Comments (24)

biff diggerence wrote on October 17, 2007 11:26 AM:

What was the mantra of the Starboard Lunatic Fringe some months back ?

"Dick Durbin is insane" for drawing any Nazi parallels with respect to Abu Graib?

MikeF wrote on October 17, 2007 11:27 AM:

Once again, someone is saying the right things to get approved. No hard questions from the Democrats. I am so disappointed in Leahy.....

Jim M wrote on October 17, 2007 11:38 AM:

Mike, hard questions or not, just his validation of the seriousness of the torture issue is enough for me. Look for the wingers to begin disqualifying him soon--which will be our proof that he's publicly hurt the case for the imperial presidency.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 17, 2007 11:39 AM:

Mukasey is an old-style Fascist Plutocrat . . . uh . . . sorry . . . Republican and is saying acceptable things BUT can me believe him?

linda wrote on October 17, 2007 11:41 AM:

'to ensure their soundness'

screw that. i want the sadists and scumbags who developed these policies held accountable. what is mukasey going to do about them.

Mr Blifil wrote on October 17, 2007 11:47 AM:

Hoy dey! I wonder what his boss will say.

In the meantime here are the lyrics to "Armagh" written by the Au Pairs in 1981:

We don't torture, we're a civilized nation
We're avoiding any confontation
We don't torture, we don't torture
American hostages
in Iran
Heard daily on the news
forget about Vietnam
You can ignore the 32
There are 32 women in Armagh jail
political prisoners here at home
the British state's got nothing to lose
It's a subject better left alone -
We don't torture
we're a civilized nation
We're avoiding
any confontation
We don't torture
Alleged crimes withheld information
She gets no sanitation
dries her shit on her cell wall
feeling cold and sick
She gets a couple of valium
Now she's relaxed for the next interrogation
naked spreadeagled on her back
it's a better position for internal examination
it's a better position for giving information
An armed guard squad she gets a beating
bleeding and wounded she's stopped eating
has a baby gets nothing for pain
they came and took her baby away

Somewhat prescient, no?

linda wrote on October 17, 2007 11:51 AM:

nearly verbatim exchange from monkeyboy's presser:

reporter: what's your definition of torture

tortureboy: that's defined in u.s. law -- and, we don't torture. (reporter attempted to follow up, monkeyboy cut him off with) ... whatever the law says.

luke wrote on October 17, 2007 11:52 AM:

Bush says with authority, "The US does not torture." And we clearly torture. Unless I know the definiition of torture, the assurance that we do not torture means absolutely nothing.

JimBob wrote on October 17, 2007 11:54 AM:

I believe him. Is it because I'm desperate to believe our next AG won't be a lying, corrupt snake? Probably. But still, he sounds good and his history as far as I've been exposed to it, seems consistent with this rigidity re the law.

jeffgee wrote on October 17, 2007 11:58 AM:

"I have the buyer's remorse."
GW Bush

* wrote on October 17, 2007 12:01 PM:

He's very careful to disavow torture -- one of the first things he says is "we don't torture." He goes on to say that the Bybee memo was unnecessary, it's reasoning was defective. Leahy has him clarify that he repudiates the memo, he says he is not aware of any "commander-in-chief" override. I'm impressed that Mukasey went as far as he did, but he still seems to leave enough wiggle room to simply define what we do, or "harsh interrogation," as not-torture.

ET wrote on October 17, 2007 12:01 PM:

I want to believe him. I hate that the presidency of George Bush has pushed me into doubting what people say.

He has said more directly that many others his view on torture and the rule of law for lack of better phrasing. I hate that the presidency of George Bush has pushed me into doubting what people say.

He doesn't seem, based on his resume, to be as much of a tool/hack as Fredo. I hate that the presidency of George Bush has pushed me into doubting what people say.

And I will just add in case you didn't get it, that I hate that the presidency of George Bush has pushed me into doubting what people say.

r€nato wrote on October 17, 2007 12:12 PM:

so if US-sanctioned torture was comparable to the Holocaust, that would make Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld war criminals.

