Leahy to oppose Mukasey on Torture Issue

By Mimikatz

Per  Think Progress, Senator Leahy says he will oppose the appointment of Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General, saying “No American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture.”   This puts even more heat on Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer for next Tuesday's vote, and makes it crystal clear that torture is the issue here, as Marcy has stated.

Torture is the Achilles heel of the Bush-Cheney regime, the thing that exposes them to liability abroad and not just here at home.  As Kagro has stated, the only person who can be nominated to serve as Attorney General in this regime is someone who is willing to absolve Bush-Cheney of legal liability for what has been done in our name at their behest.  Scott Horton makes a similar point. 

If you’re prepared to hedge on whether waterboarding is torture, then you might be counted upon to do anything. Indeed, there is no question about it. Waterboarding is torture and has been understood to be torture in a formal sense for over a hundred years. Soldiers who used it were court-martialed, and the attempted defense of military necessity was smacked down by the Army’s Judge Advocate General in 1903. There is no shortage of other precedent. This is why Mukasey’s dodge on the issue—first a very primitive dodge, and then a more sophisticated one—is so troubling.

If you are prepared to absolve the regime of legal and moral culpability for torture you are all too likely to give them a pass on everything else.  And just who is it who so desperately needs this pass?  Not the actual torturers themselves, and in this Horton is right and the NY Times is wrong.  Those who need absolution here are the architects of the program--principally the lawyers who conjured the cloak of legality for such a base program.  The very lawyers that Mukasey consulted with prior to his actual nomination.  Horton again:

The CIA personnel, military personnel and contractors all have immunity. But there is a class of persons who are probably not immunized in any effective way by the current statutes, namely the administration officials who authored this scheme: Dick Cheney, David Addington, Donald Rumsfeld, Jim Haynes and a handful of others. They are the figures “on the line” who are most adamant that Mukasey (or any substitute for Mukasey) provide them with the protection they feel they need.

Hence, the debate around Michael Mukasey has really ceased to be about Michael Mukasey and his qualifications to serve as attorney general. It has become a debate about the torture issue. And protecting the authors of a criminal scheme from their certain ultimate fate: prosecution.

Make no mistake about it.  Anyone who votes for Mukasey is voting for absolution for war criminals who devised and sanctioned this abhorrent regime of torture.  If the Senate so votes, they bind themselves further to the dark forces who have led us down this path.  We are better off with no Attorney General than with one who will not condemn the Bush-Cheney torture regime.

Update:

Schumer and Feinstein cave.  Will vote yes.  Does anyone really believe that Mukasey will be better than an acting loyal Bushie as AG?  What do the Dems think they will gain by this?  At least Lindsay Graham got a fundraiser for his vote.

Comments

[phred]

Apparently Feingold remains undecided. Anyone in these parts have any idea why?

[Mimikatz]

It seems that Bush's fondness for inflicting pain goes a long way back. Which, as Tristero says, is why some people equate torture with fraternity pranks.

I can't see why any Dem is conflicted about this nomination, given the way it has played out. He does not seem to be concentrating on the torture issue. He should realize that it is indeed a litmus test, in that if he equivocates on torture, he will not be solid on executive power.

But even more importantly, the more people who are complicit in this, the harder it will be to purge the stain.

[Kagro X]

Well, this is good news. I had hoped that a virtual lobbying trip up to Vermont, by way of Green Mountain Daily, would yield such results. Though really, I expected as much with or without it.

But I was encouraged to find them discussing the fact that a recent TV news poll up there showed 60+% support for impeachment.

Who would have guessed that a sustained campaign of public discussion of the constitutional issues and their remedy would have produced overwhelming public support for something?

[Neil]

I'm glad Leahy is opposing Mukasey on torture.

What is troubling, is the lack of objection to Mukasey's view of executive power with regard to Congress' perogative to challenge executive privilege and contempt of Congress via the justice system, and his view on the executive's so-called inherent authority to break the law.

[ApacheTrout]

Leahy's vote will certainly be of principle, but it will be for naught if just one Democrat on the SJC flips. Everytime the Democrats split their votes, it supports the Republican belief that enough Democrats can be bullied into voting with Republicans. It also embellishes the appearance that Democrats are a weak party, not to be trusted with national security because there's a number of Democrats who, in comparison to the Dems who vote Republican, just don't get how to defend America. The Republicans get to point to Democrats like Leahy and Sanders and ask if America wants to be lead by these types of liberals, the ones who are constently on the losing side of the debate. So not only is the Constitution at stake with this vote, there's also a very damaging framing effort that will become more difficult to overcome.

[Mimikatz]

My vote is on Feinstein for the turncoat. I just sent her an e-mail, and urge others with Senators on the committee who have not been heard from (Schumer, Kohl, Cardin and Feingold) to vote no.

