It has been almost 2 weeks ago when Michael Mukasey was testifying in the Senate and Senator Whitehouse asked him a direct question. Is Waterboarding (simulated drowning) torture? He couldn’t or wouldn’t directly answer the question. I wrote that he should be rejected right then. There was nothing else that needed to be considered. So, we have gotten bogged down in the exact definition of waterboarding. I heard on the Diane Rehm show some legal expert split the finest of hairs. He said something like if water actually gets into the lungs then that’s torture. If it doesn’t then it isn’t. What? How could anyone possibly say that simulated drowning isn’t torture (besides mind-numbing neocons)?
Several blogs discuss waterboarding and this horrors – here and here. Malcolm Nance, a 20 year veteran of counter- intelligence, has written this great article on waterboarding.
I’ll link to an earlier video in which waterboarding is demonstrated.
Democratic support for attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey dwindled further yesterday over his refusal to comment on the legality of a harsh CIA interrogation technique, setting the stage for an unexpectedly close vote next week by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) announced that they will join Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) in voting against Mukasey on the Judiciary panel, after the nominee said in a four-page letter to Senate Democrats that he does not know whether a type of simulated drowning called waterboarding constitutes illegal torture under U.S. law. (more…)
The Rule of Law vs the Rule of Men The People’s legal expert is the Attorney General. It is essential that such person be totally committed to the Rule of Law, where law trumps the Rule of Man.
The Law of the United States, UN and Geneva Convention is clear that water-boarding is an illegal activity commonly called torture.
An Attorney General who refuses to declare established law in order to prevent or obstruct the potential prosecution of those in the Administration who have knowing and openly broken the law is clearly not committed to the Rule of Law.
Even those uneducated in the Law inherently understand that selective and preferential unenforcement of critical law is corrupt.
The disturbing fact is that nearly 50% of our elected officials, the majority of whom are attorneys) prefer the Rule of Man to the Rule of Law. That fact clearly indicates a pervasive corruption that is traitorous to the principles for which this Republic stands.
Behold the greatest risks to the People’s rights and freedoms are traitors from within, not external terrorists.
I like that analogy.
Thanks for your comments.