NY Times claimed Mukasey "promised to review legality of" waterboarding -- not if previous Times reporting is correct
In an October 31 article, The New York Times claimed that Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush's nominee for attorney general, had, in an October 30 letter to the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, "promised to review the legality" of an interrogation method known as waterboarding, if confirmed. The article, by reporter Scott Shane, reported that, Mukasey "declared Tuesday that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques 'seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me' and promised to review the legality of such methods if confirmed." In fact, in his letter, Mukasey did not promise that, if confirmed, he would review the legality of waterboarding, but that he would "review any coercive interrogation techniques currently used by the United States Government and the legal analysis authorizing their use to assess whether such techniques comply with the law." However, if Shane's reporting the day before is correct, Mukasey's promise appears not to cover waterboarding. Shane reported in an October 30 Times article that "former agency officials have said" that "[t]he C.I.A. stopped using waterboarding by the end of 2005." Additionally, according to Mukasey's letter, " 'waterboarding' cannot be used by the United States military because its use by the military would be a clear violation of the Detainee Treatment Act [DTA]."
While the Bush administration has reportedly stopped using waterboarding, it has reportedly asserted that it may still resume use of the technique. According to an October 4 New York Times article by Shane, David Johnston, and James Risen, "Relying on a Supreme Court finding that only conduct that 'shocks the conscience' was unconstitutional," a 2005 Justice Department opinion "found that in some circumstances not even waterboarding was necessarily cruel, inhuman or degrading, if, for example, a suspect was believed to possess crucial intelligence about a planned terrorist attack, the officials familiar with the legal finding said." The DTA, passed in 2005, banned the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
The Bush administration has officially refused to comment on whether specific interrogation techniques are being used.
Mukasey also wrote in his letter -- which came in response to an October 23 letter from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee -- that "[l]egal opinions should treat real issues," adding, "I have not been briefed on techniques used in any classified interrogation program conducted by any government agency. For me, then, there is a real issue as to whether the techniques presented and discussed at the hearing and in your letter are even part of any program of questioning detainees."
From Mukasey's October 30 letter:
I was asked at the hearing and in your letter questions about the hypothetical use of certain coercive interrogation techniques. As described in your letter, these techniques seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me, and would probably seem the same to many Americans. But hypotheticals are different from real life, and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical. As a judge, I tried to be objective in my decision-making and to put aside even strongly held personal beliefs when assessing a legal question because legal questions must be answered based solely on the actual facts, circumstances, and legal standards presented. A legal opinion based on hypothetical facts and circumstances may be of some limited academic appeal but has scant practical effect or value.
I have said repeatedly, and reiterate here, that no one, including a President, is above the law, and that I would leave office sooner than participate in a violation of law. If confirmed, any legal opinions I offer will reflect that I appreciate the need for the United States to remain a nation of laws and to set the highest standards. I will be mindful also of our shared obligation to ensure that our Nation has the tools it needs, within the law, to protect the American people.
Legal opinions should treat real issues. I have not been briefed on techniques used in any classified interrogation program conducted by any government agency. For me, then, there is a real issue as to whether the techniques presented and discussed at the hearing and in your letter are even part of any program of questioning detainees. Although I have not been cleared into the details of any such program, it is my understanding that some Members of Congress, including those on the intelligence committees, have been so cleared and have been briefed on the specifics of a program run by the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"). Those Members know the answer to the question of whether the specific techniques presented to me at the hearing and in your letter are part of the CIA's program. I do not.
I do know, however, that "waterboarding" cannot be used by the United States military because its use by the military would be a clear violation of the Detainee Treatment Act ("DTA"). That is because "waterboarding" and certain other coercive interrogation techniques are expressly prohibited by the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation, and Congress specifically legislated in the DTA that no person in the custody or control of the Department of Defense ("DOD") or held in a DOD facility may be subject to any interrogation techniques not authorized and listed in the Manual.
