Comments (45)

brian wrote on January 30, 2008 12:24 PM:

Whatever the government has its agents do overseas will eventually find its way back home.

Torture, now practiced outside the USA, will become accepted here in the USA.

Mercenaries used to control civilians, as Blackwater is used in Iraq, will be used against US citizens at home.

They get around the law by paying corporations to break it, then indemnifying the corporations.

Beware, beware ... very llittle time is left to save the republic.

Despotism is near - perhaps it's already here.

moondancer wrote on January 30, 2008 12:27 PM:

The only difference between Mukasey and fredo is fredo was a house pet for the chimp, Mukasey has backyard access.

Orrin Hatch is diligent in his assholeness.

JA wrote on January 30, 2008 12:32 PM:

"Despotism is near - perhaps it's already here."

Oh yeah, it's here already. The gov't is just doing the kubuki theater for now until they can get all the thugs in place.

jolly ranchero wrote on January 30, 2008 12:32 PM:

I'da piled on. I'da followed up with, "so, by your logic, drilling into one's knee, stretching someone on a rack, and putting someone's head in a vice are all acceptable if it MAY save a life?

Isn't that the extension of his logic? ANything goes if it keeps a Saudi double-agent in the field?

josh-quasimoto wrote on January 30, 2008 12:40 PM:

I would guess that integrity means very little to these fellows who dabble in argumentative discourse. It only matters how legal wording fits next to the prior legal precedents set. The system or legal language can always bee gamed if their are truly no sides but merely discourse and psotions which lead to end result.
I just find it amazing that Bush and Co. were supposed to be bring integrity back to the office and the government. Ha Ha, but really when was it that we left the position of doing what is right not because it was the easy choice or the convenient choice but because it was the right choice. Why are we so afraid of telling the people that their positions are not the ones that supported this countries founding? When are we going to tell them that they are wrong and their policies do not have the best interest of the american peope at heart but merely the income of the American people at heart?

moondancer wrote on January 30, 2008 12:50 PM:

It's clear that bushco vetting of Mukasey was that he could not "go there" on anything that would bring liability to the door of the White House. So he is not going to bend on any of this. Remember the new rule of governing is allegiance to:
1 bush
2 ideology
3 omerta
4 country

Michael Scott wrote on January 30, 2008 1:09 PM:

There's your modern, post-9-11 GOP, folks: They were against "moral relativism" before they were for it.

I guess if they whip up enough of a "fear frenzy," we can look forward to drawing-and-quartering, boiling in oil, public beheadings, etc. Backsliding To The Medieval.

hoppy wrote on January 30, 2008 1:09 PM:

The Geneva Conventions are part of US law, since all treaties become laws once the President and the Senate approve them. This revelation by Mukasy make him a criminal, makes Bush a criminal, makes the whole US government war criminals by international law.

I'm sure we will see impeachment proceedings against the whole lot begin immediately. (Try to say that without losing your dinner.)

josh-quasimoto wrote on January 30, 2008 1:13 PM:

IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH those sons of Beach!

osage wrote on January 30, 2008 1:15 PM:

Remember, this is the same administration that doesn't believe in global warming, Darwinism and the individual right of free choice to ALL Americans, but only to those who share the same moral and religious opinions of George W. Bush. So now we know that this sick fuck believes that torture isn't illegal so long as the person being tortured provided accurate information that was really helpful in preventing people from being killed. My question is, at what point before you decide to torture someone do you know that he'll provide you with the information that legally justifies his being tortured? Does that happen before he's tortured or after he's tortured? Is torture illegal if it's subsequently discovered that the person being tortured didn't know anything of value or didn't tell you the truth? Or is it only legal if its subsequently discovered that what he told you was accurate and or helpful? It seems to me you have to choose to torture someone before you can actually learn if that person will provide information of value that legally justifies his being tortured. What if the person you tortured doesn't know anything or doesn't provide any information of value? Was torturing him legal or illegal?

