Thanks to Brad Olson:
Opening quote in Kurlansky’s Nonviolence:
“To kill one man is to be guilty of a capital crime, to kill ten
men is to increase the guilt ten-fold, to kill a hundred men is
to increase it a hundred-fold. This the rulers of the earth all
recognize and yet when it comes to the greatest crime—waging
war on another state—they praise it!
It is clear they do not know it is wrong, for they record
such deeds to be handed down to posterity; if they knew they
were wrong, why should they wish to record them and have
them handed down to posterity?
If a man on seeing a little black were to say it is black, but
on seeing a lot of black were to say it were white, it would be
clear that such a man could not distinguish between black and white.
Or if he were to taste a few bitter things were to pronounce
them sweet, clearly he would be incapable of distinguishing
between sweetness and bitterness. So those who recognize a
small crime as such, but do not recognize the wickedness of the
greatest crime of all—the waging of war on another state–but
actually praise it—cannot distinguish between right and wrong.
So as to right or wrong, the rulers of the world are in confusion.”
–Mozi, China, circa 470-391 B.C.
October 18th, 2007
Yesterday I, and a lot of others, wondered if AG nominee was really against torture. Today we get a clear answer: No. When asked if waterboarding was torture, he replied that he didn’t know. As TPM reports:
Mukasey has firmly established that he’s against torture — yesterday he even compared it to the Holocaust (see also here).
But what exactly does that mean? Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked Mukasey if he thought waterboarding was Constitutional. “If waterboarding is torture… torture is not Constitutional,” he replied.
Whitehouse wasn’t satisfied. “That is a massive hedge…. It either is or it isn’t.” Doesn’t Mukasey have an opinion on whether waterboarding is torture? He went on to describe the technique, which involves using a wet rag to make the detainee feel like he’s drowning. Mukasey replied with the same answer: “If it amounts to torture, then it is not Constitutional.”
I’m very disappointed,” Whitehouse said, adding that Mukasey’s reply had been “purely semantic.”
“Sorry,” replied Mukasey.
If waterboarding isn’t well beyond the pale, then all the rest of the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” will be judged to be not torture, and, thus legal.
From a legal angle, the talk of “torture” is a softball, allowing these guys to get off easy. The legal threshold for “torture” is fairly high. But many techniques about which controversy exists as to whether they are torture clearly fall within the legally proscribed category of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment”, banned by UN Convention, or those “outrages upon personal dignity” banned by the Geneva Conventions Common Article Three.
A vote for this guy will be, like a vote for Gonzales, a vote for someone dedicated to using word parsing to protect Bush’s regime of abuse. Shame on Congress for even considering it. It’s not surprising Congress’ approval is at 11%.
October 18th, 2007