[...]
I emphasize in closing this answer that nothing set forth above, or in my testimony, should be read as an approval of the interrogation techniques presented to me at the hearing or in your letter, or any comparable technique. Some of you told me at the hearing or in private meetings that you hoped and expected that, if confirmed, I would exercise my independent judgment when providing advice to the President, regardless of whether that advice was what the President wanted to hear. I told you that it would be irresponsible for me to do anything less. It would be no less irresponsible for me to seek confirmation by providing an uninformed legal opinion based on hypothetical facts and circumstances.
As I testified, if confirmed I will review any coercive interrogation techniques currently used by the United States Government and the legal analysis authorizing their use to assess whether such techniques comply with the law. If, after such a review, I determine that any technique is unlawful, I will not hesitate to so advise the President and will rescind or correct any legal opinion of the Department of Justice that supports use of the technique. I view this as entirely consistent with my commitment to provide independent judgment on all issues. That is my commitment and pledge to the President, to the Congress, and to the American people. Each and all should expect no less from their Attorney General.
From the October 31 New York Times article headlined, "Mukasey Calls Harsh Interrogation 'Repugnant' ":
In an effort to quell growing doubts in the Senate about his nomination as attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey declared Tuesday that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques "seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me" and promised to review the legality of such methods if confirmed.
But Mr. Mukasey told Senate Democrats he could not say whether waterboarding, which simulates drowning, was illegal torture because he had not been briefed on the details of the classified technique and did not want to suggest that Central Intelligence Agency officers who had used such techniques might be in "personal legal jeopardy."
It was unclear whether the answers would be enough to win endorsement from the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the torture issue has threatened to block the confirmation of Mr. Mukasey, who served for 18 years as a federal judge in New York.
Mr. Mukasey gave his answer in a four-page letter delivered Tuesday afternoon to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, chairman of the committee, and the other nine Democrats on it.
I understand the importance of this issue, but it looks to me like the Puddinhead George Administration is running out the clock here. Of course, the spineless Democrats are letting him get away with it. Instead of endlessly debating these details, they should be impeaching Bush and Cheney. We still haven't had that investigation into the use of prewar WMD intelligence. Remember that investigation that the Republican Congress promised would occur right after the 2004 election? Remember how the Republican Senators accused the Democrats of "playing politics" when they demanded that investigation before the election? "Let's wait until after the election" they said, so that it doesn't affect the outcome. Does anybody remember that? We waited...we're still waiting. Apparently the press moved on long ago. The Media Bobbleheads are too caught up in the Presidential Horse Race to be bothered with Bush's lies and war crimes.
Anyone who does not come out against Waterboarding and denounce its use must immediatley be disqualified from being the Attorney General. Our nation can no longer afford be have people in power who do not come out against this inhumane act of torture. We will all pay for it in the end. It needs to stop now!!!!!!
Because of the real, imposing threat of Islamic terrorism I fully expect all "warrior" types (real warriors charged with protecting our country) to believe with sincerity that aggressive interrogation techniques (torture) is justified, and should be authorized, to enable them to ferret out and prevent terrorist threats. I do not quation that these "warriors" are sincere and highly dedicated to protecting America.
But that's not enough to authorize torture. There are many other considerations, too numerous and already spelled out in detail recently on this forum in other threads...importantly including the opinions of experts that torture does not generally produce reliable information and the importance of America maintaining high moral ground. But the specific issue here is whether the Attorney General of the United States can and should offer a legal opinion that waterboarding, an obvious no-brainer form of torture, is illegal.
This is shameful, in my opinion, that Mukasy won't state the obvious.. But more shameful are what appear to be Mukasey's true underlying reasons. Bush authorized the use of a form of torture, waterboarding, although the practice has allegedly been discontinued, It would be politically and legally hazardous to Bush if the highest legal officer in the nation declared that what Bush did was patently illegal, regardless whether the practice has been stopped. (The fact that waterboarding has been stopped makes one wonder if the practice was discontinued specifically because Bush knew, or should have known, it was legally impermissible.)