Tom L wrote on January 30, 2008 1:20 PM:

The other side to follow up on besides "the ends justify the means" is: at what time do we learn the value of the information retrieved through these methods? I've always found the '24' analogy phony because it puts Machiavellianism in a context where 1) the value and 2) the immediacy of the information are indisputable.

But, when has this ever occurred?

Without considering the length of time it takes to ensure that the information is worth the torture, we could be left with situations where some bonafide terrorist operative (whom we'd all want imprisoned), who has knowledge of some plot or attack planned 3 years in the future, is tortured -- legitimately, by Mukasey's standard -- because the knowledge "leads to the breakup of a terrorist plot." However, the length of time between arresting the suspect and the unfolding of the "plot" begs the question: when torturing did we need the information NOW, and could we not have gotten the information in other ways (let alone whether other sources of information could have also led to the breakup of the plot). Even for the sake of argument (against all indications otherwise), if torture were allowable because it rendered immediately actionable information, how could anyone claim that this information couldn't be obtained elsewhere, using other methods?

As I see it, we could have been -- and in light of Negroponte's recent comments almost certainly were -- torturing people in 2001-2002; and in 2008 the DoJ finds it justifiable because the information retrieved then has become "useful" now. Mukasey would probably even argue that even if we did waterboard, then because the information has become useful, waterboarding isn't torture. See? Timing is everything.

An ethos of torture emerges only under the assumption that the information is valuable because we must act now. This sort of explains the administration's rhetoric of terror because paranoia is effective only if we believe they're going to get us, like, a couple of hours from now.

Egypt Steve wrote on January 30, 2008 1:23 PM:

I'm tired of Biden and all of these other gutless wonders who pontificate about torture but *DO NOTHING.* If waterboarding is illegal torture, then everyone involved in it, from the CIA case officer who did it, to John Yoo and the other lawyers who provided legal cover for it, to George Bush who approved and ordered it, are ipso facto *WAR CRIMINALS.* What more does it take to move Biden to impeach? What more does it take to call for indictment or extradition to the Hague? Do they believe what they're saying or not?

Stultis wrote on January 30, 2008 1:23 PM:

>>>"so, by your logic, drilling into one's knee, stretching someone on a rack, and putting someone's head in a vice are all acceptable if it MAY save a life?<<<

But then by your logic, jolly ranchero, filling someone's nasal passages with water for thirty seconds is just the same as running a power drill through their flesh, bone and muscle.

Call water boarding "torture," as it's been carried out by a thoroughly professional interrogration program for only the highest level detainees, and you've dumbed down the meaning of the term. A momentary panic and a few coughes are indistinguishable from rending, tearing or burning flesh.

Tom L wrote on January 30, 2008 1:24 PM:

And to follow up...

Durbin just got Mukasey to acknowledge that we don't have a "concrete" example to test his relativist perspective on waterboarding. He's right: we need a test case. But do you think he's ever going to give the Senate one, or acknowledge that they even exist?

We need documentation. Too bad the DoJ is looking into it....

Julene wrote on January 30, 2008 1:35 PM:

I just read that very same parsing in the "Philosophy of Lost". His argument is actually about whether it is ethical, he's saying nothing about legality.

GordonsGirl wrote on January 30, 2008 1:38 PM:

If Obama's the nominee, PLEASE may Biden be his VP!!! One of the ballsiest members of Congress with a moral code to match...

parrot wrote on January 30, 2008 1:44 PM:

Um...impeachment anyone? Anyone? Seriously, this clip is a precursor to war crimes trials. These guys threw out our Constitution so they could torture people they didn't like. They've dismissed the law as some sort of hinderance to their meanness. They have unleashed horrors upon our society. They are thugs. And they have powerful people protecting them. So...when is the Congress going to step up and actually rein in the baseness, the ugliness of the U.S. Constitution, our flag, smeared in the blood of anyone who stands in the way of their so-called righteousness? There is no impeachments...probably because the Congress went a long and are still going along with the crimes these animals have committed.