Let the war crimes trials begin!

Dennis wrote on October 17, 2007 12:14 PM:

In regard to Linda's question @11:41, nothing is going to happen to the scum bags. Unfortunately, they are the ones who understand how the country is put together and how it runs.

I say this from reading about post WWII; it was necessary for the allies to find those who had run Germany during the war and to put them to work in order to put Germany back together again.

It's not that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and many others aren't war criminals, they are. But nothing is going to happen to them - not by U.S. laws, anyway.

And both political partys are a part of that - equally.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Joshua wrote on October 17, 2007 12:30 PM:

I am skeptical as hell but since when have we gotten such clear answers from any Bush nominee? This is refreshing and welcome, though all independent thought seems to get swallowed up by the Cheney Black Hole. So yea, I still think he would end up doing the WH's bidding, though perhaps not to the degree of Gonzalez (which may be impossible to top).

Like someone said upthread, though, I wouldn't be surprised if the RWNM starts to kick in with the goal of pulling a Miers on him.

paul wrote on October 17, 2007 12:31 PM:

Breaking news: white house withdraws nomination....

On the one hand, Mukasey seems to be saying all the right things, but on the other, Spakovsky swears up and down that he had no intention of impairing minority voting rights.

anon wrote on October 17, 2007 12:38 PM:

So, he's going to put his boss (and his boss's boss) in jail? It seems unlikely that they would have nominated Mukasey to put themselves in jail.

Tom wrote on October 17, 2007 12:40 PM:

We should be skeptical. I'll wait to see him put words to action. I don't care the size of Leahy's smile or the extent of his visible satisfaction because it's not as though Leahy et al will actually do anything were Mukasey to prove untrue to his word.

Michael wrote on October 17, 2007 12:55 PM:

You know, these bastards say anything to get confirmed and then they do a 180. Glaring examples are the nazis roberta and scalito. I think these two should be brought up on charges of contempt of congress. They blatantly lied in their confirmation hearings. Maybe if these to bastards are sitting in the brig, nominees will stop lying in their confirmation hearings. Let's lead by example.

lambert strether wrote on October 17, 2007 1:04 PM:

It's important to get all this on the record.

But that's all that's going on, and whether anybody will be held accountable when what Mukasey put on the record turns out not to be true is quite another matter.

To put this another way, we're dealing with a criminal regime. Any one of us could make the case for prosecuting any number of Bush officials for simple lawbreaking (leaving aside impeachment). We could start with the subpoenas that haven't been honored.

I'll believe Mukasey is for real when I see the blood trail. And not prosecuing a few "bad apples," either.

Now, to be fair, it's good to have somebody who isn't actually a sociopath as the AG, no question. But to have a deeply reactionary ideologue as AG, who will help consolidate Bush's seizure of power as unitary executive, is not a significant advance, and may in fact be worse for us.

Has anyone questioned Mukasey on the unitary executive, a.k.a. The Theory Of We Get To Do Whatever The Fuck We Want?

TEL wrote on October 17, 2007 2:07 PM:

One thing to remember is that Mukasey only has the job for the next 15 months. He has nothing to gain by towing the Bush administration line, and he has a lot to lose. While I don't expect any earth-shattering decisions (like enforcing subpoenas on the Executive branch), I do think he'll do some housecleaning. The problem isn't just that there are partisan hacks in career positions, it's that there are incompetent partisan hacks in these positions (though I suppose you could make the arguement that partisan hack=incompetence!).

Captain Nemo wrote on October 17, 2007 3:14 PM:

What Leahy should have asked Mukasey is whether those secret memoranda would be shared with the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I for one have no trust in the Administration, Mukasey, or the Congress, to tell the American people the truth about what the Government has done in their name.