It is up to the White House to moderate the views and desires of the "warriors". Bush is the "decider"...the opinions of the "warriors" are not paramount regardless how sincere and well-motivated they are. In the overall scheme of things torture is a bad idea for the USA. With all of our resources we should be able to devise other aggressive methods of obtaining information to detect and prevent terrorists threats...if that's what the administartion wanted. Torture is the easy solution.
The problem, in my opinion, is that Bush and many others in the White House consider themselves "warriors". They forget that they are our leaders not our battlefield combatants. They lose sight of the grander picture when they assume (fantasize?) the roles of combatants.
Ever get the impression Mukasey may be thinking to himself, "Why did I agree to accept this nomination?"
Somebody help me here...have Congressional leaders ever been briefed by the White House or CIA on the extent to which waterboarding was used under Bush's authorization up to the end of 2005? What exactly does anyone outside of the White House or CIA know occurred with respect to our use of waterboarding?
"Waterboarding is a centuries-old interrogation method in which a prisoner’s face is covered with cloth and then doused with water to create a feeling of suffocation. It was used in 2002 and 2003 by C.I.A. officers questioning at least three high-level terrorism suspects, government officials say."
[link to www.nytimes.com]
My suspicion is that waterboarding is just the tip of iceberg. There is no telling what the next President will find when he/she takes office.
That also makes me wonder if the Bush/Cheney team are/will be busy at work over the next year cleansing the record of embarrasing and illegal operations.
I would imagine that the paper shredders are humming 24/7 as we speak.
Do you mean other than the gazillion missing emails which in and of itself violates the law?
[link to www.theregister.co.uk]
I agree this is the tip of the iceberg and its going to take a long time to sort out.
In this context Mukasey's promise is worthless.
"I agree this is the tip of the iceberg and its going to take a long time to sort out."
The thing is we may never know everything that went on inside the Bush administration. If illegal spying, rendition or torture programs were authorized by Bush but have since been discontinued and dismantled any remaining evidence of such illegal programs could be buried away in classified agancy files and Presidential papers such that the next President would not even be aware that the illegal programs once existed, or to find out about such defunct illegal programs unless he/she specifically went searching for them.
Think about the Bush adminstration's rigid emphasis on secrecy and its unwillingness to share information with Congress, in addition to its willingness to lie and cover up, and the scenario I set forth is not terribly far-fetched.
That also makes me wonder if the Bush/Cheney team are/will be busy at work over the next year cleansing the record of embarrasing and illegal operations. Irony101
Or maybe they should just follow Bill Clinton’s idea regarding how to deal with an unflattering paper trail and call in Sandy Berger. Or was that Hillary’s idea?
Making and taking copies of documents might prove informationally invaluable - but it does not affect the paper trail. Look closer to home, Repugnant!
Making and taking copies of documents might prove informationally invaluable - but it does not affect the paper trail.
Berger and his lawyer said he knowingly removed handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio. Some of the documents wound up hidden under a construction trailer and the whereabouts of other documents is unknown. This is not a case of making and taking copies. It was theft of actual classified documents of which there was only one copy and it certainly did affect the paper trail. Please remove your head from the koolaid container.
You really should read the case before claiming what the hiveminder told you is true. As a hint, try google.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53629
Do you really believe they weren't covering something up?
Well, you have established that even hiveminders can use google. As to the link, well . . . try again? You might come up with something along these lines:
"After a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed. His and the FBI's opinion of the case initially led The Wall Street Journal to editorialize against the allegations.
On December 20, 2006, more than a year after Berger pleaded guilty and was sentenced, a report issued by the archives inspector detailed how Berger had perpetrated the crime. Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that Berger took a break to go outside without an escort. "In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)." Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.
