BRITISH GOVERNMENT WARNS AGAINST INVESTIGATION INTO TORTURE

Yet another government is claiming that its security position could be harmed if there is an investigation into claims of torture of suspected terrorists. Haven't we heard this all before from Dick Cheney, Michael Chertoff, Michael Mukasey et al.? What they mean is that investigations into government-sanctioned torture will embarrass the higher-ups of government.

Jenny Percival reports in The Guardian on the use of this tired argument, this time put forth by the Home Secretary of the British government.

"Scotland Yard said last week it was launching an investigation, at the request of Lady Scotland, the attorney general, into claims of torture made by former Guantánamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed."

But Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary (equivalent to Homeland Security), claimed that such an investigation would harm Britain's security services.

Writes Percival:

""Alan Johnson, the home secretary, has said Britain's security could be put at risk by a police investigation into allegations that MI5 agents colluded in torture.

"Johnson said he had "nothing but admiration" for the work of the security service and believed it operated "to the highest ethical and professional standards". He suggested that Britain's interests would be at risk if the service's counter-terrorism capabilities were "diminished and diluted"."

This is just as much rubbish and bull as was the American argument. In fact, worse damage will be done if the events and practices charged are covered up and not shown the light of day. For then the security services will have gotten away with horrendous crimes committed against individuals without any need to explain or justify their crimes. And surely they will think that they can operate with impunity, no matter what the criminal law says or prohibits.

Johnson sounds like Leon Panetta who has counselled Obama not to release photos or conduct an investigation into American waterboarding. Praise the culprits and perpetrators as being British (or American) patriots, say that you have great admiration for their work, add that whatever they did was in the service of the country.

Here's Johnson's version, as reported by Percival:

"Johnson, who took on responsibility for MI5 when he became home secretary last month, told the Daily Telegraph: "I haven't sat around the last six weeks not looking into these things. I have looked very closely at them and I just say this: we have one of the best counter-terrorism capabilities in the world and we diminish and dilute it at our peril."

"He added: "In my six weeks in this job I am so reassured and so amazed at the work that is going on, on our behalf, by people who do not have a voice, who are not able to express their views, who work in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances.

""I have nothing but admiration for them. As I am in effect their voice I will defend them and defend what they do, and it does worry me.""

TAMANAHA ON BALKINIZATION: WHAT IF TALIBAN WATERBOARDED U.S. SOLDIERS?

I just read a post by Brian Tamanaha on Balkinization in which he theorizes about the scenario where members of the Taliban capture U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and subject them to waterboarding. The Bush administration especially Dick Cheney claim that waterboarding is not torture, so there is no violation of any Geneva Convention provisions. Furthermore, Tamanaha "quotes" the Taliban as saying that eminent legal scholars (one thinks of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, John Yoo, David Addington, Jay Scott Bybee and Steven Bradbury) have opined that waterboarding is not torture, therefore the Taliban are not committing war crimes.

LET'S WATERBOARD DEFENDERS OF TORTURE LIKE MUKASEY, CHENEY, ADDINGTON, SCHEUER

It is because of torturer-defenders like Michael Scheuer that I want a full accounting of what some CIA employees did in their pursuit of "truth" when it comes to Guantanamo and Qaeda captives.

Scheuer writes an op-ed in today's The Washington Post in which he implies that Obama is substituting his own personal beliefs about torture for realism practice by the CIA torturers.

For starters, let's subject Scheuer and all the other CIA operatives and defenders like Michael Mukasey, Dick Cheney, David Addington, Condoleeza Rice, John Yoo et al. to the test by water. I personally suspect that they are all implicated in conspiring with Qaeda. Look, (according to the rationale implied by Scheuer) if they are truly innocent or they have no actionable information, they will NOT confess no matter how long the waterboarding. But if they are guilty, truly guilty, they will surely blurt out their guilt. How long do you think Scheuer will maintain his innocence?

The U.S. held trials after for WWII for Japanese officials, officers and plain soldiers. The U.S.hanged some of them for war crimes especially for waterboarding American soldiers. Now Scheuer claims that Americans should adopt the same cruel and brutal practices for self-defense. How small, inhumane and sadistic.

BUSH SEEKS CONFESSIONS OF THOSE WATERBOARDED - BUT OF WHAT VALUE?

What is the matter with the mind set of Bush's political appointees and supporters? Justice Antonin Scalia says it is no simple question whether waterboarding is torture. Bush's Attorney General Michael Mukasey says he does not have enough information to tell whether waterboarding is indeed torture, but he will not hold an investigation into its legality. Republicans in Congress say they support "harsh interrogation methods," meaning waterboarding and torture.

Have these guys ever heard of the Inquisition that terrorized Europe between the 14th and 18th Centuries? How the Church suspected someone of being in consort with the devil, therefore church authorities put him on the rack and turned the screws until he confessed. Or how witches were given the "water treatment" until they admitted they were indeed witches commissioned by the forces of evil.