Sailmaker wrote on October 17, 2007 4:22 PM:

Somebody ought to ask him what his definition of torture is, (does he hold to Geneva Conventions or the USMilitary) and whether or not the President can declare a technique that used to be defined as torture to only be 'harsh interrogation' (like waterboarding)?

He also ought to be asked if he sees anywhere in the DoJ a restraint of executive authority, i.e. if the executive branch refuses to comply with a subpoena, is Congress with the inherent contempt function the only enforcer of laws, where the executive branch is concerned?

asdf wrote on October 17, 2007 6:02 PM:

LONG:Tortured logic and the space between the army field manual and Nazi deathcamps

Spencer Ackerman:
> he compared U.S. torture to the Holocaust.

1. No he didn't.

> Most significantly, Mukasey said that he is unaware of any inherent commander-in-chief authority to override legal restrictions on torture

2. No he didn't.

2. He answered he wasn't aware of “a commander in chief override that would allow the immunization of acts of torture that violate the law” But why would you need (bybee style) immunity to do things that are legal... or more accurately “legal” as of the recently leaked memo? In this clip he was not asked what he means when he says the sloppy bybee argument where “not necessary” in the context of things “beyond the army field manual”.

1. He compared torture in general to the holocaust. But, like he then said, the US doesn't "torture", so perhaps logically what the US does isn't like the holocaust.

DOJ has for a long time called torture “Abhorrent”. IIRC Rice used something like "antithetical to the American way" years ago. His comparison may really be intended to work in reverse. He may be saying: it isn't like the US is running concentration camps. Its not like the US, in his words, "duplicated" that "barbarism". He may be making the comparison to emphasize there are differences rather than similarities. He may in fact, though he doesn't say this, be using the setup of the argument that: What the US is doing is better than what the nazi`s did SO IT IS OKAY! Or maybe its the setup to the argument: Americans are not “barbaric” like nazi`s... so why spend to much time on laws governing Americans? Americans don't need laws because the are better people than Germans. (Stanford experiment?)

Clearly I am parsing, but if you look at the history of DOJ statements on this topic you will agree that interpreting these statements as loosely at Spencer Ackerman just did might mean you miss important stuff. And a DOJ guy saying “torture is bad” doesn't mean anything without an explicit definition of torture.

lets look at the history of the things the US didn't do:
* First interrogation techniques where "enhanced" and kept secret. It turned out that if it didn't create pain equal to organ failure or death then it wasn't torture.
* Then a new memo appeared on the DOJ website(1). “Torture is abhorrent” it said and went on and on like that.
(there was a small footnote: “While we have identified various disagreements with the August 2002 Memorandum, we have reviewed this Office's prior opinions addressing issues involving treatment of detainees and do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum.”. So: Torture bad bad bad (but ByBee still good.)
* Then the US didn't torture... as a policy.
(not mentioned: there may be exceptions to this policy)
* Then Bush signed the detainee treatment act
(Small detail, he also signed a signing statement that said quote: “Hi, bush here, I just signed this congressional thing on prisoners that torture is illegal and all, but technically I am the one who decides these things not congress”)
* and now the US doesn't "torture"...
(hardly mentioned is the the bit where they say: admittedly there was a little trouble figuring what exactly constitutes torture because cruel or unusual treatment is really vague (wtf?) so the they made a list of things that are not cruel or degrading like slapping... oh, and waterboarding.)

You can see the frontline Cheney documentary which was advertised on this blog here(2) along with all the memo's and a lot more.

An interesting side note to this last argument:
If something is legal because it isn't torture, then a US cop can do it to you and me. It becomes just like ordinary questioning, because by definition it would be ordinary questioning! Basically, its normal and relatively kind instead of cruel and unusual. Laws can have exceptions for wartimes, battlefields, Afghans, Pakistanis Yemenis and Saudis... but definitions can not. That what isn't torture you can do to anyone regardless of why he or she is picked up, what the suspicions are, what the evidence is.... regardless of ethnicity, sex... and age.

