of his training and that he personally led or was involved in using the procedure on hundreds of other trainees at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School.
Nance described the experience as a "slow motion suffocation" that provides enough time for the subject to consider what's happening: "water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel(ing) your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs."
"The victim is drowning," Nance said in materials submitted with his testimony. The intent during training, he added, is to stop the process before death occurs.
Training sessions are where waterboarding belongs, not as part of efforts to gain intelligence information from foreign agents, said a second witness.
Such "coercive" interrogation techniques aren't as effective as those that elicit cooperation, because false information is often elicited under harsher methods, said Col. Steven Kleinman, a senior intelligence officer and military interrogator for the U.S. Air Force Reserves.
"Tragically, many of these same tactics have migrated into the repertoire of interrogators seeking intelligence information," Kleinman said.
Others have said, however, that suspected terrorists have revealed information under harsh interrogation techniques that include waterboarding, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
A third witness who had agreed to testify said the Pentagon prohibited him from appearing.
Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, appellate judge of the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, said he was willing to testify when permitted to do so by the Department of Defense.
In a March 31 Wall Street Journal story, Couch said he had refused to prosecute a suspected terrorist because he believed the evidence had been tainted by torture.
Chuck Schumer Greenlights Mukasey
The Case of the Slimy Senator
by NIKOLAS KOZLOFF - Nov 7, 2007
Chuck Schumer did it again! He's voted to confirm Judge Mike Mukasey's nomination for Attorney General. In testimony before the Senate, Mukasey refused to admit that the barbaric practice of water boarding constituted torture. In an Op Ed in the New York Times, Schumer defended his vote by claiming that Mukasey would reestablish the credibility of the Justice Department and depoliticize the institution.
Schumer decalred he was ready to confirm Mukasey, as the New York judge had "personally made clear" to the Senator that he would oppose President Bush's bid to place himself above the law. Never mind that in actual testimony, held before Mukasey gave the Senator his rosy personal assurances, Mukasey said that Bush was not necessarily bound to observe the law if the President felt he was defending the country. Schumer wrote that while it would be "appealing" for the Senate to vote against a man who endorses torture, he personally felt that voting to confirm the New York judge was the best chance to reestablish accountability and openness.
Schumer's double talk on torture caps off the Senator's growing moves to appease Bush's priorities both domestically and internationally. Schumer, the third ranking Democratic leader in the Senate, supported the Patriot Act and also voted to extend said legislation. Though he voted against confirmation of Conservative Judges Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, he did little to support a filibuster of the Alito nomination. Indeed, like some of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate Schumer even mocked such efforts.
Simultaneously Schumer, along with his Republican counterpart John Kyl, proposed legislation designed to enable federal agents to more easily monitor individuals in the U.S. using powerful foreign intelligence surveillance warrants.
The legislation, which ultimately passed the Senate floor in May, 2003, concerned the Center of Constitutional Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, which worried about Schumer's bid to give federal investigators wider latitude under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Under FISA, the Feds were allowed to conduct intrusive surveillance of foreign spies and individuals that could be linked to a "foreign power," loosely defined as only one other person. Schumer sought to go even farther than FISA so as to define "foreign power" as the sole desired surveillance target.
On international affairs, Schumer voted for the Iraq invasion as well as billions of dollars in ongoing funding for the war. Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Schumer boasted that the Democrats sought to give the troops even more money than Bush had requested. "Nothing-nothing-will stand in our way of supporting the troops in every way," he said. When confronted by his local constituents on Iraq, he turns nasty and calls them "fools" for suggesting that the U.S. should organize an immediate troop withdrawal. Seeking to deflect criticism, Schumer seeks to build up his liberal stripes by saying that he once protested the war in Vietnam. He has also voted, along with the junior Senator from New York, Hilary Clinton, to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran a foreign terrorist organization. Some have interpreted the move as an effort to give Bush the authority to eventually make war on the Islamic Republic.
by NIKOLAS KOZLOFF - Nov 7, 2007
Chuck Schumer did it again! He's voted to confirm Judge Mike Mukasey's nomination for Attorney General. In testimony before the Senate, Mukasey refused to admit that the barbaric practice of water boarding constituted torture. In an Op Ed in the New York Times, Schumer defended his vote by claiming that Mukasey would reestablish the credibility of the Justice Department and depoliticize the institution.
Schumer decalred he was ready to confirm Mukasey, as the New York judge had "personally made clear" to the Senator that he would oppose President Bush's bid to place himself above the law. Never mind that in actual testimony, held before Mukasey gave the Senator his rosy personal assurances, Mukasey said that Bush was not necessarily bound to observe the law if the President felt he was defending the country. Schumer wrote that while it would be "appealing" for the Senate to vote against a man who endorses torture, he personally felt that voting to confirm the New York judge was the best chance to reestablish accountability and openness.
Schumer's double talk on torture caps off the Senator's growing moves to appease Bush's priorities both domestically and internationally. Schumer, the third ranking Democratic leader in the Senate, supported the Patriot Act and also voted to extend said legislation. Though he voted against confirmation of Conservative Judges Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, he did little to support a filibuster of the Alito nomination. Indeed, like some of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate Schumer even mocked such efforts.
Simultaneously Schumer, along with his Republican counterpart John Kyl, proposed legislation designed to enable federal agents to more easily monitor individuals in the U.S. using powerful foreign intelligence surveillance warrants.
The legislation, which ultimately passed the Senate floor in May, 2003, concerned the Center of Constitutional Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, which worried about Schumer's bid to give federal investigators wider latitude under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Under FISA, the Feds were allowed to conduct intrusive surveillance of foreign spies and individuals that could be linked to a "foreign power," loosely defined as only one other person. Schumer sought to go even farther than FISA so as to define "foreign power" as the sole desired surveillance target.
On international affairs, Schumer voted for the Iraq invasion as well as billions of dollars in ongoing funding for the war. Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Schumer boasted that the Democrats sought to give the troops even more money than Bush had requested. "Nothing-nothing-will stand in our way of supporting the troops in every way," he said. When confronted by his local constituents on Iraq, he turns nasty and calls them "fools" for suggesting that the U.S. should organize an immediate troop withdrawal. Seeking to deflect criticism, Schumer seeks to build up his liberal stripes by saying that he once protested the war in Vietnam. He has also voted, along with the junior Senator from New York, Hilary Clinton, to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran a foreign terrorist organization. Some have interpreted the move as an effort to give Bush the authority to eventually make war on the Islamic Republic.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Former Intel Officers on Mukasey and Torture
by Ray McGovern - Nov 7, 2007
Author's note: Twenty-four former intelligence and national security officials delivered an urgent message Monday morning to the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, calling on them to hold the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey for attorney general until he states his opinion on the legality of waterboarding.
Their message strongly endorsed the view of former judge advocates general that waterboarding "is inhumane, is torture, is illegal." The intelligence veterans added that it is also a notoriously unreliable way to acquire accurate information.
They noted that the factors cited by the president and Mukasey as obstacles to his giving an opinion on waterboarding can be easily solved by briefing Mukasey on waterboarding and on CIA interrogation methods.
The former intelligence officials pointed out that during their careers they frequently had to walk the thin line between morality and expediency, all the while doing their best to abide by the values the majority of Americans have held in common over the years. They appealed to Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter to rise to the occasion and discharge their responsibility to defend those same values.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman and Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
FROM:
Former U.S. Intelligence Officers
SUBJECT:
Nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General
Dear Senators Leahy and Specter,
Values that are extremely important to us as former intelligence officers are at stake in your committee's confirmation deliberations on Judge Michael Mukasey. With hundreds of years of service in sensitive national security activities behind us, we are deeply concerned that your committee may move his nomination to the full Senate without insisting that Mukasey declare himself on whether he believes the practice of waterboarding is legal.
We feel this more acutely than most others, for in our careers we have frequently had to navigate the delicate balance between morality and expediency, all the while doing our best to abide by the values the vast majority of Americans hold in common. We therefore believe we have a particular moral obligation to speak out. We can say it no better than four retired judge advocates general (two admirals and two generals) who wrote you over the weekend, saying: "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal."
Judge Mukasey's refusal to comment on waterboarding, on grounds that it would be "irresponsible" to provide "an uninformed legal opinion based on hypothetical facts and circumstances," raises serious questions. There is nothing hypothetical or secret about the fact that waterboarding was used by U.S. intelligence officers as an interrogation technique before the Justice Department publicly declared torture "abhorrent" in a legal opinion in December 2004. But after Alberto Gonzales became attorney general in February 2005, Justice reportedly issued a secret memo authorizing harsh physical and psychological tactics, including waterboarding, which were approved for use in combination. A presidential executive order of July 20, 2007 authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques" that had been banned for use by the U.S. Army. Although the White House announced that the order provides "clear rules" to govern treatment of detainees, the rules are classified, so defense attorneys, judges, juries – and even nominee Mukasey – can be prevented from viewing them.
Those are some of the "facts and circumstances." They are not hypothetical; and there are simple ways for Judge Mukasey to become informed, which we propose below.
Last Thursday, President George W. Bush told reporters it was unfair to ask Mukasey about interrogation techniques about which he had not been briefed. "He doesn't know whether we use that technique [waterboarding] or not," the president said. Judge Mukasey wrote much the same in his Oct. 30 letter, explaining that he was unable to give an opinion on the legality of waterboarding because he doesn't know whether it is being used: "I have not been made aware of the details of any interrogation program to the extent that any such program may be classified and thus do not know what techniques may be involved in any such program." Whether or not the practice is currently in use by U.S. intelligence, it should in fact be easy for him to respond. All he need do is find out what waterboarding is and then decide whether he considers it legal.
The conundrum created to justify the nominee's silence on this key issue is a synthetic one. It is within your power to resolve it readily. If Mukasey continues to drag his feet, you need only to facilitate a classified briefing for him on waterboarding and the CIA interrogation program. He will then be able to render an informed legal opinion. We strongly suggest that you sit in on any such briefing and that you invite the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to take part as well. Receiving the same briefing at the same time (and, ideally, having it taped) should enhance the likelihood of candor and make it possible for all to be – and to stay – on the same page on this delicate issue.