All these suspects did confess their allegiance to Satan, their diabolical powers, their conspiracy against God and his Church. Surely it must be the same with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others. Waterboard them and they will surely confess.

WHITE HOUSE TRIES TO SPIN ABSOLUTION FOR ORDERING TORTURE

The stuff coming out of the White House on waterboarding and how it isn't torture because some guys in the Office of Legal Counsel (read John Yoo and others) wrote a memo in which they said it wasn't - boggles the legal mind.

An opinion of the John Yoo cannot make something that exists not exist. It is not up to John Yoo to pass upon something like waterboarding and transform it into goldilocks like the alchemists of old.

Is waterboarding torture? We all know that it is. To say the opposite just won't pass the laugh test. If AG Mukasey and Intelligence Czar McConnell are unsure, then by all means they should volunteer to have themselves waterboarded.

Bush and Cheney and the rest of the gang will have some explaining to do in the near future. I mean before the International Court of Justice, and maybe even in front of a U.S. federal judge in the local district court. No self dealing will get them immunity from ordering the CIA to engage in torture.

By the way, I thought the Enlightenment in France in the Eighteenth Century put an end to such barbarisms and vestiges from the Inquisition. But no. Bush and Cheney have plunged Americans back into medieval days when trials by water and fire forced even the purest and most innocent to confess to unspeakable crimes.

AG MUKASEY FUDGES AGAIN, SAYS HE IS NOT SURE ABOUT WATERBOARDING

Michael Mukasey, the Attorney General of the United States, says that it is a "hard call" to determine whether waterboarding is "torture." What does this say about Mukasey's legal competence? What does this say about his ethics?

We all know waterboarding is indeed torture. If Mukasey is still unsure, I suggest that he volunteer to be waterboarded, and submit to the same treatment which the CIA has applied to the high value targets in its custody. Perhaps then Mukasey could give the public an opinion -either yes or no.

It is disgraceful that the highest ranking legal officer of the United States does not know that waterboarding is torture, and that he thinks it is a "hard case."

ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD NAME A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE DESTRUCTION OF CIA TORTURE VIDEO TAPES

I want to see Attorney General Michael Mukasey name a special prosecutor outside of the Department of Justice to investigate the destruction of the torture video tapes made by the CIA. Appointing someone from the Justice Department is like having the fox guard the hen house. Even if the designated prosecutor is as pure as Caesar's wife, still there remains a suspicion over picking someone from the government to do the investigation of the government, especially in this case, when the highest officials, viz., Bush and Cheney, may be involved.

SEN. KIT BOND DUCKS ANSWERING, "IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE?"

I watched and heard Kit Bond on The NewsHour tonight bob and weave and escape answering whether he thought waterboarding constituted torture. Bond is the Republican senator from Missouri. Gwen Ifill tried to pin him down, just answer the question yes or no, but Bond refused.

However, he did say that "enhanced interrogation techniques" should be used only on "high value targets (HVT), as if to say that torture should be applied only "when "we know we have an important mastermind or terrorist leader." Bond of course does not call it "torture" but merely refers euphemistically to "enhanced interrogation techniques."

What amazes me is how Republicans parrot Bush's line and refuse to admit straight-out what is apparent and obvious to everyone. Waterboarding is torture and Americans should not engage in it. Not because of the utilitarian argument that if we engage in torture, our "enemies" will do it to American soldiers, and we certainly do not want that. But rather because torture is antithetical to the concept of human dignity and human liberty. No human being or any other creature should be subject to torture.

I thought we learned this lesson from the teachings of the French Enlightenment in the 17th Century. Especially after what happened during the preceding five hundred years of the cruel Inquisition occurring in almost every country in Europe. A person who is tortured will say anything his tormentors want. Even HVTs.

Imagine what happened during the Inquisition when the church authorities captured a suspected heretic. "Let's make him confess. . . . Did you consort with the devil and with evil spirits? . . . No? . . . Well then tighten the screws. . . .How about now? . . . No? . . . Tighten still further. . . .Okay, now you finally confess." And so by torture the inquisitors obtained their desired confession.

Kit Bond refuses to say whether waterboarding is torture. Michael Mukasey, the new AG, refuses to say whether waterboarding is torture. Bush refuses to say whether waterboarding is torture. Okay. Then let's have each one of these doubters forcibly waterboarded.

Let's then interrogate each. Let's ask the subject if he participated in the 9/11 conspiracy and was a friend and conspirator with Mohammed Atta. Don't take "no" for an answer. Don't stop the water torture until the subject makes a full confession.

WHY DID THE SENATE CONFIRM MUKASEY?

