It now seems that Michael Mukasey is likely to be confirmed by the Senate judiciary committee amid controversy stemming from his refusal to say that the interrogation technique known as "waterboarding" was torture.
I kind of understand the reason he gave for not doing so: it is not the role of Judges to define specific acts as "torture", but merely to interpret law. He did say, "if waterboarding is torture, then it is illegal". Well that seems simple enough. According to the UN Convention on Torture, waterboarding is explicitly defined as torture. The convention also said, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The US is signatory to both agreements. If that's not enough for you, THE US HAS PROSECUTED PEOPLE IN THE PAST FOR WAR CRIMES BECAUSE THEY USED THE TECHNIQUE. So it seems pretty clear, based on Agreements that have been agreed upon by the US, that waterboarding is indeed torture. Simple enough? Well nothing surprises me anymore. It is indeed troubling that Mukasy refused to even state an opinion on the matter. After the catastrophe of Alberto Gonzalez, we need someone who will take a stand; neigh, we need someone who will simply enforce existing laws. Wouldn't that be refreshing?
But what bothers me most about this whole debate is that it centers so myopically on waterboarding. Some Democratic Senators have suggested a Congressional Act that would specifically ban waterboarding. Okay, but why stop there? I'm sure US agents are creative enough to devise ways to torture people without using that one technique, right? Personally, I'd much rather be waterboarded than to be stuck in a suitcase for days, or locked in solitary confinement for months on end while being randomly subjected to extremes of heat and cold. If we are serious about enforcing human rights standards, why focus on this one technique? True, laws haven't historically seemed to be very effective, but maybe a Congressional Act would do something. This is starting to look troublingly like grandstanding by certain Democrats.
Uhm, if you feel like banging your head against a wall, here ya go.
2 comments:
didja hear Romney the other night in the debate when asked about waterboarding? made Mukasey sound downright forthright. McCain put him in his place - made him sound like a fool. Have you noticed that this race is shaping up to be a bunch of Republican candidates that Republicans don't like and a bunch of Democrat candidates that Democrats can't decide between, becasue they're all pretty good. That's sounding good for the Dems. Now I just wish they'd quit shitting on each other. Wouldn't it be nice if they had gotten together in the beginning and said, "okay boys and girls, the important thing is for one of us to win the white house, so let's just be nice and see how it comes out." I'm trusting hillary less and less.
"...shaping up to be a bunch of Republican candidates that Republicans don't like and a bunch of Democrat candidates that Democrats can't decide between, becasue they're all pretty good."
I was listening to an interview with somone from the Des Moines register yesterday about their presidential endorsements (clinton/ mccain) and that's basically what she said, i.e. they didn't like any of the republicans very much, but they liked all the democratsl, so both decisions were difficult. And yeah, why, with all those great choices on the democratic side, did they arrive at Hillary? How about someone with less baggage?
Post a Comment