If the White House refuses to allow such a briefing, your committee must, in our opinion, put a hold on Mukasey's nomination. We are aware that the president warned last week that it will be either Mukasey as our attorney general or no one. So be it. It is time to stand up for what is right and require from the executive the information necessary for the Senate to function responsibly and effectively. It would seem essential not to approve a nominee who has already made clear he is reluctant to ask questions of the White House. How can a person with that attitude even be proposed to be our chief law-enforcement officer?
We strongly urge that you not send Mukasey's nomination to the full Senate before he makes clear his view on waterboarding. Otherwise, there is considerable risk of continued use of the officially sanctioned torture techniques that have corrupted our intelligence services, knocked our military off the high moral ground, severely damaged our country's standing in the world, and exposed U.S. military and intelligence people to similar treatment when captured or kidnapped. One would think that Judge Mukasey would want to be briefed on these secret interrogation techniques and to clarify where he stands.
The most likely explanation for Mukasey's reticence is his concern that, should his conscience require him to condemn waterboarding, this could cause extreme embarrassment and even legal jeopardy for senior officials – this time not just for the so-called "bad apples" at the bottom of the barrel. We believe it very important that the Senate not acquiesce in his silence – and certainly not if, as seems the case, he is more concerned about protecting senior officials than he is in enforcing the law and the Constitution.
It is important to get beyond shadowboxing on this key issue. In our view, condoning Mukasey's evasiveness would mean ignoring fundamental American values and the Senate's constitutional prerogative of advice and consent.
At stake in your committee and this nomination are questions of legality, morality, and our country's values. And these are our primary concerns as well. As professional intelligence officers, however, we must point to a supreme irony – namely, that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation practices are ineffective tools for eliciting reliable information. Our own experience dovetails well with that of U.S. Army intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. John Kimmons, who told a Pentagon press conference on Sept. 6, 2006: "No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that."
Speaking out so precisely and unequivocally took uncommon courage, because Kimmons knew that just across the Potomac President Bush would be taking quite a different line at a press conference scheduled to begin as soon as Kimmons finished his. At the White House press conference focusing on interrogation techniques, the president touted the success that the CIA was having in extracting information from detainees by using an "alternative set of procedures." He said these procedures had to be "tough," in order to deal with particularly recalcitrant detainees who "had received training on how to resist interrogation" and had "stopped talking."
The Undersigned
(Official duties refer to former government work.)
Brent Cavan
Intelligence Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA
Ray Close
Directorate of Operations, CIA for 26 years – 22 of them overseas; former Chief of Station, Saudi Arabia
Ed Costello
Counter-espionage, FBI
Michael Dennehy
Supervisory Special Agent for 32 years, FBI; U.S. Marine Corps for three years
Rosemary Dew
Supervisory Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI
Philip Giraldi
Operations officer and counter-terrorist specialist, Directorate of Operations, CIA
Michael Grimaldi
Intelligence Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Federal law enforcement officer
Mel Goodman
Division Chief, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Professor, National Defense University; Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy
Larry Johnson
Intelligence analysis and operations officer, CIA; Deputy Director, Office of Counter Terrorism, Department of State
Richard Kovar
Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director for Intelligence, CIA: Editor, Studies In Intelligence
Charlotte Lang
Supervisory Special Agent, FBI
W. Patrick Lang
U.S. Army Colonel, Special Forces, Vietnam; Professor, U.S. Military Academy, West Point; Defense Intelligence Officer for Middle East, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); founding director, Defense HUMINT Service
Lynne Larkin
Operations Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA; counterintelligence; coordination among intelligence and crime prevention agencies; CIA policy coordination staff ensuring adherence to law in operations
Steve Lee
Intelligence Analyst for terrorism, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA
Jon S. Lipsky
Supervisory Special Agent, FBI
David MacMichael
Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council, CIA; History professor; Veteran, U.S. Marines (Korea)
Tom Maertens
Foreign Service Officer and Intelligence Analyst, Department of State; Deputy Coordinator for Counter-terrorism, Department of State; National Security Council (NSC) Director for Non-Proliferation
James Marcinkowski
Operations Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA by way of U.S. Navy
Mary McCarthy
National Intelligence Officer for Warning; Senior Director for Intelligence Programs, National Security Council
Ray McGovern
Intelligence Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; morning briefer, The President's Daily Brief; chair of National Intelligence Estimates; Co-founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Sam Provance
U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst, Germany and Iraq (Abu Ghraib); Whistleblower
Coleen Rowley
Special Agent and attorney, FBI; Whistleblower on the negligence that facilitated the attacks of 9/11.
Joseph Wilson
Foreign Service Officer; Chargé d'Affairs, Iraq (1990); Ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome/Principe; Senior Director for African Affairs, NSC
Valerie Plame Wilson
Operations officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA
Author's note: Twenty-four former intelligence and national security officials delivered an urgent message Monday morning to the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, calling on them to hold the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey for attorney general until he states his opinion on the legality of waterboarding.
Their message strongly endorsed the view of former judge advocates general that waterboarding "is inhumane, is torture, is illegal." The intelligence veterans added that it is also a notoriously unreliable way to acquire accurate information.
They noted that the factors cited by the president and Mukasey as obstacles to his giving an opinion on waterboarding can be easily solved by briefing Mukasey on waterboarding and on CIA interrogation methods.
The former intelligence officials pointed out that during their careers they frequently had to walk the thin line between morality and expediency, all the while doing their best to abide by the values the majority of Americans have held in common over the years. They appealed to Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter to rise to the occasion and discharge their responsibility to defend those same values.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman and Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
FROM:
Former U.S. Intelligence Officers
SUBJECT:
Nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General
Dear Senators Leahy and Specter,
Values that are extremely important to us as former intelligence officers are at stake in your committee's confirmation deliberations on Judge Michael Mukasey. With hundreds of years of service in sensitive national security activities behind us, we are deeply concerned that your committee may move his nomination to the full Senate without insisting that Mukasey declare himself on whether he believes the practice of waterboarding is legal.
We feel this more acutely than most others, for in our careers we have frequently had to navigate the delicate balance between morality and expediency, all the while doing our best to abide by the values the vast majority of Americans hold in common. We therefore believe we have a particular moral obligation to speak out. We can say it no better than four retired judge advocates general (two admirals and two generals) who wrote you over the weekend, saying: "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal."
Judge Mukasey's refusal to comment on waterboarding, on grounds that it would be "irresponsible" to provide "an uninformed legal opinion based on hypothetical facts and circumstances," raises serious questions. There is nothing hypothetical or secret about the fact that waterboarding was used by U.S. intelligence officers as an interrogation technique before the Justice Department publicly declared torture "abhorrent" in a legal opinion in December 2004. But after Alberto Gonzales became attorney general in February 2005, Justice reportedly issued a secret memo authorizing harsh physical and psychological tactics, including waterboarding, which were approved for use in combination. A presidential executive order of July 20, 2007 authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques" that had been banned for use by the U.S. Army. Although the White House announced that the order provides "clear rules" to govern treatment of detainees, the rules are classified, so defense attorneys, judges, juries – and even nominee Mukasey – can be prevented from viewing them.
Those are some of the "facts and circumstances." They are not hypothetical; and there are simple ways for Judge Mukasey to become informed, which we propose below.
Last Thursday, President George W. Bush told reporters it was unfair to ask Mukasey about interrogation techniques about which he had not been briefed. "He doesn't know whether we use that technique [waterboarding] or not," the president said. Judge Mukasey wrote much the same in his Oct. 30 letter, explaining that he was unable to give an opinion on the legality of waterboarding because he doesn't know whether it is being used: "I have not been made aware of the details of any interrogation program to the extent that any such program may be classified and thus do not know what techniques may be involved in any such program." Whether or not the practice is currently in use by U.S. intelligence, it should in fact be easy for him to respond. All he need do is find out what waterboarding is and then decide whether he considers it legal.
The conundrum created to justify the nominee's silence on this key issue is a synthetic one. It is within your power to resolve it readily. If Mukasey continues to drag his feet, you need only to facilitate a classified briefing for him on waterboarding and the CIA interrogation program. He will then be able to render an informed legal opinion. We strongly suggest that you sit in on any such briefing and that you invite the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to take part as well. Receiving the same briefing at the same time (and, ideally, having it taped) should enhance the likelihood of candor and make it possible for all to be – and to stay – on the same page on this delicate issue.
If the White House refuses to allow such a briefing, your committee must, in our opinion, put a hold on Mukasey's nomination. We are aware that the president warned last week that it will be either Mukasey as our attorney general or no one. So be it. It is time to stand up for what is right and require from the executive the information necessary for the Senate to function responsibly and effectively. It would seem essential not to approve a nominee who has already made clear he is reluctant to ask questions of the White House. How can a person with that attitude even be proposed to be our chief law-enforcement officer?
We strongly urge that you not send Mukasey's nomination to the full Senate before he makes clear his view on waterboarding. Otherwise, there is considerable risk of continued use of the officially sanctioned torture techniques that have corrupted our intelligence services, knocked our military off the high moral ground, severely damaged our country's standing in the world, and exposed U.S. military and intelligence people to similar treatment when captured or kidnapped. One would think that Judge Mukasey would want to be briefed on these secret interrogation techniques and to clarify where he stands.
The most likely explanation for Mukasey's reticence is his concern that, should his conscience require him to condemn waterboarding, this could cause extreme embarrassment and even legal jeopardy for senior officials – this time not just for the so-called "bad apples" at the bottom of the barrel. We believe it very important that the Senate not acquiesce in his silence – and certainly not if, as seems the case, he is more concerned about protecting senior officials than he is in enforcing the law and the Constitution.
It is important to get beyond shadowboxing on this key issue. In our view, condoning Mukasey's evasiveness would mean ignoring fundamental American values and the Senate's constitutional prerogative of advice and consent.
