US attorney general hints at Bush's permission for torture"Under questioning from a Democratic senator, US attorney general Michael Mukasey today suggested that George Bush might have personally authorised the waterboarding of suspected terrorists.
Mukasey immediately corrected himself to say that he was not permitted to discuss past events. But in describing the process by which the CIA could seek legal clearance to resume waterboarding, he appeared to tie the president to the controversial technique.
When Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein asked if the current path to authorising waterboarding - a request from the CIA director, followed by approval from the attorney general, followed by consultation with the president - had applied in the past, Mukasey said yes.
"I should take a step back," he then added. "I'm not authorised to say what happened in the past, but I was told this wasn't news.""
Mukasey Demurs on Waterboarding"As expected, Mr. Mukasey refused to be pinned down on whether waterboarding, which creates a drowning sensation, constitutes torture when it is used in the interrogation of suspected terrorists.
He said that it would be improper for him to give an opinion, since he is the attorney general, and that his opinion is not really necessary in any event, since the Central Intelligence Agency no longer uses the technique.
“Given that waterboarding is not part of the
current program and may never be added to the current program, I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to pass definitive judgment on the technique’s legality,” the attorney general said, speaking in the cautious way that his Senate questioners have sometimes found evasive and infuriating."
Mukasey Refuses to Judge Waterboarding"Ultimately, however, Mukasey said Wednesday he would not rule on whether waterboarding
is a form of illegal torture because it is not part of the current interrogation methods used by the CIA on terror suspects. Despite having called waterboarding personally repugnant, Mukasey's non-answer angered Democrats who said the attorney general should be able to address a legal question.
"I think failure to say something probably puts some of our people in more danger than not," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee's chairman.
"It's like you're opposed to stealing but not quite sure that bank robbery would qualify," retorted Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
Mukasey, in his trademark monotone, did not appear rattled. He said he has concluded that current methods used by the CIA to interrogate terror suspects are lawful and that the spy agency is not using waterboarding on its prisoners."
(There's that truly fucked up phrase again "a form of illegal torture" - as if there exist a form of legal torture?)
Mukasey: 'It is not for me to decide' if waterboarding should be used"Whether or not waterboarding is something that will be authorized in the future is not for me to decide – certainly not for me alone. But I can tell you what it would take for waterboarding to be added to the CIA program. First, the CIA director would have to request its authorization. Second, he would have to ask me, or any successor of mine, if its use would be lawful—taking into account the particular facts and circumstances at issue, including how and why it is to be used, the limits of its use, and the safeguards that are in place for its use. And third, the issue would have to go to the President. Those steps may never be taken, but if they are I commit to you today that this Committee will be notified of the fact in the same manner as the Intelligence Committees.
Given that waterboarding is not part of the current program, and may never be added to the program, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to pass definitive judgment on the technique’s legality."
Mukasey's painstaking approach to waterboarding"But prior to his testimony Wednesday, Mukasey sent a letter to Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont, telling him that because waterboarding currently isn’t authorized for use by Central Intelligence Agency operatives, he could not opine on its legality. (The CIA has, according to the administration, used the technique in the past on suspected terrorists.)
“
I do not believe that it is advisable to address difficult legal questions about which reasonable minds can and do differ, in the absence of concrete facts and circumstances,” Mukasey said in the letter. (Aren't you glad to know "reasonable minds" can differ on torture? 'Cause everyone knows "reasonable" people endorse torture because torture is just so reasonable)
(Note the paragraph above which states the CIA HAS used waterboarding...but Mukasey can't comment
"in the absence of concrete facts and circumstances")
He echoed those words before the committee, angering several members. “It’s like saying you’re opposed to stealing but not saying whether bank robbery would qualify,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.
“Would waterboarding be torture if it was used on you?” Kennedy asked him.
“I would feel that it was,” Mukasey replied."
I'm so glad Mukasey has brought "integrity" back to the DOJ. And after his repeated use of "I'm not authorized(to answer)" - translation: not permitted - by Bush - to answer ... I'm also just so thrilled by that "independence" (from the WH) he has brought to the DOJ as well.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