Cato wrote on January 30, 2008 1:45 PM:

Strongly encourage reading of a letter, sent in January 2006, from Senator Feinstein to then-Attorney General Gonzalez, which seeks answers to a set of questions, many of which turn on the question of whether the President's authorities trump all other authorities. http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-nsaquestions.htm This letter (and the lack of real answers) is a valuable framework for understanding what is at stake. A bit of a slog (written by lawyers probably), but worth it.

KarlinIowa wrote on January 30, 2008 2:00 PM:

Remember, impeachment proceedings have to be brought in the House. Speaker Polosi chose to take impeachment off the table in order to have a chance to move legislation and on the calculation that the new Democratic-led Congress would have the opportunity to open investigations and hold oversight hearings that Bush era Republican-led Congresses would not do. The results have been decidedly mixed, but on balance probably better than pulling down the temple.

Impeachment hearings require specific charges. Some of the Congressional hearings seem productive of documenting high crimes and misdemeanors in spite of the impressive stone wall the White House has erected. However, if Congress won't/can't act on Contempt of Congress charges, the stone wall protecting the Big Lies will probably hold - for awhile.

There's not enough power currently, and not enough time to bring these fascists to account before they're out of office. But after the elections a time could come for a Truth and Reconciliation action brought by a new administration working in coordination with Congress. If we elect the candidate who has built his campaign around increasing openness and transparency in government and restoring the Constitution, we might have a chance to get to such a moment. I don't think we would have the opportunity with the more status quo Democrat or with either of the remaining Republican candidates.

TheraP wrote on January 30, 2008 2:25 PM:

Balancing Act:

a. so if the story is important enough so you need to use torture to "get your story," then that must ok torture.

b. or if the person needs a "lesson," then that must ok torture.

c. or maybe if you're training torturers, then that might ok torture too.

heck of a job!!! torturer!!!

Roberta wrote on January 30, 2008 2:26 PM:

How about getting Malcolm Nance back into the hearing to do a demonstration of waterboarding for Mukasey and the Republicans. They can ask for a volunteer from the committee. Or from Mukasey's staff or legal team.

Maybe that would settle the question for all time.

BBpd wrote on January 30, 2008 2:34 PM:

"I mean the heinousness of doing it, the cruelty of doing it, balanced against the value.... balanced against the information you might get." Information "that couldn't be used to save lives," he explained, would be of less value.

Umm. Correct me here, but you don't know what info you're going to get until after you've extracted it, so how can this be a consideration in whether or not to torture?

More and more, I see a generational problem here. I think that older folks who are currently in the ruling generation, can't rise to the challenge presented by terrorism, and they come up with stuff like torture. They just don't have the imagination.

Maybe electing the 94-year-old John McCain would help.

Bill Peterson wrote on January 30, 2008 2:40 PM:

I bugged my Senator, Cornyn, on waterboarding, but like a coward, he refused to answer it. Now the AG is straight from the NAZI camp: it is ok to do whatever we want as long as we feel it is worth it. We can do medical experiments on retarded people, as long as some we deem it worth it. We can torture anyone we want, as long as we deem it worth it. There is no actual line that we won't cross.

The Nuremburg trials said that invading a country was the ultimate crime: we did it anyway.

BP

gtash wrote on January 30, 2008 2:40 PM:

I am still shocked that Edwards withdrew, but damn--this Mukasey is worse than anybody suspected. 'Shock' doesn't come close to describing this.

WIll the Democrats in office now and who allegedly run Congress FINALLY get a clue and put these bastards down.

EH wrote on January 30, 2008 2:45 PM:

He's saying the ends *should* justify the means, but if they don't...then what?

donviti wrote on January 30, 2008 2:50 PM:

as a delaware resident, shocking Joe's conscience is almost as hard as trying not to stare at his awful hair

We, the People wrote on January 30, 2008 2:51 PM:

Stultis: -
The "thoroughly professional interrogration program" you talk about just makes sure the victim is taken consciously to the very edge of death... and, very importantly, leaves no physical evidence. They don't do that for humane reasons but to keep themselves from consequences. And they keep doing it after "30 seconds and a few coughs" until the victim will say anything to stop it from happening again. Drill, vice, fingernails could be defended just as you do for that euphemism "waterboarding". You dumb things down.