[P J Evans]

CNN.com is just now saying that two Dems will vote for Mukasey, but they aren't yet saying who the suckers are.

[P J Evans]

Update: from TPM:
CNN: Schumer and Feinstein will vote FOR Mukasey.

Good thing we didn't take bmaz's bet.

We need to lose Schumer and DiFi: they're really not Dems any more. I wouldn't even dignify them as DINOs.

[ApacheTrout]

The Washington Post is reporting on Leahy's announcement. Buried in the last paragraph of the article is this:

The CIA used the technique on three prisoners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but has since ceased the practice, officials have said.

I've not heard this before. Has anyone? This oen paragraph is just loaded.

First, just three prisoners? Come on. These must be extremely valuable suspected terrorist with high name recognition. The officials must feel that Americans would support waterboarding these people.

Second, who are these officials? How many officials? Has this been corraborated elsewhere?

Third, when did the torture take place?

Fourth, when the did the practice stop?

Fifth, why did it stop?

[P J Evans]

What I just e-mailed to DiFi:
The Constitution is being shredded, with your willing assistance.
The Geneva Conventions on the treatment of civilians and prisoners are being shredded, with your willing assistance.

By voting for Mukasey, you will be voting for its overthrow and for the installation of a king in the White House.
We will have no rights but what the President-for-Life is willing to allow - and so far, that ain't much.
We will have no remedies but what the President-for-Life is willing to allow - and so far, that ain't much.
We will have no say in government by what the President-for-Life is willing to allow - and so far, that ain't much.

Reflect on this, as we all look forward to the dictatorship to come.

It won't do anything to change her vote. But it will let someone, somewhere, know that we noticed and are not happy.

[phred]

Kagro, if you're still around, can someone put a hold on this? A filibuster? Do we need Dodd to double up his filibusters (since we KNOW the f***ing Dems will fold like a cheap lawn chair on FISA as well). What options have we got to STOP this???

[cboldt]

The procedural device to delay taking the vote on the nominee is simple objection, which is overcome by cloture. Ostensibly, objection (and the call for limiting debate) is justified by "need more time to make up my mind," but the device of cloture is routinely abused as in "I've made up my mind, and you need 60 votes to surmount my objection."

Any 16 Senators can file a cloture motion, and after the elapse of a time definite (one day layover after filing the cloture motion to take the cloture vote, plus 30 hours of time after the cloture motion passes), there WILL be a vote on the underlying matter.

It's not unheard of, but it's unusual for a Senator to insist on the full 30 hours, etc., for various reasons -- that boil down to "why delay the inevitable, it'll just piss off the other Senators." Whatever delay is imposed now will end up with the Senate in weekend sessions to complete the handful of items currently on the plate before November recess.

[Mimikatz]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and Abu Zubaydah wwere both tortured, according to Ron Suskind in "The One Percent Doctrine." Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi was rendered by the CIA to Egypt for torture.

I read somewhere recently that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed endured 2 minutes of waterboarding.

All of these three gave useless information that caused people to panic about bombing supermarkets and shopping centers (remember that?) and they talked about plots that didn't exist. KSM's children were threatened with torture and he reportedly said fine--they will be better off with Allah. As Suskind says, after that hasn't worked, there isn't much left to try.

Torture is truly corrupting, and although as Shumer says, there are other important issues, this is something we will live with (and down) for at least a generation.

[cboldt]

-- First, just three prisoners? --

Hehehe. Practice the art of careful sentence construction. Here, I'll help.

The CIA used the technique on three prisoners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but has since ceased the practice, officials have said.

"Three" means "at least three," and that is attributed only to the CIA directly. There may be other agents, outside of the CIA, acting on behalf of US orders, payments, etc.

"After the Sept 11, 2001 attacks" is a throwaway line. There could have been some before and after that date.

"has since ceased the practice" can be construed to mean only the CIA directly, i.e., the US may still hire the practice -- just not by the CIA. A further layer of indefinite construction is in the words "the practice." A slight change in "the practice" would mean a "different practice" was being used. Say, for example, using a different color board, or a different means of restraint, or just holding the victims heads under water instead of strapping them to a board.

[radiofreewill]

Bmaz called it - Shu and DiFi both fell for the 'trust me', again!

California and New York endorsing Torture and the Unitary Executive!

Being 'pragmatic' on Principles is the slippery slope that leads to depravity.

Shumer and Fienstein aren't leaders, they're witless blind followers with no conscience.

[JohnLopresti]

Maybe Leahy deserves a moment to smile at Schumer's plight.