The report also stated "There were not any handwritten notes on the documents Mr. Berger removed from the archives. Mr. Berger did not believe there was unique information in the three documents he destroyed. Mr. Berger never made any copies of these documents." In the end, according to the report, "[Mr. Berger] substituted his sense of sensitivity instead of thinking of classification" in deciding to remove the documents. "
Also this. So, with the documents preserved on hard drives, what did Berger steal? Why, copies, as I had earlier stated.
On to the (inevitable) claim that "well, he could have stolen more, at other times"? That appears to be the current contention of the hive - but seems unlikely, given testimony that the other visits were fully supervised, and that no evidence appears that the monitoring on those occasions was interrupted.
Please WorldNUTdaily? You hiveminders NEVER know what you are talking about.
is not a case of making and taking copies. It was theft of actual classified documents of which there was only one copy and it certainly did affect the paper trail Cb
Becoming informed usually helps.
THEY WERE COPIES!. The National Archives DOES NOT EVER give original copies of ANY document to ANYONE! EVER!!!!! Facts are something you are used to dealing with but in this case you must learn to try!
Of course you might know where actual missing documents are. Save the Natl Archives some additional money.
The National Security Archive today sued the White House seeking the recovery and preservation of more than 5 million White House e-mail messages that were apparently deleted from White House computers between March 2003 and October 2005.
Press Release
Did the 9/11 Commission receive all the documents it requested? Davis Releases Berger ReportJanuary 9, 2007
Contact: David Marin (202)225-5074
Washington, D.C. – Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Tom Davis (R-VA) released the following statement today on a committee report that sheds important new light on Sandy Berger’s theft of classified documents from the National Archives. The report makes it clear that the full extent of Mr. Berger’s document removal can never be known, and consequently the Department of Justice could not assure the 9/11 Commission that it received all responsive documents to which Mr. Berger had access.
“My staff’s investigation reveals that President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger compromised national security much more than originally disclosed,” Davis said. “It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience.
“The 9/11 Commission relied on incomplete and misleading information regarding its access to documents Mr. Berger reviewed. No one ever told the Commission that Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection.
“We now know that Mr. Berger left stolen highly classified documents at a construction site to avoid detection. We know that Mr. Berger insisted on privacy at times to allow him to conceal documents that he stole. One witness with a very high security clearance believed he saw Berger concealing documents in his socks.
“Mr. Berger’s review of documents did not conform to the usual requirements for reviewing classified documents in a secure facility and under strict supervision. The Archives staff’s failure to contact law enforcement immediately and their contacts with Mr. Berger about the missing documents compromised the law enforcement effort.
“The compromised law enforcement effort contributes to reduced confidence that the 9/11 Commission received all the documents it requested. The execution of a search warrant before Mr. Berger knew there was an investigation would have either located additional documents or enhanced confidence that he stole no others than those he admitted to taking.
“The public statements of the former chief of the public integrity section, Noel Hillman, were incomplete and misleading. Because Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection, we do not know if anything ‘was lost to the public or the process.’
“The Justice Department’s assertion that Mr. Berger’s statements are credible after being caught is misplaced. One wouldn’t rely on the fox to be truthful after being nabbed in the hen house. But the Justice Department apparently did.”
I believe that any subsequent claim by the national archives or anyone else that Berger had access to only copies is a blatant attempt to cover their own a$$. The fact is we will never really know what original documents were taken or how their theft compromised the integrity of the 9/11 investigation.
I know that you believe this right wing Republican over the thorough investigation that was done by the Bush administration. If they could have gotten more on Berger, they surely would have.
This was a press release with what documentation to back up the allegations? All of these talking points have been debunked as pointed out to you previously.
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/Media/PDFs/BergerReport010907.pdf
You are just in denial. It's silly to make guesses at what the Bush administration might be doing to alter the records like some of the moonbat posters up-thread while ignoring the obvious attempt by one of your own to do the same thing and getting caught red handed. This is just one more symptom of BDS (Bush derangement syndrome) which the majority of posters on this sight are afflicted with. You're a sick lot...yes indeed.
