Torture and a Future Attorney General Clueless on Waterboarding?

Brigitte L. Nacos
After enjoying a love fest during the first day of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judicial Committee, Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey was a changed man the second day, when he responded quite differently to the same or similar questions. While denying that he had been coached after his first appearance, he was suddenly far more in tune with the White House and his predecessor Alberto Gonzales in speaking out in favor of inherent presidential powers and claiming to be clueless about one of the most horrible torture techniques, water boarding. Even after Senator Whitehouse explained water boarding in some detail, Mukasey continued to claim ignorance in order not to categorize water boarding as torture and thus declare it illegal.
Since the news media reported repeatedly on the torture of captured terrorists and alleged terrorists on the heels of the Abu Ghraib revelations, most informed Americans have an idea about torture methods. The following is an excerpt from an ABC News report on water boarding along with other torturous treatments of detainees:

Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.  "The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

Democrats should cooperate with the president and his supporters when they put forth the right policies and nominees, but they must stop to be threatened or co-opted by the president and his supporters when the latter are wrong—as they are in so many areas, including the Iraq War, the FISA provisions, and now a nominee to head up the department of justice who claims to be less familiar with legal issues surrounding torture techniques than the informed public.

Comments

[DepartureCX]

Hi all !
It can be challenging !
GSgyyryr546
[URL=http://news47.xclo.info/]news234[/URL] doc
http://news108.xclo.info news12 doc
Goodbye

[Brigitte]

As much as I agree that the definition of international treaties against inhuman treatment, torture, etc., come into play here and must be clarified and complied with, we need most of all to insist on upholding the written and unwritten U.S. values that this country has not always adhered to but at least tried before this current regime came to power. If Democrats want us to vote one of their candidates into the White House, they must explicitly swear off torture and other inhumane practices--to begin with.

[Tony]

The goings-on in our nation's capital are reminiscent of a Kafka novel that the author would have been afraid to release, on the grounds that fiction of this nature would surely have been reviled. Yet here we are, scratching our heads and wondering how much farther credibility can be stretched. My guess is that there is more to come. Guan-o Village is functioning as a laboratory for the perfection of "information gathering" techniques, billions more are scattered about the ME; good and brave fighting men are sorely in need of time with their families; the Fortress of Baghdad (sorry, I meant embassy) is a monument to waste and wishful thinking; and our form of government is not even exportable to a maniacal theocracy without the equivalent of 1000 years of preparatory assaults on the faith, as was experienced in Europe from c 750-1789 CE.
I was treated today to a lecture on why torture is OK under certain (undefined) circumstances, even with the acknowledgement that any information gathered is corrupted by the desire of the torturee to put an end to it. Apparently, I am not alone in my reasoning, because the gov't is busily reconstructing KSM's case, on the issue of whether the events preceding his confessions are admissible in court. The CIA complimented themselves on the effectiveness of their questioning techniques, and simultaneously scoffed at KSM's rapid compliance. The larger question, of course, has to do with how the US redefines treaty language to suit these circumstances, and whether Dems have the fortitude to press Mukasey during the hearings. Eventually, the military interrogators will be back in civil society, where they won't fit in at all. Now, will someone please explain to me what Bremer's CPA Orders # 39 and 81 have to do with anything? Tony thanks you all.