fou wrote on January 30, 2008 3:05 PM:

I wonder how Charles Schumer feels now.

phil james wrote on January 30, 2008 3:08 PM:

This logic needs to be taken at least one step further. Seems to me it is logical to assume that Islamofascists are right now plotting various forms of savagery on the American public, if only within the limited purview of their own individual thoughts and desires. Therefore, if we simply arrest anyone and everyone associated with any Islamist group anywhere in the world, a fair case can be made that a large number of these individuals have had such impure thoughts and likely even discussed them among themselves and with their leaders. If we torture this admittedly potentially large group of individuals NOW while we have a chance, we can nip this whole terrorist thing in the bud. They won't have to admit to the specifics of any plot against us because they simply won't have had the time to put one together let alone start to implement it. The torture then becomes preemptive. It fights their angry thoughts now before they become plots later. And we won't need any specific proof that any particular plot was foiled as a result of the torture because all we'll need to show is a downturn in the total number of plots. We can do that quite easily simply by defining the terms of the count.

Darwin wrote on January 30, 2008 3:21 PM:

"On the evening of July 19, 1969, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts drove his Oldsmobile off a wooden bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, drowning his passenger, a young campaign worker named Mary Jo Kopechne. The senator left the scene of the accident, did not report it to the police for many hours, and according to some accounts considered concocting an alibi for himself in the interim."

Where was the outrage when Ted Kennedy waterboarded this young woman? She was a threat to no one, except Ted Kennedy.

Jim Appleton wrote on January 30, 2008 3:28 PM:

I heard a similar "ends justify means" argument from a staffer, Grant, at Senator Gordon Smith's DC office yesterday, 1/29, with respect to telecom immunity.

Sen. Smith's aide told me the Senator thinks retroactive immunity is essential because it prevents unduly burdensome and "expensive" civil suits, without affecting potential criminal cases. Never mind the accuracy of the civil/criminal shell game, I asked if it would matter whether or not a civil statute had been violated. Grant told me Senator Smith thinks an Executive directive is good enough to shield the teleco's. Incredulous, I wondered aloud which part of the Constitution says this. Is that Article Two? No, Grant said. It's just the right thing to do. As a matter of law? No. At least not yet.

I asked Grant to convey to Senator Smith that I'm troubled by that assessment.

TheraP wrote on January 30, 2008 3:29 PM:

phil, you've got it backwards. Story first. Torture second. Torture till you get your story! And that proves it, see?

TheraP wrote on January 30, 2008 3:30 PM:

Circular logic rules!!!

aqualung wrote on January 30, 2008 3:34 PM:

Darwin,

You are confused. Where in this post is Ted Kennedy ever mentioned? What does Ted Kennedy have to do with waterboarding, torture or Mukasey?

Why do Right-Wingers always bring up nonsense?

Bringing up Mary Jo Kopechne makes a s much sense here as mentioning Laura Bush killing her boyfriend with her car.

jk wrote on January 30, 2008 3:36 PM:

-- snip --

MUKASEY: "I meant the heinousness of doing it, the cruelty of doing it, balanced against the value."

BIDEN: "Balanced against what value?"

MUKASEY: "The value of what information you might get."

-- snip --

The key word here, of course, is "might". As phil james stated above, any individual "might" have information. The decision of whether the information (or, more accurately, the potential for information) is valuable enough to warrant torture is up to... who, exactly?

Although perfumed and trimmed with lace, this testimony is both clear in its support of torture and terrifying in its vagueness.

paul wrote on January 30, 2008 3:39 PM:

OK, Mukasey needs to go to the Hague. The whole point of "shocks the conscience", even in the context of an imminent threat, is that there are some things civilized people don't do. Beating the daylights out of someone does not become any less shocking if some good thing comes out of it. Otherwise you're at "necessity, the tyrant's plea."

What's even more troubling about this is that Mukasey is not stupid. He knows where this line of argument leads, and he could have dance around the question if he'd wanted to.

jw wrote on January 30, 2008 4:00 PM:

So, let me get this straight, we went through all those months of hearings, FINALLY got rid of Gonzales, only to install this scumbag? What is the MATTER with these people?