In general I bet that although noone argues this, but a lot of people subconsciously assume that this debate isn't about white people, or Americans. With wartime powers and exceptions to the law the torturers can be essentially that racist. And I would love for people to be on the record arguing for this. But when you start messing with the definition of torture without saying so then white, Christian girls are not safe anymore. I would expect white Christian girls to be just as likely to know near which abortion clinic the bomb is as young European guys with suicide bombs are likely to know on which train their co conspirators are. But I doubt many Americans have thought about it that way.

But its even worse. If that what isn't torture is legal, then what is the legal difference between kidnapping someone and kidnapping and then “not torturing” the victim?

So anyone making this argument about things like waterboarding deserves either a kick in the shins... or to watch family members undergo the proposed treatment. The white house often says things about non-torture being used only against the worst of the worst, but the lawyers never make this argument because the law is mostly blind, and the dictionary is really really blind.

And yes I know congress recently redefined “electronic surveillance” to exclude things that are both “electronic” and “surveillance”... excluding electronic surveillance that includes ill defined foreigners. But here it is only the legal definition that has changed by congress and people noticed. With torture its the actual definition people use when they talk that has changed by the executive. And there is a strong discipline with everyone from Hayden down (see his CFR talk) everyone from Rice down and whoever is in charge of DOJ using the new definition. Just listen for them saying “thing beyond the army field manual” when previously they would have said torture.

----
Anyway, what did I hear Mukasey say:
He didn't say he disagreed with the treatment of detainees. he said he disagreed with
A. the Bybee basis for this treatment (there is, like he said, a replacement memo) and
B. the idea that the president can give someone immunity from prosecution.
I know, B. sounds like constitutional law 101, but the authors of a in his words “defective” (not wrong, something defective can be fixed to do the same thing again!) memo must have forgotten that bit.

He didn't just call the idea of immunity wrong and "defective analysis". He also called it "unnecessary". Of course immunity should be unnecessary because no one does anything illegal like say torture. But what if immunity is unnecessary because no one does anything illegal, like say nazi style torture.... just the "legal" non-torture stuff they “forgot” in the army field manual like waterboarding.

Of the bybee memo he explained its worse than a sin, its a mistake. But he was talking about a specific legal argument, rather than torture in general.

Of the Bybee memo he said “[the ByBee memo] was withdrawn in favor of A later memo* that *narrowed* substantially the basis for authorizing measures beyond perhaps different from those that may be contained in the army field manual” Of cause there is a difference between a narrowed down basis and no basis. I would say there is no legal basis for torture or, thank to McCain, anything beyond the field manual. But does Mukasey agree?

And is this later memo the one with the “Torture is abhorrent, oh by the way bybee was right” footnote? If so how does it narrow anything? It can be the last memo because he didn't see that one.

But the whole debate isn`t about interrogators doing nazi like thin that they need immunity for, its about them doing things they do not need immunity for, because they are legal, because they are not torture, except they are. The question simply should be: “is waterboarding legal” anything else just gets the same old deceptive legalistic talking points.

The bottom line is that people ended up naked and tied to the ground of afghan cell after having died from hypothermia. Others have died from beatings and where kept bags filled with ice cubes to hide the bruising. I also recall US testimony or rape in Abu graib and people sufocating after being beating while stuck in a sleeping bag. Innocent people having been caught up in this.

Side note lets compare with the nazis even more:
Hugo Boss designed and made those famous black gestapo uniforms... I wonder who makes those special all black non-tearing uniforms the male and especially female interrogators wear at the CIA black sites. I bet there are more similarities.

1)http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm
2)http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/etc/links.html

No torture amnesty
No telco amnesty
I guess I am saying impeach Cheney first?

Anyway, torture is depressing, let think about some fun muck:
Wasn`t the rest of phase II of the WMD hyping investigation supposed to be released at some point? If I were a republican I would have made sure this also looked at the things congressional democrats said, so I could see why even post 06 it isn`t released yet. Is there a FOIA angle here?