At stake in your committee and this nomination are questions of legality, morality, and our country's values. And these are our primary concerns as well. As professional intelligence officers, however, we must point to a supreme irony – namely, that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation practices are ineffective tools for eliciting reliable information. Our own experience dovetails well with that of U.S. Army intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. John Kimmons, who told a Pentagon press conference on Sept. 6, 2006: "No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that."
Speaking out so precisely and unequivocally took uncommon courage, because Kimmons knew that just across the Potomac President Bush would be taking quite a different line at a press conference scheduled to begin as soon as Kimmons finished his. At the White House press conference focusing on interrogation techniques, the president touted the success that the CIA was having in extracting information from detainees by using an "alternative set of procedures." He said these procedures had to be "tough," in order to deal with particularly recalcitrant detainees who "had received training on how to resist interrogation" and had "stopped talking."
The Undersigned
(Official duties refer to former government work.)
Brent Cavan
Intelligence Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA
Ray Close
Directorate of Operations, CIA for 26 years – 22 of them overseas; former Chief of Station, Saudi Arabia
Ed Costello
Counter-espionage, FBI
Michael Dennehy
Supervisory Special Agent for 32 years, FBI; U.S. Marine Corps for three years
Rosemary Dew
Supervisory Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI
Philip Giraldi
Operations officer and counter-terrorist specialist, Directorate of Operations, CIA
Michael Grimaldi
Intelligence Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Federal law enforcement officer
Mel Goodman
Division Chief, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Professor, National Defense University; Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy
Larry Johnson
Intelligence analysis and operations officer, CIA; Deputy Director, Office of Counter Terrorism, Department of State
Richard Kovar
Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director for Intelligence, CIA: Editor, Studies In Intelligence
Charlotte Lang
Supervisory Special Agent, FBI
W. Patrick Lang
U.S. Army Colonel, Special Forces, Vietnam; Professor, U.S. Military Academy, West Point; Defense Intelligence Officer for Middle East, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); founding director, Defense HUMINT Service
Lynne Larkin
Operations Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA; counterintelligence; coordination among intelligence and crime prevention agencies; CIA policy coordination staff ensuring adherence to law in operations
Steve Lee
Intelligence Analyst for terrorism, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA
Jon S. Lipsky
Supervisory Special Agent, FBI
David MacMichael
Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council, CIA; History professor; Veteran, U.S. Marines (Korea)
Tom Maertens
Foreign Service Officer and Intelligence Analyst, Department of State; Deputy Coordinator for Counter-terrorism, Department of State; National Security Council (NSC) Director for Non-Proliferation
James Marcinkowski
Operations Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA by way of U.S. Navy
Mary McCarthy
National Intelligence Officer for Warning; Senior Director for Intelligence Programs, National Security Council
Ray McGovern
Intelligence Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; morning briefer, The President's Daily Brief; chair of National Intelligence Estimates; Co-founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Sam Provance
U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst, Germany and Iraq (Abu Ghraib); Whistleblower
Coleen Rowley
Special Agent and attorney, FBI; Whistleblower on the negligence that facilitated the attacks of 9/11.
Joseph Wilson
Foreign Service Officer; Chargé d'Affairs, Iraq (1990); Ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome/Principe; Senior Director for African Affairs, NSC
Valerie Plame Wilson
Operations officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Judiciary panel approves Mukasey
Retired federal judge Michael Mukasey listens as President Bush announces him as his nominee for attorney general, replacing Alberto Gonzales,in this Sept. 17, 2007 file photo, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. A Senate committee prepared to advance Michael Mukasey's nomination to be the nation's 81st attorney general after two key Democrats pledged to support him because he promised to enforce a law against controlled drowning if Congress passed one. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
by LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press - Nov 6, 2007
The Judiciary Committee advanced Attorney General designate Michael Mukasey's nomination to the Senate floor Tuesday, virtually ensuring confirmation for a former judge ensnarled in bitter controversy over terrorism-era prisoner interrogations.
The 11-8 vote came only after two key Democrats accepted his assurance to enforce any law Congress might enact against waterboarding.
The White House and Senate Republicans called for a swift confirmation vote, which is expected by the end of next week.
"We appreciate the vote of senators on the Judiciary Committee to forward the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to the full Senate," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "Judge Mukasey has clearly demonstrated that he will be an exceptional attorney general at this critical time."
Though Mukasey is expected to easily win confirmation by the full Senate, Democrats and some Republicans were far from satisfied with his answers on torture, presidential signing statements and executive power.
Mukasey's assurances on torture that won over Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer was disingenuous, according to Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
"Unsaid, of course, is the fact that any such prohibition would have to be enacted over the veto of this president," said Leahy.
But Schumer, who suggested Mukasey to the White House in the first place, countered that the nominee's statements against waterboarding and for purging politics from the Justice Department amount to the best deal Democrats could get from the Bush administration.
"If we block Judge Mukasey's nomination and then learn in six months that waterboarding has continued unabated, that victory will seem much less valuable," he wrote in an op-ed in Tuesday's editions of The New York Times.
Feinstein, D-Calif., said her vote for Muksaey's confirmation came down in part to practicality. If Mukasey's nomination were killed, she said, Bush would install an acting attorney general not subject to Senate confirmation and make recess appointments to fill nearly a dozen other empty jobs at the top of Justice.
"I don't believe a leaderless department is in the best interests of the American people or of the department itself," Feinstein said. Bush, she added, "appointed this man because he believes he is mainstream."
Support for Mukasey from Schumer and Feinstein virtually assured the former federal judge the majority vote he needed to be favorably recommended by the 19-member committee. He was expected to win confirmation handily, and the vote is likely before Thanksgiving.
Many Democrats came out in opposition to Mukasey after he refused to say unequivocably that so-called waterboarding — an interrogation technique that makes the victim believe he is drowning — is tantamount to torture and thus illegal under domestic and international law.
Mukasey rankled Democrats during his confirmation hearing by saying he was not familiar with the waterboarding technique and could not say whether it was torture.
Even Sen. Arlen Specter, the panel's ranking Republican, called that explanation "a flimsy excuse" and suggested instead that Muksaey declined to call waterboarding illegal torture because he wanted to avoid putting at legal risk U.S. officials who may have engaged in the practice.
But Specter, of Pennsylvania, said that outlawing waterboarding rests with Congress. He revealed that he had talked with Mukasey a day earlier and received an assurance that the nominee would back up any such legislation and quit if Bush ignores his opinion.
Thus, Specter said, Mukasey had won his support.
Legal experts cautioned that if Mukasey called it torture, that effectively could have constituted an admission that the United States engaged in war crimes. It could also commit him to prosecuting U.S. officials even before he takes office.
Mukasey's America
by Nat Hentoff - Nov 5, 2007
During the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on the nomination of Michael Mukasey to succeed Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, there was an exchange that many will remember. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat, a former prosecutor, asked about waterboarding, an interrogation technique long associated with the CIA: "Is waterboarding constitutional?"Mr. Mukasey answered: "I don't know what is involved in the technique. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional."
After that testimony, John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, told the New York Sun: "Waterboarding was devised in the Spanish Inquisition. Next to the rack and thumbscrews, it's the most iconic example of torture." And Martin Lederman, who was an attorney adviser in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to 2002, said about Mr. Mukasey's "not knowing enough to say whether waterboarding, or any other technique, is torture... or otherwise unlawful (shows) how far we have fallen when a jurist of Judge Mukasey's caliber cannot answer such questions without hesitation" (from the Balkinization Web site of Yale Law professor Jack Balkin).
Among others startled by Mr. Mukasey's evasiveness, George L. Gordon, a former chief appellate attorney in the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, said in an Oct. 20 letter to The New York Times: "How can the United States hope to regain its position as a respected world leader on the great issues of human rights if its chief law enforcement officer cannot bring himself to acknowledge the undeniable verity that waterboarding (making a prisoner feel he is imminently about to drown) constitutes torture, applying any conceivable definition of that term?" During his testimony, Mr. Mukasey also said it would be irresponsible of him to comment on any of the "coercive interrogation techniques" (that the president has approved) because he has not been "read in" on them by being allowed to see classified information on those techniques.
Trying to further the education of our prospective chief law enforcement officer, Mr. Lederman suggests he ask FBI Director Robert Mueller to show him the e-mails sent to him by FBI agents in the field "complaining that the CIA-run interrogation program amounted to torture." Mr. Lederman quotes a senior federal law enforcement official in the FBI messages: "'Those guys were using techniques that we didn't even want to be in the room for.'" A series of these appalled FBI complaints are in a newly published book that Mr. Mukasey, members of Congress and Americans concerned with the degrading of our rule of law should read: "Administration of Torture" by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh (Columbia University Press).
At its core are more than 350 pages selected from thousands of actual government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that specifically detail systematic abuses of prisoners, including forms of torture that cannot in our law and international treaties be described denotatively in another way than some of the "coercive interrogation techniques" of which Mr. Mukasey professed ignorance. Also, "Administration of Torture" prints Final Autopsy Reports from the Office of the Armed Forces Regional Examiner and the allied Institute of Pathology. For example, a 52-year-old Iraqi male "found unresponsive... in isolation at Whitehorse detainment facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq. Cause of death: Strangulation. Manner of Death: Homicide." There were extensive head, neck, torso and extremity injuries.
Another autopsy report of an Iraqi death "while in U.S. custody" states the homicide was caused by blunt force injuries and asphyxia. Other documents that should greatly interest the likely new attorney general verify that prisoners were shackled in extremely painful "stress positions," stripped in freezing cold cells and deprived of human contact for months. Moreover, the records show that the Defense Department authorized the caging of prisoners in cells as small as 3.1 feet by 4 feet by 1-1/2 feet.
