More on Mukasey
I started responding to Sara’s link to Slate in the comments, but it was getting a bit long there, so I’m moving it to its own post (I found internet at AO).
I understand the complaints, and it would have been smart for the Democrats to secure some kind of concessions (re: waterboarding) from the WH before agreeing - as Olberman noted in his Special Comment on the issue.
Here’s the thing, though - why don’t they pass a waterboarding law? Hell, set it to expire 22 Jan, 2009 when we can expect the rule of law to return.
The problem is that Bush isn’t going to nominate Comey, Goldsmith or Levin, and has shown a consistent willingness - nay, preference - for interim and recess appointments.
My issue with this criticism is… and then what? We say no to Mukasey and who does Bush nominate in his place? Anyone? Someone worse? I just don’t see them being like, “Oh well the Dems are clearly serious about this. Let’s nominate someone who wants to nail us for all the illegal shit we’ve been doing.”
A CNN poll found that 69% of Americans think waterboarding is torture, and 58% think that the government should be banned from using it. That’s going to be pretty hard for Republicans to argue against should a bill come to the floor. Those who claim its weak of the Democrats to bail on the Mukasey equally seem to believe that they’re incapable of pushing a law through banning the practice. So, where does that leave us?
Lithwick at Slate may be right - that Schumer’s trust in Mukasey may be like that of ‘a battered wife’ - and we may all rue the day. But I think it makes much more sense for the Democrats to get serious - pass a anti-waterboarding law, make it retroactive (since it’s just enforcing the Geneva Convention) and make it clear that everyone in the Administration who was involved in this gross misappropriation of power is culpable. And make it clear to Mukasey that if he doesn’t investigate he’ll be held culpable as well.
Look, people much smarter and informed than I all seem to be lining up on the opposite side of this issue, so I’m happy to admit that you probably shouldn’t agree with a word I say (and, just for the record, you should always assume that’s the case). But doesn’t it make more sense to have strong laws so that it doesn’t matter who the AG is? So that we don’t have to play this game again should another ruthless, lawless administration take over?
That may be overly idealistic, but, damn! Public opinion isn’t going to get stronger on any issue - if the Democrats want to hold the feet of the Administration to the fire, make the stand on the issue, not on a lawyer’s calculated ambivalence.
Sphere: Related Content
November 8th, 2007 at 11:22 am
While I appreciate the idea of Congress simply passing a law that explicitly outlaws certain practices rather than grilling AG candidates (who will probably never live up to expectations), I don’t think outlawing waterboarding would be an effective tactic. I think that waterboarding gets a lot of attention because it is a physical, and therefore tangible, practice that Americans are likely to recognize as torture. It is arguably not, however, the worst of the tactics at the disposal of interrogators. The psychological techniques of sensory and sleep deprivation, environmental manipulation, stress positions, etc are as, if not more, harmful and unfortunately less tangible than waterboarding.
I think that, to truly outlaw torture and place these techniques beyond any legal maneuvering, Congress would need to pass a law stating that the only acceptable practice for interrogation are those techniques which fall under the category of ‘rapport-building.’ This would effectively outlaw waterboarding and all other tactics that are coercive and make a detainee’s (or whatever we are calling them these days–dudes who were in the wrong place at the wrong time) treatment conditional on his willingness to provide information.
Oh, and the new Army Field Manual no longer refers to ‘interrogators’ they are now (euphemistically) called ‘Human Intelligence Collectors.’ Water goes in, Intelligence flows out.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Good. Let’s do all of that.
I just think ‘the stand’ that the Dems are taking on this issue has more to do with slapping the Admin than concern about making things better. Instead of two negatives (no AG and yay more torture) - maybe this will encourage the Democrats to be more proactive about lawmaking.
But likely not. My paper on the media in 2004 reads like a demon’s manual. What we’re calling democracy these days bears little resemblance to anything like it.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:37 am
I agree with you. I would really like to live in a democracy.
Also, if you need a reader on the paper…
November 9th, 2007 at 9:22 am
i just had to say i laughed out loud at jeremy’s “water goes in, intelligence flows out”