Why the U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General by 53 to 40 is still an enigma. Especially the votes of Senators Schumer and Feinstein. I have read their op-eds justifying their votes. They fail to convince, especially when they try to say that Mukasey would be better than some recess appointment or acting AG appointed by Bush without Senate confirmation.

Mukasey is not sure that waterboarding is torture. Nevertheless the Senate confirms him as head law enforcement officer of the United States. It is all too improbable. There must be some other reason why Feinstein and Schumer voted for his confirmation, and unfortunately we are not getting the underlying real reason from the main stream media.

Furthermore, what happened to Sen. Harry Reid? As majority leader, he could have and should have threatened a filibuster. In which case, Mukasey would need 60 votes to have the Senate vote on him. The Republicans do this all the time, witness the vote on S-CHIP in which Democrats obtained a majority but not enough to stop the Republican filibuster. So why did Harry Reid allow the Mukasey confirmation vote to go forward without a veto? Again, this explanation is not something that we are getting from most newspapers and TV.

MUKASEY AFFAIRE SHOWS THAT SOME SENATORS CONDONE WATERBOARDING

I received this e-mail today from a friend on the Mukasey affaire. The author has given me permission to share it with my blog readers:

"Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, has refused to say whether waterboarding is torture. This guy was a federal judge (a life time appointment) and he says he doesn't know what waterboarding is and therefore he can't say whether it's torture or not. If we assume that he is being honest, i.e., he doesn't know what waterboarding, that leaves a lot to be desired in a "jurist." Even a high school student, without the benefit of knowledge of history, who has watched TV or read any newspapers over the past few years, is very likely to know what waterboarding is. And if Mukasey doesn't know that, then should we have an Attorney General who is that ignorant of the current issues.

"Of course, it's hard for me to believe that Mukasey doesn't know, it is more likely that he is covering for the Bush team who is perhaps afraid that this legal minutiae could at a later date save them from criminal prosecutions. Whatever his motives, it doesn't bode well for our society when have a nominee for Attorney General who doesn't know anything to replace an Attorney General who just couldn't remember anything.

"However, what is even more alarming than Bush nominating Mukasey is that democratic Senators Schumer and Feinstein have thrown their weight behind his confirmation. Senator Schumer said, "the best we can hope for is someone who will rebuild the Justice Department and remain independent, even when pressured by this Administration." Rebuild the Justice Department to do what?—Condone waterboarding, so we can now tell the world that our highest law enforcement official doesn't think waterboarding is torture and thus sending a signal to the torturers that it is not illegal, at least, not under his leadership at the Justice Department.

"Senator Schumer has put his own ego (he had suggested Mukasey to Bush) and in a face saving exercise condoned waterboarding. So much for checks from democrats on Executive power, and so much for standing up for what is right.

"Let's all tell Senators Schumer and Feinstein that waterboarding is torture, and torture is not an American or human value. Phone numbers for the Senators are: Feinstein: (202) 224-3841 and Schumer (202) 224-8542."

SCHUMER AND FEINSTEIN SUPPORT MUKASEY AS A.G.

It's hard to know where to begin on the sordid Mukasey/Schumer/Feinstein affaire. Mukasey refuses to say whether he believes waterboarding is torture. Yet Feinstein and Schumer announce their support for him as AG.

We might as well support the medieval church inquisitors and all the other torturers throughout the ages. I had thought that the French Enlightenment once and for all established the intellectual condemnation and prohibition of torture in all its cruel manifestations. I guess I was wrong.

And these torturers are not merely limited to George Bush, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld. Read the statements of some of the Republican candidates, such as Giuliani, Romney and Thompson, supporting these methods of "interrogation" and in Romney's case, Guantanamo. We can gauge how medieval and thwarted their Republican attitude towards life and "democracy" really is.

Surely the Mukasey affaire is not one of America's finest hours.

BUSH & CHENEY COULD FACE CHARGES OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY FOR ORDERING WATERBOARDING

Today's The New York Times has a story by Scott Shane and David Stout on the reluctance of Judge Michael Mukasey to admit what everyone else in the whole world already knows - that waterboarding is nothing else than torture and always has been since it was dreamt up to get information from captured enemy soldiers, spies, heretics et al.

Write Shane and Stout:

"Jack L. Goldsmith, who served in the Justice Department in 2003 and 2004, wrote in his recent memoir, “The Terror Presidency,” that the possibility of future prosecution for aggressive actions against terrorism was a constant worry inside the Bush administration.

"“I witnessed top officials and bureaucrats in the White House and throughout the administration openly worrying that investigators, acting with the benefit of hindsight in a different political environment, would impose criminal penalties on heat-of-battle judgment calls,” Mr. Goldsmith wrote."

So top officials and White House bureaucrats are worried that they may be subject to criminal prosecution for ordering waterboarding because it is clearly a form of torture? If they were so worried about future charges brought against them, they must have realized before they ordered agents to use waterboarding that it was illegal as well as reprehensible and immoral.