Also, Mr. Mukasey will discover that this maltreatment, to use a euphemism, "took place because of (official) policy, not in spite of it in large part," wrote Mr. Jaffer and Mrs. Singh, "from decisions made by senior officials, both military and civilians. These decisions (going up to the White House) were reaffirmed repeatedly, even in the fact of complaints from law enforcement and military personnel that the policies were illegal and ineffective." As far as these U.S. government documents from Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay are concerned, future American historians will not flinch from calling them records of war crimes — not only from soldiers from the field, but all the way up "the chain of command."
Louis Brandeis said: "Courage is the secret of liberty." The Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation of Michael Mukasey would not be an act of courage. And will any candidate for the presidency read carefully "The Administration of Torture?" It's also important to remember that Mr. Mukasey testified that in these circumstances, the president can use his constitutional authority to act outside of laws Congress has passed and he has signed.
This is Mr. Mukasey's America?
During the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on the nomination of Michael Mukasey to succeed Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, there was an exchange that many will remember. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat, a former prosecutor, asked about waterboarding, an interrogation technique long associated with the CIA: "Is waterboarding constitutional?"Mr. Mukasey answered: "I don't know what is involved in the technique. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional."
After that testimony, John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, told the New York Sun: "Waterboarding was devised in the Spanish Inquisition. Next to the rack and thumbscrews, it's the most iconic example of torture." And Martin Lederman, who was an attorney adviser in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to 2002, said about Mr. Mukasey's "not knowing enough to say whether waterboarding, or any other technique, is torture... or otherwise unlawful (shows) how far we have fallen when a jurist of Judge Mukasey's caliber cannot answer such questions without hesitation" (from the Balkinization Web site of Yale Law professor Jack Balkin).
Among others startled by Mr. Mukasey's evasiveness, George L. Gordon, a former chief appellate attorney in the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, said in an Oct. 20 letter to The New York Times: "How can the United States hope to regain its position as a respected world leader on the great issues of human rights if its chief law enforcement officer cannot bring himself to acknowledge the undeniable verity that waterboarding (making a prisoner feel he is imminently about to drown) constitutes torture, applying any conceivable definition of that term?" During his testimony, Mr. Mukasey also said it would be irresponsible of him to comment on any of the "coercive interrogation techniques" (that the president has approved) because he has not been "read in" on them by being allowed to see classified information on those techniques.
Trying to further the education of our prospective chief law enforcement officer, Mr. Lederman suggests he ask FBI Director Robert Mueller to show him the e-mails sent to him by FBI agents in the field "complaining that the CIA-run interrogation program amounted to torture." Mr. Lederman quotes a senior federal law enforcement official in the FBI messages: "'Those guys were using techniques that we didn't even want to be in the room for.'" A series of these appalled FBI complaints are in a newly published book that Mr. Mukasey, members of Congress and Americans concerned with the degrading of our rule of law should read: "Administration of Torture" by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh (Columbia University Press).
At its core are more than 350 pages selected from thousands of actual government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that specifically detail systematic abuses of prisoners, including forms of torture that cannot in our law and international treaties be described denotatively in another way than some of the "coercive interrogation techniques" of which Mr. Mukasey professed ignorance. Also, "Administration of Torture" prints Final Autopsy Reports from the Office of the Armed Forces Regional Examiner and the allied Institute of Pathology. For example, a 52-year-old Iraqi male "found unresponsive... in isolation at Whitehorse detainment facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq. Cause of death: Strangulation. Manner of Death: Homicide." There were extensive head, neck, torso and extremity injuries.
Another autopsy report of an Iraqi death "while in U.S. custody" states the homicide was caused by blunt force injuries and asphyxia. Other documents that should greatly interest the likely new attorney general verify that prisoners were shackled in extremely painful "stress positions," stripped in freezing cold cells and deprived of human contact for months. Moreover, the records show that the Defense Department authorized the caging of prisoners in cells as small as 3.1 feet by 4 feet by 1-1/2 feet.
Also, Mr. Mukasey will discover that this maltreatment, to use a euphemism, "took place because of (official) policy, not in spite of it in large part," wrote Mr. Jaffer and Mrs. Singh, "from decisions made by senior officials, both military and civilians. These decisions (going up to the White House) were reaffirmed repeatedly, even in the fact of complaints from law enforcement and military personnel that the policies were illegal and ineffective." As far as these U.S. government documents from Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay are concerned, future American historians will not flinch from calling them records of war crimes — not only from soldiers from the field, but all the way up "the chain of command."
Louis Brandeis said: "Courage is the secret of liberty." The Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation of Michael Mukasey would not be an act of courage. And will any candidate for the presidency read carefully "The Administration of Torture?" It's also important to remember that Mr. Mukasey testified that in these circumstances, the president can use his constitutional authority to act outside of laws Congress has passed and he has signed.
This is Mr. Mukasey's America?
Monday, November 5, 2007
New AG Nominee: Zionist Dream Come True
Source: http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4524
The case that first secured Judge Mukasey a lasting reputation was the 1995 trial of 10 militant Muslims who were convicted of a plot to blow up the United Nations and other landmarks around the city. Following the trial — which lasted the better part of a year — Judge Mukasey sentenced the central defendant, the terrorist-sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and another man, El Sayyid Nosair, to life in prison.
Judge Mukasey has also presided over high-profile civil cases, including World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein's battle with the insurers of the trade center.
NY Sun
From helping shakedown insurance companies over the Holocaust™, to trying alleged Muslim perps in the first WTC "false-flag" event in 1993, to helping one of his own secure billions of dollars in questionable insurance payments to the then owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, United States Atorney General nominee Mukasey has got to be a Zionist dream come true.
When he does gain office, and he will, with his buds in the Senate, Schumer, Feinstein and Specter paving the way, look for Mukasey to smother any attempts to seek the truth on the actual perpetrators behind 9/11.
One of his first acts will be to throw up roadblocks, if not actually dismiss, the AIAPC spying case, which is due for trial after the first of the year.
That case has members of AIPAC nervous, since if it would go to trial, there could be some nasty secrets revealed about the AIPAC spy ring which has infiltrated the US government at the highest levels.
And some of the people that have been subpoenaed, Secretary of State Rice, NSA honcho Stephen Hadley and Israeli Firster, Eliot Abrams, are the architects of the war against Iraq and the upcoming war against Iran. These types of people don't waste time in courtrooms, not when they could be doing their Zionist masters bidding.
One imagines Mukasey will take his oath of office with his hand on the Torah and not the KLV Bible.
Keep in mind that Mukasey is also on Rudy Giuliani's campaign committee as a Justice Advisor. Just what the megalomaniac Giuliani needs on his campaign: A US Attorney General who is an advocate of torture.
The case that first secured Judge Mukasey a lasting reputation was the 1995 trial of 10 militant Muslims who were convicted of a plot to blow up the United Nations and other landmarks around the city. Following the trial — which lasted the better part of a year — Judge Mukasey sentenced the central defendant, the terrorist-sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and another man, El Sayyid Nosair, to life in prison.
Judge Mukasey has also presided over high-profile civil cases, including World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein's battle with the insurers of the trade center.
NY Sun
From helping shakedown insurance companies over the Holocaust™, to trying alleged Muslim perps in the first WTC "false-flag" event in 1993, to helping one of his own secure billions of dollars in questionable insurance payments to the then owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, United States Atorney General nominee Mukasey has got to be a Zionist dream come true.
When he does gain office, and he will, with his buds in the Senate, Schumer, Feinstein and Specter paving the way, look for Mukasey to smother any attempts to seek the truth on the actual perpetrators behind 9/11.
One of his first acts will be to throw up roadblocks, if not actually dismiss, the AIAPC spying case, which is due for trial after the first of the year.
That case has members of AIPAC nervous, since if it would go to trial, there could be some nasty secrets revealed about the AIPAC spy ring which has infiltrated the US government at the highest levels.
And some of the people that have been subpoenaed, Secretary of State Rice, NSA honcho Stephen Hadley and Israeli Firster, Eliot Abrams, are the architects of the war against Iraq and the upcoming war against Iran. These types of people don't waste time in courtrooms, not when they could be doing their Zionist masters bidding.
One imagines Mukasey will take his oath of office with his hand on the Torah and not the KLV Bible.
Keep in mind that Mukasey is also on Rudy Giuliani's campaign committee as a Justice Advisor. Just what the megalomaniac Giuliani needs on his campaign: A US Attorney General who is an advocate of torture.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Is Feinstein the Democrats' Next Lieberman?
Sen. Feinstein's support for the Mukasey nomination is a big victory for the White House. (Getty ImagesFeinstein, Lieberman, Mukasey, Schumer - can anyone tell me what these four have in common? Afterall, birds of a feather do flock together.
For the second time in recent months, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) on Friday confirmed that she will break ranks with a majority of her Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, in this case to confirm President Bush's nominee for attorney general.
Feinstein along with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), announced that she will support Michael B. Mukasey's nomination, virtually assuring his confirmation despite the nominee's controversial refusal to declare an interrogation technique called waterboarding to be an illegal form of torture.
The decision to back Bush's nominee sparked immediate outrage among the liberal anti-war "Netroots" community, many of whom had been pushing aggressively for the undecided Democrats on Judiciary to oppose Mukasey. Within minutes of the Schumer-Feinstein announcements, timed to be released at the same moment, the liberal blog Talking Points Memo blasted the news on its home page, while Democrats.com urged readers to refuse to give money to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is chaired by Schumer.
Schumer's wavering on the issue was much debated and discussed over the past week, as his indecision was featured in profiles in The Washington Post, New York Times and insider publications like Roll Call and The Hill. Feinstein's role was just as pivotal and received nowhere near as much attention, but some think that will change.
Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, predicted short-term headaches for Schumer but long-term issues with the anti-war liberals for Feinstein, because it's her second major break from Democrats in the past three months. "The next Joe Lieberman for them is going to be Feinstein," Ornstein told Capitol Briefing, referring to Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, who has been effectively chased from the party for his strong support for the Iraq war.