Why do you rightwingers bother coming in here and telling LIES that we all know ARE lies? Berger took no original documents therefore he cleansed no records? Is it that hivemind conditioning is so strong that your pavlovian response cannot be stopped even when you KNOW you are lying?
Frankly I don't see why this article is here. It seems as if the NYT erred in it's reporting. Maybe MMFA is now expanding to cover liberal misinformation regarding conservatives?
Mukasey said, " if confirmed I will review any coercive interrogation techniques currently used by the United States Government and the legal analysis authorizing their use to assess whether such techniques comply with the law. If, after such a review, I determine that any technique is unlawful, I will not hesitate to so advise the President and will rescind or correct any legal opinion of the Department of Justice that supports use of the technique. I view this as entirely consistent with my commitment to provide independent judgment on all issues. That is my commitment and pledge to the President, to the Congress, and to the American people. Each and all should expect no less from their Attorney General.
--------------
Does anyone have a problem with that?
How is that an answer to the question of the legality of water boarding?
Does anyone have a problem with that?
Yes, I do...
MUKASEY: "If confirmed I will review any coercive interrogation techniques currently used by the United States Government and the legal analysis authorizing their use to assess whether such techniques comply with the law. If, after such a review, I determine that any technique is unlawful, I will not hesitate to so advise the President and will rescind or correct any legal opinion of the Department of Justice that supports use of the technique."
What if the Bush administration has temporarily suspended the practice of waterboarding and is, technically speaking, not currently being employed, but shortly after Mukasey's confirmation the practice is reinstituted?
What Congress wants to know is what is Mukasey's legal opinion of waterboarding. Considering that we have reportedly used the practice of waterboarding in the recent past (and may still be using it as far as we know)that is a legitimate and fair question.
This entire dance has been orchestrated by the White House. Read this report from today in which Bush says that Mukasey has purposely not been briefed on whether we are presently using waterboarding.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071101/bush-mukasey/
In other words, Mukasey can't testify about waterboarding because the White House won't tell him if they've authorized waterboarding. Does that make any sense to you?
It appears to me that, at the very least, this clever orchestration by the White House is to prevent Mukasey from stating publicly that an interrogation practice previously authorized by Bush constitutes illegal torture.
Further, the ploy is to prevent Congress from knowing whether in the future Mukasey will render an official Justice Department opinion to Bush giving a legal thumbs up to waterboarding.
Congress has a right to know (We have a right to know!) whether Mukasey will provide Bush with the legal foundation to reinstitute an interrogation practice that is widely considered illegal.
For Bush to play games with the nomination by purposely not briefing Mukasey on the USA's practice of waterboarding is disingenuous. For Mukasey to claim that even conceptually he cannot say whether waterboarding is illegal is beyonf belief.
This is not how our government is supposed to work. No one elected Bush king.
I see the point you are trying to make but it is a moot point.
As quoted above -- Additionally, according to Mukasey's letter, " 'waterboarding' cannot be used by the United States military because its use by the military would be a clear violation of the Detainee Treatment Act [DTA]."
So he's already said it is illegal. And since he already said it is illegal and it is already banned and hasn't been used in two years why does he need to review it? It is conspiracy theory time to think Bush, with a year left, is secretly waiting for Mukasey to be approved and then revive a controverisal technique that is already banned such as waterboarding.
I think MMFA is trying to create a controversy where there is none.
AA, the practice of waterboarding was reportedly being employed by the CIA.
While admittedly the CIA presumably works in joint operations with our military in certain instances, where exactly does Mukasey or anyone else say that waterboarding could not be used by the CIA in its interrogation of terrorists?
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured by Pakistani security forces and turned over to the CIA for interrogation.