[Sara]

Feingold, (D-Wisconsin) almost always votes for nominees on the grounds that a President is entitled to his own ministers -- the argument he made when he voted for confirmation of Ashcroft back in 2001. He contends that makes the President responsible for the actions of all ministers. I don't necessarily agree with the argument, and find it a bit loony given the custom of doing most everything under the cloak of denialability in the Bush/Cheney administration. None the less if he votes to confirm, I assume that will be the grounds.

I think Schumer's situation is most interesting. He was asked by the White House for a short list of acceptable candidates -- and he more or less fell into it by making recommendations. But Bush played some rather dirty poker in this case, during the first day of the hearing, Mukasey seemed forthcoming, and then he began the doubletalk, which essentially put Schumer on the spot. I think the lesson is never to even try to assist the WH -- they will twist it on you.

What I wonder is why Leahy allowed Schumer to do committee business with the WH. As Chair, Leahy should have required the WH deal with him, not a more junior member of the committee. Does this go back to "go F##k yourself?"

[Mary]

Does anyone really believe that Mukasey will be better than an acting loyal Bushie as AG?

Some kind of deal was made very early on. It's why Feingold has been fudging too. IMO, since Whitehouse was so new, no one let him in on the machinations and he surprised the snot out of them all when he asked that kind of question (you know, a real and relevant one).

This is why there was the delay hearing from Hillary. As the other NY kid, she pretty much had to be in on the deal and once the tide turned, they had to work it out so she could still save face on torture but the deal could go forward.

Who knows what is involved in the deal, but at this point, who cares. We will have not only an AG but a Congress who very openly embraces Presidential torture of innocent people with no recourse. All Whitehouse did was make it very obvious, what was being done. Yippee.

After the MCA orchestration, it's not a suprise, but what a sad legacy. Almost every time I think nothing this Congress does could be more depressingly evil, they go the next unthinkable step, with grins and back slaps.

[Mary]

Here's the question I'd like to see polled:

If Congress began impeachment investigations would you feel:

a) more favorable towards Congress;
b) less favorable towards Congress; or
c) unchanged.

[Mary]

Mimikatz:

KSM's children are still unaccounted for.

Arar, el-Masri, Padilla, pretty much everyone at GITMO, etc. - they've all been abused and tortured.

Congress doesn't care bc no one in the media makes it the 24 hour cycle story.

[P J Evans]

I suspect that a lot of these people have contracts somewhere, signed in blood.
Not for music, but for political power.
It's the only way I can think of it: they sold their souls for power, and admitting it is now impossible, because they'll lose everything if - when - they do.
Now they're also responsible for the consequences of their actions (and inactions).
They'd have been better off powerless.

[phred]

It is a very sad day indeed when America has to look to other countries to uphold the rule of law and human rights because those terms have become meaningless here. I feel sick. I am also convinced that Leahy only announced he would oppose the nomination when he was certain that Schumer and Feinstein would take the fall. He did not have to schedule a vote for Tuesday. He could have gotten his members on the SJC on board with a no vote, prior to announcing anything. It's just like Southwick. And I will bet that Leahy already knows telecomm immunity is going to stick on Thursday as well. All his protestations, whatever they may be, will be for show.

[Alyx]

I just looked it up on Wiki, and was appalled! The USA should not conduct any form of toture period. We need to regain our standing in the World as be reputable in our standards. I can't wait for this horrid regime to take a hike. I fear they might want to start WWWIII with Iran.

[nolo]

i detest the idea that -- once again -- sen.
patrick leahy's courageous, fiery rhetoric,
about pol pot using water-boarding, and ike's
cashiering (dismissing) of a general for
allowing his men to use waterboarding, and
prosecuting the japanese after ww ii for in-
flicting this same torture on american p.o.w.s. . .

has all but been rendered IMPOTENT by the
announcements of sen. di fi and sen. schumer.

i detest the idea that mukasey will likely
be confirmed, despite patrick leahy's very
thoughtful re-evaluation of his positions.

now -- having written that, i turn ot the positive:

here's to the hope that mukasey will do just
a little more than the absolute minimum, to
proect his gorund-level troops at DoJ, the
rank and file career prosecutors. . . they've
been twisting in the wind, ever since ashcroft
resigned -- and in truth, probably for more than
two-thirds of ashcroft's term of service. . .

but now it is time to protect what is left of
the department of justice -- time to make sure
that it won't take decades (as opposed to merely
years) after the 2008 elections, to restore the
proud reputation of justice. . . we, as a nation,
need to believe in these law-and -order people
again, almost as much as we need to be sure that
our president does not order torture (any more).

cheers, to one and all -- here's to a tough week.

may the next one be better. . .

p e a c e

[bmaz]

There is a sucker born every minute and we are all newborn babies to our Congressional Democratic Leadersheep. I like Mary's poll.