Feinstein was just as critical as Schumer, who had originally recommended Mukasey to the White House, because in recent days the pair were essentially viewed inside the Capitol as their own voting bloc. They would either support Mukasey together or oppose him together, providing the key votes sealing his defeat.
With all nine Republicans on Judiciary likely to support the nominee, just one of the 10 Democrats needed to flip in order for him to be approved by the panel. Once the nomination is sent to the full Senate, it's virtually a sure thing, since all 49 Republicans and Lieberman -- Mukasey's law school classmate -- are likely votes in favor.
But neither Schumer nor Feinstein was willing to be the lone Democrat siding with committee Republicans, which would have created potentially an enormous political backlash focused on one senator. Their statements supporting Mukasey struck similar themes.
Feinstein said her support was based largely on the proposition that Bush would not nominate another attorney general, leaving in place a long-term acting attorney general not confirmed by the Senate: "Judge Mukasey is the best we will get and voting him down would only perpetuate acting and recess appointments, allowing the administration to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and diminish effective oversight by Congress."
In early August Feinstein played the role of "Lone Democratic Ranger" when she supported U.S. Judge Leslie Southwick's confirmation to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans. She rejected allegations that he was racially insensitive in previous judicial rulings involving a racial slur, giving Southwick a 10-9 vote out of Judiciary.
"I don't believe he's a racist...I believe he's a good person," she told the committee.
For that vote, she was hailed by conservative activists who called it an "act of decency," while liberal activists said Southwick amounted to a "slap in the face" to minority voters.
On Tuesday morning, when she casts her vote in the Judiciary Committee in favor of Mukasey, Feinstein will at least have Schumer by her side to take some of the heat from outraged activists on the left.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Schumer, Feinstein back Mukasey
Of course! Was there really ever any question? It's the Jewish thing to do...
by Andrew Zajac - Nov 2, 207
Looks like Michael Mukasey will be the next Attorney General after all, many Democrats' misgivings about his unwillingness to declare waterboarding illegal notwithstanding.
A pair of key Senate Democrats, Diane Feinstein, of California, and Charles Schumer, of New York, announced this afternoon that they'll vote for Mukasey, giving him the votes he needs to win approval of the Judiciary Committee.
This can be looked at as a call made on the merits, but politically, the nods from Schumer and Feinstein also can be interpreted as meaning that Democrats still haven't figured out how to address issues like torture without appearing to be soft on national security.
The approval of key Democrats came a day after President Bush compared Democratic leaders stalling aspects of his security agenda, including the Mukasey confirmation, to appeasers who enabled Lenin and Hitler.
Reading between the many lines of his statement, one can sense Schumer's discomfiture.
The media-savvy senior senator from New York typically issues frequent, but very brief, sound bite-like statements on the issues of the day.
In this case, he's broken an uncharacteristically long silence with what for him is a torrent of prose:
SCHUMER STATEMENT SUPPORTING JUDGE MUKASEY TO BE NEXT U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
I will support Judge Michael Mukasey for Attorney General.
I have spent the last nine months doing everything I can to get new leadership at the Department of Justice and I believe the job will not be finished until we get a strong and independent Attorney General. I believe Judge Mukasey is that type of person. Should we reject him, it is almost certain that an acting, caretaker Attorney General will take office without the advice and consent of the Senate. Inevitably, that would enable those in this administration, who do not believe in the rule of law, and have done things that caused even former Attorney General Ashcroft to threaten resignation, to have the complete upper hand.
Only a strong and independent Attorney General can return the Justice Department to what it once was, and should always be. Under this administration, that nominee will certainly never share our views on issues like torture and wiretapping. The best we can hope for is someone who is independent, has integrity, will put rule of law first and, above all, will clean the stench of politicization out of the Justice Department. I believe Judge Mukasey will be that type of Attorney General.
This is an extremely difficult decision. When an administration, so political, so out of touch with the realities of governing and so contemptuous of the rule of law is in charge, we are never left with an ideal choice. Judge Mukasey is not my ideal choice. However, Judge Mukasey, whose integrity and independence is respected even by those who oppose him, is far better than anyone could expect from this administration. He is recommended by and reminds me of Jim Comey, another Bush nominee who—while he didn’t agree with us on the issues—showed the kind of independence and integrity this department needs.
I would also like to say something about torture, particularly waterboarding. I deeply oppose it. I supported Senator Kennedy’s amendment in 2006 and am a co-sponsor of his bill in this congress. Unfortunately, this nominee, indeed any proposed by President Bush will not agree with this. I am, however, confident that this nominee would enforce a law that bans waterboarding as I hope it will.
This afternoon, I met with Judge Michael Mukasey one more time. I requested the meeting to address, in person, some of my concerns. The Judge made clear to me that, were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the President would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.
Judge Mukasey is a lawyer’s lawyer. He will not leap to quick judgments. When we want him to do so, such as on torture, we will be disappointed. But when he resists those in the administration who want quick and facile answers, so they can get their way, so they can roll over civil liberties and blot out separation of powers, it is they who will be disappointed.
I realize that, should he become Attorney General, Judge Mukasey and I will disagree on many issues. I have told him that I will battle just as fiercely against him as I did against previous Attorney Generals when we disagree.
These are troubling times at the Justice Department. We cannot afford or allow the department to languish and limp along for the next 14 months. I deeply esteem those who believe the issue of torture is so paramount that Judge Mukasey’s views on it should be the sole determinant of our vote. But I must respectfully disagree. The Justice Department is a shambles: politicized and demoralized. The belief and hope that Justice Mukasey, with his experience, independence and integrity, can restore the department motivates my vote.
by Andrew Zajac - Nov 2, 207
Looks like Michael Mukasey will be the next Attorney General after all, many Democrats' misgivings about his unwillingness to declare waterboarding illegal notwithstanding.
A pair of key Senate Democrats, Diane Feinstein, of California, and Charles Schumer, of New York, announced this afternoon that they'll vote for Mukasey, giving him the votes he needs to win approval of the Judiciary Committee.
This can be looked at as a call made on the merits, but politically, the nods from Schumer and Feinstein also can be interpreted as meaning that Democrats still haven't figured out how to address issues like torture without appearing to be soft on national security.
The approval of key Democrats came a day after President Bush compared Democratic leaders stalling aspects of his security agenda, including the Mukasey confirmation, to appeasers who enabled Lenin and Hitler.
Reading between the many lines of his statement, one can sense Schumer's discomfiture.
The media-savvy senior senator from New York typically issues frequent, but very brief, sound bite-like statements on the issues of the day.
In this case, he's broken an uncharacteristically long silence with what for him is a torrent of prose:
SCHUMER STATEMENT SUPPORTING JUDGE MUKASEY TO BE NEXT U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
I will support Judge Michael Mukasey for Attorney General.
I have spent the last nine months doing everything I can to get new leadership at the Department of Justice and I believe the job will not be finished until we get a strong and independent Attorney General. I believe Judge Mukasey is that type of person. Should we reject him, it is almost certain that an acting, caretaker Attorney General will take office without the advice and consent of the Senate. Inevitably, that would enable those in this administration, who do not believe in the rule of law, and have done things that caused even former Attorney General Ashcroft to threaten resignation, to have the complete upper hand.
Only a strong and independent Attorney General can return the Justice Department to what it once was, and should always be. Under this administration, that nominee will certainly never share our views on issues like torture and wiretapping. The best we can hope for is someone who is independent, has integrity, will put rule of law first and, above all, will clean the stench of politicization out of the Justice Department. I believe Judge Mukasey will be that type of Attorney General.
This is an extremely difficult decision. When an administration, so political, so out of touch with the realities of governing and so contemptuous of the rule of law is in charge, we are never left with an ideal choice. Judge Mukasey is not my ideal choice. However, Judge Mukasey, whose integrity and independence is respected even by those who oppose him, is far better than anyone could expect from this administration. He is recommended by and reminds me of Jim Comey, another Bush nominee who—while he didn’t agree with us on the issues—showed the kind of independence and integrity this department needs.
I would also like to say something about torture, particularly waterboarding. I deeply oppose it. I supported Senator Kennedy’s amendment in 2006 and am a co-sponsor of his bill in this congress. Unfortunately, this nominee, indeed any proposed by President Bush will not agree with this. I am, however, confident that this nominee would enforce a law that bans waterboarding as I hope it will.
This afternoon, I met with Judge Michael Mukasey one more time. I requested the meeting to address, in person, some of my concerns. The Judge made clear to me that, were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the President would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.
Judge Mukasey is a lawyer’s lawyer. He will not leap to quick judgments. When we want him to do so, such as on torture, we will be disappointed. But when he resists those in the administration who want quick and facile answers, so they can get their way, so they can roll over civil liberties and blot out separation of powers, it is they who will be disappointed.
I realize that, should he become Attorney General, Judge Mukasey and I will disagree on many issues. I have told him that I will battle just as fiercely against him as I did against previous Attorney Generals when we disagree.
These are troubling times at the Justice Department. We cannot afford or allow the department to languish and limp along for the next 14 months. I deeply esteem those who believe the issue of torture is so paramount that Judge Mukasey’s views on it should be the sole determinant of our vote. But I must respectfully disagree. The Justice Department is a shambles: politicized and demoralized. The belief and hope that Justice Mukasey, with his experience, independence and integrity, can restore the department motivates my vote.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Sen. Leahy to oppose Mukasey for AG
by JOHN CURRAN - Nov 2, 2007
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Friday he won't support Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, potentially derailing his confirmation over complaints that he hasn't taken a full enough stand against torture.
"No American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture," said U.S. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt. He planned an afternoon news conference to make the announcement in Burlington.
Sliding support among the panel's Democrats makes it less likely the full Senate will vote to send Mukasey to a Justice Department that has been leaderless for weeks. Four other Democrats on Leahy's panel, which will decide Tuesday whether to approve Mukasey's confirmation, have already said they will not support him.
Once viewed as a sure thing, Mukasey's nomination was threatened during hearings last month in which he repeatedly refused to say whether he considers the simulated drowning interrogation technique known as waterboarding to be a form of torture.