AA, you seem to have partisan blinders on here. We do not want another attorney general who condones and allows the Bush administration to conduct interrogations that include torture. This abysmal medieval practice is clearly torture and everyone knows it. I think you are caught up in the verbage and not thinking about what this is about.
The images are not pretty and I do not want our country doing this to anyone, period.
International and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of any person in custody in all circumstances. The prohibition applies to the United States during times of peace, armed conflict, or a state of emergency. Any person, whether a U.S. national or a non-citizen, is protected. It is irrelevant whether the detainee is determined to be a prisoner-of-war, a protected person, or a so-called “security detainee” or “unlawful combatant.” And the prohibition is in effect within the territory of the United States or any place anywhere U.S. authorities have control over a person. In short, the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment is absolute
Mukasey should have no problem answering the question. "Water-boarding" if not torture is certainly "ill-treatment" which we should not do, period!
Does anyone have a problem with that? Anotheramerican
No, they really don’t. The real objective with this particular charade is to keep doing what liberals have been doing now going on 7 years…obstructing the President at every turn in the name of and in pursuit of political power with total disregard for the good and welfare of the country. The fact is they have a problem with everything Bush. This is just their latest excuse for blocking progress.
How, during the first six years of Bungle's reign, did the Democrats obstruct anything? they lacked the power to do so, in fact. Insofar as obstructing now, the Dems would be well-advised to obstruct bungle and cheney and every department head in the Federal government right into Guantanamo, to be held until The Hague can begin the hearings.
Ah, the Hate Bush Card is used early...you want to play that game, I'll raise you a Bill Clinton, 15 years of hate...and I'll withhold the Hate Hillary Card for later in the game.
Simple, waterboarding is torture..why can't this guy just say it? Anyway, if he says it, the Bush apologists will say that HE HATE BUSH.
Please allow me to amend my dictum: "Bungle, Cheney, every Department head in the Federal Government, and all those currently nominated to such positions, or positions of equal status." That way, I can cover all the Bungle Boyz currently pending before the Senate.
Bungle: G. W(aterboarding) Bush
But no, I don't hate Bungle - I may despise him, I may wish to hold him and his accomplices accountable before the law of this land, and of any other plane to which he might flee - but hate is so wasteful of energies better employed to regain control of my country from the rascal.
Bush?
I just wish he would leave.
"...obstructing the President ...with total disregard for the good and welfare of the country."
Hello, Webster? Do you need a new example for "oxymoron"?
So then turning the US into a country that TORTURES people is your idea of progress? Your stupid attack on liberals was a lie, it was ignorant and it was ludicrous. What we are doing is what WE think best for our country like NOT turning it into a country that tortures people. Bush apparantly disagrees. We want to stop him. It looks like we arent currently waterboarding anyone, does ANYONE believe if there had been no outcry about torture this wouldnt have continued? YOU are doing what Bush idolotors have been doing from day one ANYTHING that would protect your hero from ANY criticism or accountability. No matter how BAD it is for our nation because you dont CARE about our country you only care about conservatives keeping power. You only care about protecting your hero and the good of this country means nothing to you.
Well, he can't be briefed because he does not have the security clearance or need to know. But in the end, he will be confirmed, because Bush won't nominate another person knowing this is to be a litmus test. The Dems will cave and confirm him, ortherwise they will be saddled with leaving the country without a chief law enforcement officer.
The Dems will cave and confirm him, ortherwise they will be saddled with leaving the country without a chief law enforcement officer.
The country did not have a "chief law enforcement officer" during the entire time Alberto Gonzalez was around.
Can't argue with that , Pearlene.
But it's all meaningless anyway, as several conservative posters explained yesterday that waterboarding is merely "unpleasant".
Hey, where are they? Maybe sleeping on that one did some good.
Perhaps they have noticed that waterboarding was one of the techniques employed by the Nazis, for which Nuremberg was the solution. Too bad our current law eviscerates that standard.