Shane and Stout write:

"Scott L. Silliman, an expert on national security law at Duke University School of Law, said any statement by Mr. Mukasey that waterboarding was illegal torture “would open up Pandora’s box,” even in the United States. Such a statement from an attorney general would override existing Justice Department legal opinions and create intense pressure from human rights groups to open a criminal investigation of interrogation practices, Mr. Silliman said.

"“You would ask not just who carried it out, but who specifically approved it,” said Mr. Silliman, director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke. “Theoretically, it could go all the way up to the president of the United States; that’s why he’ll never say it’s torture,” Mr. Silliman said of Mr. Mukasey."

We have a possibility here that even Mr. George Bush as well as Mr. Dick Cheney could be very well brought up on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is why they are so afraid of the new AG nominee saying what everyone else knows, that waterboarding is a form of torture. They live in fear that successive administrations and foreign countries will arrest them and make them face charges on their un-American actions.

PUNISH CIA AGENTS WHO PRACTICED WATERBOARDING

Judge Mukasey is apparently afraid of tipping his hand on whether waterboarding is torture. He does not want to incriminate those CIA agents and other federal agents who inflicted waterboarding and other methods of torture on suspected terrorists. (See story today by Dan Eggen in The Washington Post.)

Any CIA agents or government employees who engaged in waterboarding should be prosecuted. Republicans like to talk of "personal responsibility," and it should apply here a fortiori. Just because a CIA agent receives an instruction from a superior to subject a suspect to waterboarding is not justification for that agent to inflict this cruel harm. An agent can always quit. He or she can always refuse this unlawful order.

We all know waterboarding is a form of torture. It has a long unsavory history, dating back to at least the Inquisition where it was used on suspected heretics. It produced the results desired, namely, the "heretic," after nearly being drowned, always confessed to being allied with the devil.

As I have written in previous posts, Mukasey should volunteer to be the "suspect" in a test of waterboarding. Surely after the test, Mukasey can have a better idea of the nature of the "interrogation."

The same waterboarding should be the punishment for the CIA agents who are convicted of having inflicted it upon their captives. Surely if it is not cruel and unusual punishment and not "torture," then it would be a fitting penalty.

JUDGE MUKASEY REFUSES TO SAY IF WATER-BOARDING IS TORTURE

Judge Mukasey refuses to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee whether he considers "water-boarding" to be a form of torture. Dan Eggen writes for The Washington Post:

"Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey told Senate Democrats today that a kind of simulated drowning known as waterboarding is "repugnant," but he does not know whether the interrogation technique violates U.S. laws against torture."

Remember water-boarding has been around since at least the Inquisition as a method of making heretics confess they were in league with the devil. And, frankly, it succeeded in getting people to admit their connection with Satan.

If Judge Mukasey does not have enough information to tell whether it is torture and thus illegal, I have a suggestion. Your Honor, experience it for yourself. Have some CIA agents come around to your chambers with a board with straps for you to lie on and be strapped down. Then have someone put a towel over your nose and mouth and head. Then pour water on top of it so that you are ingesting and breathing in the water. Undergo this "experiment" for at least five minutes.

I am sure that after this test, Judge, you will be most certainly an expert on whether water-boarding is torture. You then will surely testify that water-boarding is illegal both under U.S. and international law because it inflicts terrible psychological pain and destruction upon the victim.

In the meantime, the Senate Judiciary Committee should refuse to vote to let your name out of committee.

MUKASEY ASKED TO RETRACT STATEMENT ABOUT WATER-BOARDING

In today's The New York Times, Philip Shenon writes that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Panel have signed a letter to Judge Michael Mukasey, Bush's nominee to be Attorney General, asking him to retract his statement about the legality of water-boarding.

Writes Shenon:

"All 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee pressed Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, on Tuesday for a clear-cut statement that the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, which simulates drowning and has been used by the C.I.A. against terrorism suspects, is illegal.

"In his confirmation hearings last week, Mr. Mukasey, a retired federal judge from New York, declined to say if waterboarding was torture or was otherwise illegal; he insisted he was not aware of how the technique was carried out."

Mukasey should be rejected unless he answers truthfully and directly. To think a former federal judge on the Court of Appeals would not know if water-boarding was torture is simply beyond belief. Mukasey was obviously defending the practices of Bush and Cheney, the people who are appointing him.

By refusing to answer and say that water-boarding is torture, Mukasey becomes a dangerous nominee. The president for all his powers does not have the power to violate the Constitution and all our other laws. The president may not violate an individual's rights under the Bill of Rights. In other words, the president may not make torture a legal action on his say-so because the president is subject to the rule of law just as the rest of us. Because Mukasey fudges and obfuscates on this central principle of American democracy, he does not deserve to be the chief law enforcement official of the United States.