Torture is considered a war crime by the international community and waterboarding has been banned by the U.S. military, but CIA interrogators are believed to have used the technique on terror detainees as recently as a few years ago.
Mukasey has called waterboarding personally "repugnant," but said he did not know enough about how it has been used to define it as torture. He also said he thought it would be irresponsible to discuss it since doing so could make interrogators and other government officials vulnerable to lawsuits.
"I am eager to restore strong leadership and independence to the Department of Justice," said Leahy. "I like Michael Mukasey. I wish that I could support his nomination. But I cannot. America needs to be certain and confident of the bedrock principle_ deeply embedded in our laws and our values — that no one, not even the president, is above the law."
Mukasey, a retired federal judge, was nominated in September to replace former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who resigned after months of questions about his honesty in congressional testimony and whether he allowed the Justice Department to become too entwined in White House politics.
Mukasey needs support from at least one Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee for his nomination to be sent to the full Senate for a vote. The four Democrats who sit on the panel and already have said they will oppose him are: Joe Biden of Delaware, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Friday he won't support Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, potentially derailing his confirmation over complaints that he hasn't taken a full enough stand against torture.
"No American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture," said U.S. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt. He planned an afternoon news conference to make the announcement in Burlington.
Sliding support among the panel's Democrats makes it less likely the full Senate will vote to send Mukasey to a Justice Department that has been leaderless for weeks. Four other Democrats on Leahy's panel, which will decide Tuesday whether to approve Mukasey's confirmation, have already said they will not support him.
Once viewed as a sure thing, Mukasey's nomination was threatened during hearings last month in which he repeatedly refused to say whether he considers the simulated drowning interrogation technique known as waterboarding to be a form of torture.
Torture is considered a war crime by the international community and waterboarding has been banned by the U.S. military, but CIA interrogators are believed to have used the technique on terror detainees as recently as a few years ago.
Mukasey has called waterboarding personally "repugnant," but said he did not know enough about how it has been used to define it as torture. He also said he thought it would be irresponsible to discuss it since doing so could make interrogators and other government officials vulnerable to lawsuits.
"I am eager to restore strong leadership and independence to the Department of Justice," said Leahy. "I like Michael Mukasey. I wish that I could support his nomination. But I cannot. America needs to be certain and confident of the bedrock principle_ deeply embedded in our laws and our values — that no one, not even the president, is above the law."
Mukasey, a retired federal judge, was nominated in September to replace former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who resigned after months of questions about his honesty in congressional testimony and whether he allowed the Justice Department to become too entwined in White House politics.
Mukasey needs support from at least one Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee for his nomination to be sent to the full Senate for a vote. The four Democrats who sit on the panel and already have said they will oppose him are: Joe Biden of Delaware, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Immoral Relativism
Mukasey Won’t Say Waterboarding Is Torture But in 1947 the U.S. Called It a War Crime, Sentenced Enemy Officer to 15 Years Hard Labor
By Jon Ponder - Oct 30, 2007
George Bush’s nomination of Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general — once thought to be smooth sailing — is experiencing a bit of turbulence. The problem is, Mukasey can’t bring himself to say whether or not waterboarding is torture.
During his confirmation hearings earlier this month, Mukasey said he believes torture violates the Constitution, but he refused to be pinned down on whether he believes specific interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, are constitutional.
“I don’t know what’s involved in the techniques. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional,” he said.
But after World War II, the United States government was quite clear about the fact that waterboarding was torture, at least when it was done to U.S. citizens:
[In] 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
“Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. “We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II,” he said
Mukasey’s non-answer has raised doubts among Democrats, and even some Republicans, on the Senate Judiciary Committee:
[The] Democrats on the committee signed a joint letter to Mukasey, making sure that he knew what’s involved, and demanded an answer to the question as to whether waterboarding is torture.
Then two days later, the doubts grew louder. Two key Democrats, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT ) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) both said publicly that their votes depended on Mukasey’s answer to the waterboarding question.
Then it was Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who saw an opening after Rudy Giuliani refused to call waterboarding torture (”It depends on who does it.”). Most certainly it’s torture, McCain said. When pressed, he stopped short of saying that he would oppose Mukasey’s nomination if he didn’t say the same, but he added to the chorus of those who professed to be interested in what Mukasey’s answer to follow-up questions will be.
Yesterday, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said that if Mukasey “does not believe that waterboarding is illegal, then that would really put doubts in my own mind.”
Rep. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has also thrown in his lot of doubts and concerns.
Of course, if the past is a guide, Mukasey will easily win nomination, and nearly all these senators who have expressed concern will vote for him.
Waterboarding has become an isssue because the Bush White House signed off on it as an interrogation technique — and thus moved the United States into the company of pariah states that permit torture — after the 9/11 attacks.
By Jon Ponder - Oct 30, 2007
George Bush’s nomination of Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general — once thought to be smooth sailing — is experiencing a bit of turbulence. The problem is, Mukasey can’t bring himself to say whether or not waterboarding is torture.
During his confirmation hearings earlier this month, Mukasey said he believes torture violates the Constitution, but he refused to be pinned down on whether he believes specific interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, are constitutional.
“I don’t know what’s involved in the techniques. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional,” he said.
But after World War II, the United States government was quite clear about the fact that waterboarding was torture, at least when it was done to U.S. citizens:
[In] 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
“Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. “We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II,” he said
Mukasey’s non-answer has raised doubts among Democrats, and even some Republicans, on the Senate Judiciary Committee:
[The] Democrats on the committee signed a joint letter to Mukasey, making sure that he knew what’s involved, and demanded an answer to the question as to whether waterboarding is torture.
Then two days later, the doubts grew louder. Two key Democrats, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT ) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) both said publicly that their votes depended on Mukasey’s answer to the waterboarding question.
Then it was Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who saw an opening after Rudy Giuliani refused to call waterboarding torture (”It depends on who does it.”). Most certainly it’s torture, McCain said. When pressed, he stopped short of saying that he would oppose Mukasey’s nomination if he didn’t say the same, but he added to the chorus of those who professed to be interested in what Mukasey’s answer to follow-up questions will be.
Yesterday, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said that if Mukasey “does not believe that waterboarding is illegal, then that would really put doubts in my own mind.”
Rep. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has also thrown in his lot of doubts and concerns.
Of course, if the past is a guide, Mukasey will easily win nomination, and nearly all these senators who have expressed concern will vote for him.
Waterboarding has become an isssue because the Bush White House signed off on it as an interrogation technique — and thus moved the United States into the company of pariah states that permit torture — after the 9/11 attacks.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
The Gap in Mukasey's Testimony
When is the president authorized to break the law?
by Jacob Sullum - October 24, 2007
During his recent confirmation hearings, Michael Mukasey, the former federal judge nominated to be the next attorney general, conceded that "the president doesn't stand above the law." Yet Mukasey, who is expected to be easily confirmed, also suggested that the president is entitled to ignore certain laws.
Since the law "starts with the Constitution," he said, the president need not obey a statute that interferes with his inherent constitutional authority "to defend the country." Now that the War on Terror has replaced the Cold War as a reliable rationale for extending executive power, the breadth of this authority to defend the country will be a central issue in national politics long after Mukasey completes his service as attorney general.
Is protecting national security "a loophole big enough to drive a truck through," as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) worried? Or is it, as Mukasey said it should be, a power the president will strive to exercise with the consent of Congress, acting without congressional support only in emergencies?
The Bush administration's track record on the surveillance, detention, and interrogation of suspected terrorists suggests Leahy's fears are justified. Even when there was plenty of time to seek congressional approval and every reason to think it would be forthcoming, this administration has chosen arrogant unilateralism over the cooperation Mukasey recommends so "we don't have to get into butting heads over who can and who can't."
Although the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, Congress has several explicitly enumerated powers related to national defense. In addition to the power of the purse, these include the power "to declare war," to "make rules concerning captures on land and water," "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces," and to suspend the habeas corpus privilege "in cases of rebellion or invasion."
If Congress passed a law that, say, purported to put the speaker of the House in charge of the armed forces, it would be clearly unconstitutional. Regulating the treatment of detainees, by contrast, is squarely within congressional authority.
In a sense, then, it's not surprising that Mukasey conceded the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act, which established guidelines for detainee trials, and the Detainee Treatment Act, which bans "cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment." Still, it's reassuring, since Mukasey was nominated by a president who initially tried to go his own way in these areas and who issued a signing statement that indicated he reserved the right to ignore the latter law when it was inconvenient.
That was how Bush treated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Until Congress amended it last August, FISA required the government to obtain a warrant to monitor communications involving people in the United States. Yet for years Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to conduct such surveillance without court approval.
When asked about this program, Mukasey referred repeatedly to the "gap between where FISA left off and where the Constitution permitted the president to act." He cited Carter administration Attorney General Griffin Bell's statement that FISA "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution."
Did Mukasey mean that the Constitution authorized the president to ignore FISA's warrant requirements, as his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, argued? No matter how many times he was asked, Mukasey wouldn't say, instead retreating to the lame argument that Congress, without realizing it, amended FISA by authorizing the use of military force against the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks.
Even as the administration continues to insist that the NSA's warrantless surveillance was legal, it is pressing Congress to give the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the program retroactive legal immunity. Immunity for what? For assisting the government with its perfectly lawful surveillance?
Clearly, Bush wants to give these companies a free pass for breaking the law in the name of national security. They shouldn't get one, and neither should he.
by Jacob Sullum - October 24, 2007
During his recent confirmation hearings, Michael Mukasey, the former federal judge nominated to be the next attorney general, conceded that "the president doesn't stand above the law." Yet Mukasey, who is expected to be easily confirmed, also suggested that the president is entitled to ignore certain laws.
Since the law "starts with the Constitution," he said, the president need not obey a statute that interferes with his inherent constitutional authority "to defend the country." Now that the War on Terror has replaced the Cold War as a reliable rationale for extending executive power, the breadth of this authority to defend the country will be a central issue in national politics long after Mukasey completes his service as attorney general.