Also what is with this ageist slug a few paragraphs up? Is that considered acceptable behavior these days?

mencken wrote on January 30, 2008 4:13 PM:

right. under mukasey's definition either waterboarding isn't torture, or more likely, sometimes torture is justified. that's the inevitable end pt for cost/benefit analysis: sometimes it's ok. no matter what "it" is.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that gambling's occuring on these premises.

Darwin wrote on January 30, 2008 5:52 PM:

Aqualung,

You jump to a lot of conclusions when you throw the term Right-Winger around so loosely.

Did you ever consider that some people might be sick and tired of the double standards that some of the radicals want to impose on this country.

Where was the outrage when Janet Reno incinerated 70 + people in Waco or wiped out the family of Randy Weaver in Idaho?

Are terrorists lives more important to radicals than are American citizen's lives? How about spreading your outrage to include all humans instead of just engaging in cheap political theater?

Aaaargh wrote on January 30, 2008 6:05 PM:

The nuts in Waco and Randy Weaver WERE terrorists. Just because they were Christofascists too doesn't mean that they weren't terrorists.

SMP wrote on January 30, 2008 6:21 PM:

My problem with the hypotheticals--torture is okay if it will save lives--is that it presupposes the answer.

The Jack Bauer premise.

IF torturing someone enables you locate a nuclear device and save hundreds of thousands of lives, then the answer is a no-brainer. Sure, torture away.

But the problem is you never know if the person actually has that information...will tell the truth ...there is such a device to begin with. And on and on. It's all unknown. So that's what you're trying to find out.

And torture is a very bad way to do it.

right wing blowhard wrote on January 30, 2008 10:14 PM:

Right wing nuts try to sound unbiased when they bring up hoary old Chappaquiddick ... do they think no one can tell what their views are ?

Here's a clue : everything you say and the way you say it, the words and the shibboleths you use, the issues and persons you obsess about, give you away.

Right wing nuts have NOTHING original to offer - they echo exactly what they hear on the right wing radio and TV shows.

They parrot their masters. I mean, Janet Reno : who gives a damn about her now ?

Come on, parrots. Grow a brain.

Becca Morn wrote on January 31, 2008 12:37 AM:

And there it is, that word 'cost' -- when the Bush Administration has done everything in its power to ensure that there never is any cost or consequences to them.

This is what happens when the President and those under him are not held accountable for their actions, for their orders: They begin abusing their power to the absolute maximum. And then go even further by hiding even worse stuff under the secretive cloak of 'sensitive national security'.

When there is no actual 'cost', there is no limit to the heinous, monstrous things these men will order done.

Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 1:15 AM:

Whether water boarding is or isn't torture is a meaningless debate: Geneva bars all _abuse_. Geneva, as the Supreme Law and treaty obligation through the oath, is enforceable. It is meaningless to talk about "holes" in the US Statute. Geneva has no holes.

Arguably, the AG's "confusion" isn't real, but a sign he has an impermissible mental reservation. Let's get Geneva enforced. Nuremberg clearly established at the Justice Trial that refusing to enforce Geneva is a war crime. There are at least three options to lawfully go after the AG in re alleged war crimes: Nuremberg is precedent for enforcing Geneva against [1] civilians, [2] attorneys, and [3] judges.

Meah Bottoms wrote on January 31, 2008 2:20 AM:

Why is this guy ruining his own reputation? To save Bush from criminal charges? What? There is less than a year left. Unless of course he is hoping he will be there for more than a year. OK. I won't say it. I thought that waterboarding was outlawed after WW11 when the Japanese used it on our soldiers.

If you use waterboarding on those who you think will give us crucial information, our kids will likely have the same treatment if captured. Ever notice how that is not much of a consideration at all? Are our soldiers ever considered in anything by this administration?

Did anyone hear Olbermann say that he found out Mukasey has a picture of George Orwell on the wall in his new office?

Creepy!!