Is protecting national security "a loophole big enough to drive a truck through," as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) worried? Or is it, as Mukasey said it should be, a power the president will strive to exercise with the consent of Congress, acting without congressional support only in emergencies?
The Bush administration's track record on the surveillance, detention, and interrogation of suspected terrorists suggests Leahy's fears are justified. Even when there was plenty of time to seek congressional approval and every reason to think it would be forthcoming, this administration has chosen arrogant unilateralism over the cooperation Mukasey recommends so "we don't have to get into butting heads over who can and who can't."
Although the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, Congress has several explicitly enumerated powers related to national defense. In addition to the power of the purse, these include the power "to declare war," to "make rules concerning captures on land and water," "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces," and to suspend the habeas corpus privilege "in cases of rebellion or invasion."
If Congress passed a law that, say, purported to put the speaker of the House in charge of the armed forces, it would be clearly unconstitutional. Regulating the treatment of detainees, by contrast, is squarely within congressional authority.
In a sense, then, it's not surprising that Mukasey conceded the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act, which established guidelines for detainee trials, and the Detainee Treatment Act, which bans "cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment." Still, it's reassuring, since Mukasey was nominated by a president who initially tried to go his own way in these areas and who issued a signing statement that indicated he reserved the right to ignore the latter law when it was inconvenient.
That was how Bush treated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Until Congress amended it last August, FISA required the government to obtain a warrant to monitor communications involving people in the United States. Yet for years Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to conduct such surveillance without court approval.
When asked about this program, Mukasey referred repeatedly to the "gap between where FISA left off and where the Constitution permitted the president to act." He cited Carter administration Attorney General Griffin Bell's statement that FISA "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution."
Did Mukasey mean that the Constitution authorized the president to ignore FISA's warrant requirements, as his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, argued? No matter how many times he was asked, Mukasey wouldn't say, instead retreating to the lame argument that Congress, without realizing it, amended FISA by authorizing the use of military force against the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks.
Even as the administration continues to insist that the NSA's warrantless surveillance was legal, it is pressing Congress to give the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the program retroactive legal immunity. Immunity for what? For assisting the government with its perfectly lawful surveillance?
Clearly, Bush wants to give these companies a free pass for breaking the law in the name of national security. They shouldn't get one, and neither should he.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Mukasey's nomination runs into trouble
by LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press - Oct 25, 2006
Judge Michael Mukasey's nomination for attorney general ran into trouble Thursday when two top Senate Democrats said their votes hinge on whether he will say on the record that an interrogation technique that simulates drowning is torture.
"It's fair to say my vote would depend on him answering that question," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told reporters late Thursday.
"This to me is the seminal issue," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, another member of Leahy's panel. Asked if his vote depends on whether Mukasey equates waterboarding with torture, Durbin answered: "It does."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said his support could be in doubt over the same issue.
"I think if he doesn't change his direction in that regard, he could have at least one concern and that's me," Reid told reporters.
Leahy has refused to set a date for a vote on Mukasey's nomination until he clarifies his answer to that question.
Separately, a Democrat familiar with the panel's deliberations said Mukasey may not get the 10 committee votes his nomination needs to be reported to the Senate floor with a favorable recommendation unless he says, in effect, that waterboarding is torture. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak more freely.
"As he always does, Judge Mukasey will answer all questions from the Judiciary Committee in a clear and forthright manner," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.
Mukasey's confirmation shifted away from being a virtual certainty last week when he refused to say explicitly whether waterboarding amounts to torture and is unconstitutional.
Others in the Senate won't go that far, and no one said Mukasey's confirmation was in doubt. Only one lawmaker, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has announced he will vote against Mukasey's confirmation in part over his answer on torture.
But other lawmakers, like Leahy, Durbin and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said they would vote against Mukasey if he does not equate waterboarding with torture.
Still others withheld comment. Mukasey's chief Democratic patron, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who suggested the White House consider the former federal judge for attorney general, "has concerns, but he wants to hear what Judge Mukasey says," said Brian Fallon, Schumer's spokesman.
One committee Republican, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, intends to vote for confirmation because he "was satisfied with Judge Mukasey's statements at the hearing that torture is against the law and he does not support torture," said spokeswoman Beth Pellett Levine.
On the second and final day of his confirmation hearings last week, Mukasey refused to say that waterboarding is torture, frustrating senators with no tolerance for legalistic hedging after dozens of non-answers on that and other subjects by the man Mukasey would succeed, Alberto Gonzales.
"It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else," Mukasey answered at one point.
But during terse questioning by Whitehouse, Mukasey said he did not know if waterboarding is torture because he is not familiar with how it is done.
"That's a massive hedge," Whitehouse responded incredulously. "It either is or it isn't."
"If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional," Mukasey answered.
"I'm very disappointed in that answer," Whitehouse said. "I think it is purely semantic."
Committee members of both parties quickly demanded that Mukasey answer the question, and Leahy has refused to set a date for the panel to vote on the nomination until he does.
"I believe it is necessary for you to respond in detail as to your views on the legality and propriety of water-boarding and the appropriate scope of interrogation under U.S. law and the Geneva Convention," ranking Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania wrote to Mukasey this week.
Congress has prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terror suspects, that lawmakers have said includes waterboarding. The Bush administration has refused to say whether waterboarding is among the interrogation techniques prohibited in an executive order last summer.
But it's not just Democrats whose support wobbled after the confirmation hearings last week.
Leahy said he advised White House adviser Harold Kim, who is handling the nomination, that Mukasey should answer the question plainly when he submits follow-up responses to the committee.
"I've heard from a couple of Republicans on the committee and that they're extremely troubled," Leahy told reporters Thursday after a Senate vote.
Judge Michael Mukasey's nomination for attorney general ran into trouble Thursday when two top Senate Democrats said their votes hinge on whether he will say on the record that an interrogation technique that simulates drowning is torture.
"It's fair to say my vote would depend on him answering that question," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told reporters late Thursday.
"This to me is the seminal issue," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, another member of Leahy's panel. Asked if his vote depends on whether Mukasey equates waterboarding with torture, Durbin answered: "It does."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said his support could be in doubt over the same issue.
"I think if he doesn't change his direction in that regard, he could have at least one concern and that's me," Reid told reporters.
Leahy has refused to set a date for a vote on Mukasey's nomination until he clarifies his answer to that question.
Separately, a Democrat familiar with the panel's deliberations said Mukasey may not get the 10 committee votes his nomination needs to be reported to the Senate floor with a favorable recommendation unless he says, in effect, that waterboarding is torture. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak more freely.
"As he always does, Judge Mukasey will answer all questions from the Judiciary Committee in a clear and forthright manner," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.
Mukasey's confirmation shifted away from being a virtual certainty last week when he refused to say explicitly whether waterboarding amounts to torture and is unconstitutional.
Others in the Senate won't go that far, and no one said Mukasey's confirmation was in doubt. Only one lawmaker, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has announced he will vote against Mukasey's confirmation in part over his answer on torture.
But other lawmakers, like Leahy, Durbin and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said they would vote against Mukasey if he does not equate waterboarding with torture.
Still others withheld comment. Mukasey's chief Democratic patron, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who suggested the White House consider the former federal judge for attorney general, "has concerns, but he wants to hear what Judge Mukasey says," said Brian Fallon, Schumer's spokesman.
One committee Republican, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, intends to vote for confirmation because he "was satisfied with Judge Mukasey's statements at the hearing that torture is against the law and he does not support torture," said spokeswoman Beth Pellett Levine.
On the second and final day of his confirmation hearings last week, Mukasey refused to say that waterboarding is torture, frustrating senators with no tolerance for legalistic hedging after dozens of non-answers on that and other subjects by the man Mukasey would succeed, Alberto Gonzales.
"It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else," Mukasey answered at one point.
But during terse questioning by Whitehouse, Mukasey said he did not know if waterboarding is torture because he is not familiar with how it is done.
"That's a massive hedge," Whitehouse responded incredulously. "It either is or it isn't."
"If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional," Mukasey answered.
"I'm very disappointed in that answer," Whitehouse said. "I think it is purely semantic."
Committee members of both parties quickly demanded that Mukasey answer the question, and Leahy has refused to set a date for the panel to vote on the nomination until he does.
"I believe it is necessary for you to respond in detail as to your views on the legality and propriety of water-boarding and the appropriate scope of interrogation under U.S. law and the Geneva Convention," ranking Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania wrote to Mukasey this week.
Congress has prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terror suspects, that lawmakers have said includes waterboarding. The Bush administration has refused to say whether waterboarding is among the interrogation techniques prohibited in an executive order last summer.
But it's not just Democrats whose support wobbled after the confirmation hearings last week.
Leahy said he advised White House adviser Harold Kim, who is handling the nomination, that Mukasey should answer the question plainly when he submits follow-up responses to the committee.
"I've heard from a couple of Republicans on the committee and that they're extremely troubled," Leahy told reporters Thursday after a Senate vote.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Tortured by Uncle Sam
by Philip Giraldi - Oct 23, 2007
As a CIA officer in Turkey in the 1980s, I once had the misfortune of witnessing a man being tortured by the police. In those days, Istanbul was home to a foreigners' prison, which has now been converted into a luxury hotel. In the foreigners' prison anyone who was not a Turkish citizen was automatically dumped for processing and eventual imprisonment or deportation. The processing could take months, conditions were appalling, and the prisoners were frequently beaten by guards to extort confessions or just to pass the time. I was in the prison looking for an American citizen who had reportedly been arrested in Istanbul while on a business trip. It was my job as an officer in the U.S. embassy to try to get him properly charged with a crime or released.
I was inside the prison when a man was dragged in by two policemen. He had been picked up on the streets and was believed to be a dealer in soft drugs including marijuana and hashish. As anyone who has seen the movie Midnight Express will recall, Turkey is brutally tough on drug offenders. I stood and watched, unable to intervene in any way as the beating began, something that the prison warden assured me was routine in drug cases. The man, identified by the warden as an Iranian, was chained to a wall. The chains were pulled up tight so that he could not quite touch the floor with his feet. Two guards went at the suspended man with rubber truncheons, first beating his feet and then working their way up his body, ending up by crushing his fingers and smashing one of his collar bones. The man screamed the whole time and begged for mercy, apparently agreeing in his own language to confess to whatever his tormentors wanted, but the guards took no notice. After what seemed an interminable time but was probably not more than 20 minutes, the man, who was semiconscious and sobbing uncontrollably, was doused with a bucket of water, released from his shackles, and hauled away to sign his confession. I later learned that the American citizen I had been seeking had been arrested at the airport for having in his possession counterfeit travelers' checks. He had also been beaten up by his jailers, though out of deference to his nationality he had not been subjected to the same level of abuse as the Iranian man I had seen tortured.
The Iranian prisoner was probably a genuine drug dealer, and one might argue that the torture was a useful tool that made him confess to something that he had actually done. Torture does sometimes produce a desired result, which is why it has been used extensively for thousands of years. But when beating a suspect to extract information, one cannot discriminate between truth and lies. One cannot determine whether the man was actually innocent and had only made up a plausible story to stop the pain. Many intelligence and security services around the world still use torture to obtain information and confessions. As every intelligence officer who has had access to information believed to be produced in that fashion knows, torture impels the victim of the punishment to confess to anything and everything in an attempt to make the pain stop. The information that comes from physical abuse is unreliable and frequently false.
In the latest controversy over the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" by the United States, President George W. Bush has rejected claims his administration uses torture and has defended the methods allegedly being used by the CIA. Bush was responding to the Oct. 3 New York Times report that the U.S. Justice Department secretly authorized harsh interrogation techniques for terror suspects in 2005 only months after a 2004 public statement in which the selfsame Justice Department declared that torture would not be acceptable in interrogations of terrorist suspects. On Oct. 5 Bush said, "This government does not torture people. We stick to U.S. law and our international obligations." Bush's comments are contradicted by the New York Times report, which states that the interrogation techniques approved in the 2005 Justice Department memo were some of the most brutal ever used by the CIA. They included head-slapping, exposure to freezing temperatures, and simulated drowning, which has been referred to as water-boarding. The 2005 legal opinion came shortly after Alberto Gonzales took over the Justice Department, and it was followed up by a second memo issued later that year that advised that none of the techniques employed by the CIA would breach anti-torture legislation before Congress that barred "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment of prisoners.
Bush's defense of his administration's interrogation methods included the explanation that the questioning is carried out by "highly-trained professionals." He elaborated, "When we find somebody who may have information regarding an attack on America, and you bet we're going to detain them, you bet we're going to question them. The American people expect us to find out information, this actionable intelligence, so we can help protect them. That's our job." The president added that the techniques used had been "fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress," but Democrats in both the Senate and House of Representatives denied that they had been briefed and demanded to see the two reported secret memos from 2005.
The Bush administration frequently points to the success of its employment of extreme interrogation techniques. The White House claims that it has saved lives and thwarted terrorist plots, though the assertions are never supported by any compelling evidence. Some other sources in the government suggest the opposite, that torture of terrorist suspects in U.S. custody has never produced any significant information, much less intelligence that has saved American lives.
In the one reported instance in which government sources concede that extreme interrogation tactics were used, that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it is illuminating to examine what exactly was obtained. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, commonly referred to as KSM, was arrested in 2003 in Pakistan. He was reportedly water-boarded and "broken" by his CIA interrogators. He subsequently confessed to being involved in virtually every terrorist act carried out in the past 20 years, including 9/11, the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl, and the bombing of the destroyer USS Cole. He clearly was not actually involved in many of the incidents, but he was willing to admit to anything.
The issue of torture as a reliable interrogation tool aside, torture brutalizes and degrades the individual carrying it out, the organization he or she represents, and the government that approves of the practice. Even people who support many of the excesses resulting from the so-called War on Terror frequently understand that there are lines that should not be crossed, and torture is one of them. There have been reports that the CIA has had difficulty in recruiting people willing to carry out "extreme interrogation." That attorney general-designate , who is almost certain to be confirmed by Congress, claims not to know whether water-boarding amounts to torture or not is outrageous. That the president of the United States has not been challenged by the public and press when he explains that "we do not torture" – while he refuses to make public secret memos contradicting his words – marks a sad day for those who revere our liberties. Mukasey and Bush's evasions are symptomatic of the loss of any moral compass in post-9/11 American politics.
As a CIA officer in Turkey in the 1980s, I once had the misfortune of witnessing a man being tortured by the police. In those days, Istanbul was home to a foreigners' prison, which has now been converted into a luxury hotel. In the foreigners' prison anyone who was not a Turkish citizen was automatically dumped for processing and eventual imprisonment or deportation. The processing could take months, conditions were appalling, and the prisoners were frequently beaten by guards to extort confessions or just to pass the time. I was in the prison looking for an American citizen who had reportedly been arrested in Istanbul while on a business trip. It was my job as an officer in the U.S. embassy to try to get him properly charged with a crime or released.
I was inside the prison when a man was dragged in by two policemen. He had been picked up on the streets and was believed to be a dealer in soft drugs including marijuana and hashish. As anyone who has seen the movie Midnight Express will recall, Turkey is brutally tough on drug offenders. I stood and watched, unable to intervene in any way as the beating began, something that the prison warden assured me was routine in drug cases. The man, identified by the warden as an Iranian, was chained to a wall. The chains were pulled up tight so that he could not quite touch the floor with his feet. Two guards went at the suspended man with rubber truncheons, first beating his feet and then working their way up his body, ending up by crushing his fingers and smashing one of his collar bones. The man screamed the whole time and begged for mercy, apparently agreeing in his own language to confess to whatever his tormentors wanted, but the guards took no notice. After what seemed an interminable time but was probably not more than 20 minutes, the man, who was semiconscious and sobbing uncontrollably, was doused with a bucket of water, released from his shackles, and hauled away to sign his confession. I later learned that the American citizen I had been seeking had been arrested at the airport for having in his possession counterfeit travelers' checks. He had also been beaten up by his jailers, though out of deference to his nationality he had not been subjected to the same level of abuse as the Iranian man I had seen tortured.
The Iranian prisoner was probably a genuine drug dealer, and one might argue that the torture was a useful tool that made him confess to something that he had actually done. Torture does sometimes produce a desired result, which is why it has been used extensively for thousands of years. But when beating a suspect to extract information, one cannot discriminate between truth and lies. One cannot determine whether the man was actually innocent and had only made up a plausible story to stop the pain. Many intelligence and security services around the world still use torture to obtain information and confessions. As every intelligence officer who has had access to information believed to be produced in that fashion knows, torture impels the victim of the punishment to confess to anything and everything in an attempt to make the pain stop. The information that comes from physical abuse is unreliable and frequently false.
In the latest controversy over the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" by the United States, President George W. Bush has rejected claims his administration uses torture and has defended the methods allegedly being used by the CIA. Bush was responding to the Oct. 3 New York Times report that the U.S. Justice Department secretly authorized harsh interrogation techniques for terror suspects in 2005 only months after a 2004 public statement in which the selfsame Justice Department declared that torture would not be acceptable in interrogations of terrorist suspects. On Oct. 5 Bush said, "This government does not torture people. We stick to U.S. law and our international obligations." Bush's comments are contradicted by the New York Times report, which states that the interrogation techniques approved in the 2005 Justice Department memo were some of the most brutal ever used by the CIA. They included head-slapping, exposure to freezing temperatures, and simulated drowning, which has been referred to as water-boarding. The 2005 legal opinion came shortly after Alberto Gonzales took over the Justice Department, and it was followed up by a second memo issued later that year that advised that none of the techniques employed by the CIA would breach anti-torture legislation before Congress that barred "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment of prisoners.
Bush's defense of his administration's interrogation methods included the explanation that the questioning is carried out by "highly-trained professionals." He elaborated, "When we find somebody who may have information regarding an attack on America, and you bet we're going to detain them, you bet we're going to question them. The American people expect us to find out information, this actionable intelligence, so we can help protect them. That's our job." The president added that the techniques used had been "fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress," but Democrats in both the Senate and House of Representatives denied that they had been briefed and demanded to see the two reported secret memos from 2005.
The Bush administration frequently points to the success of its employment of extreme interrogation techniques. The White House claims that it has saved lives and thwarted terrorist plots, though the assertions are never supported by any compelling evidence. Some other sources in the government suggest the opposite, that torture of terrorist suspects in U.S. custody has never produced any significant information, much less intelligence that has saved American lives.
In the one reported instance in which government sources concede that extreme interrogation tactics were used, that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it is illuminating to examine what exactly was obtained. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, commonly referred to as KSM, was arrested in 2003 in Pakistan. He was reportedly water-boarded and "broken" by his CIA interrogators. He subsequently confessed to being involved in virtually every terrorist act carried out in the past 20 years, including 9/11, the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl, and the bombing of the destroyer USS Cole. He clearly was not actually involved in many of the incidents, but he was willing to admit to anything.
The issue of torture as a reliable interrogation tool aside, torture brutalizes and degrades the individual carrying it out, the organization he or she represents, and the government that approves of the practice. Even people who support many of the excesses resulting from the so-called War on Terror frequently understand that there are lines that should not be crossed, and torture is one of them. There have been reports that the CIA has had difficulty in recruiting people willing to carry out "extreme interrogation." That attorney general-designate , who is almost certain to be confirmed by Congress, claims not to know whether water-boarding amounts to torture or not is outrageous. That the president of the United States has not been challenged by the public and press when he explains that "we do not torture" – while he refuses to make public secret memos contradicting his words – marks a sad day for those who revere our liberties. Mukasey and Bush's evasions are symptomatic of the loss of any moral compass in post-9/11 American politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
