Some Help for Michael Mukasey [View All]

Look. Here's the definition of torture, the noun, from the Oxford English Dictionary online:

1. The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion; spec. judicial torture, inflicted by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority, for the purpose of forcing an accused or suspected person to confess, or an unwilling witness to give evidence or information; a form of this (often in pl.). to put to (the) torture, to inflict torture upon, to torture

2. Severe or excruciating pain or suffering (of body or mind); anguish, agony, torment; the infliction of such.

3. transf. and fig. with various allusions: Severe pressure; violent perversion or ‘wresting’; violent action or operation; severe testing or examination.

4. attrib. and Comb., as torture-chamber, -house, -monger, -rack, -room, -wheel; torture-scored adj.

Is waterboarding torture? Let's see, it involves the infliction of severe or excruciating pain or suffering of body and mind (2) on an accused terrorist and/or unwilling informant for the purpose of extracting a confession or information (1), so I guess according to most of the English-speaking world, the answer would be YES.

Well, OK, nobody ever claimed the OED was the ultimate arbiter in matters of law. I wonder how torture has been defined by international law?

Oh, look, The Google has found me Amnesty International's answer to that very question:

Torture is defined in the UN Convention against Torture as the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering for purposes such as obtaining information or a confession, or punishing, intimidating or coercing someone.

So, this is pretty much the same as the first two definitions given in the OED. According to the UN, is waterboarding torture? Would seem like the answer to that question is YES.

In fact, the only definition of torture that's been recently circulated that would not obviously include waterboarding is that concocted by the outgoing and thoroughly disgraced attorney general whose mess Mukasey is supposed to clear up. You can read all about Gonzales's attempts to rewrite not only the definition of torture but the U.S. Constitution here. Here's how, in a memo which was written for the specific purpose of bringing waterboarding and other techniques within legal limits, Gonzales defined torture:

We conclude that for an act to constitute torture...it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure.

Hey--wait a minute! That's the same definition as--oh, wait, he goes on:

Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.

Okay.

This is an obviously tendentious definition formulated for the specific purpose of allowing the U.S. government and its operatives to torture captives and informants. It's been attacked as morally bankrupt, legally absurd, and intellectually unforgivable by just about everyone other than Bush and his Coalition of the Batshit Crazy. AND YET, what does it actually say? That torture must be "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury"...or "even death."

What's waterboarding? Well, you strap someone down and pour water into them until for all intents and purposes they are experiencing drowning, which as anyone can tell you is one form of DEATH. So even by Gonzales's OWN BULLSHIT DEFINITION, the answer to the question "Is waterboarding torture?" would appear to be YES.

So why would Mukasey not give that answer?

It's obvious to me: he's afraid that if he does unequivocably state that waterboarding is torture during his confirmation hearings, then during his term as AG he will be put in a position where either he will have to prosecute Bush and his minions for torture, or he will be arraigned for perjury for trying to argue that in fact, waterboarding is not torture, despite the fact that he testified under oath that it was.

To me, the most depressing thing about this whole escapade is Schumer's explanation for his support of Mukasey, given in a New York Times article from November 1 entitled "Schumer In A Tough Spot After Supporting Mukasey":

“No nominee from this administration will agree with us on things like torture and wiretapping,” Mr. Schumer continued. “The best we can expect is somebody who will depoliticize the Justice Department and put rule of law first, even when pressured by some of the administration. If Mukasey is that type of person, I’ll support him.”

Why is that depressing? Because he's right. And that sucks.

I'm not saying he's right to support Mukasey's confirmation. I'm just saying he's absolutely right about what exactly is the "best we can expect" from Bush's Rolodex at this point. Not only would Bush never willingly nominate a decent attorney general, he probably doesn't even know anyone who would make one. Reject Mukasey and you'll get some other nominee who also dances around the issue of what is and isn't torture and what is and isn't unconstitutional surveillance. Reject him, and you get another one, and so on and so on until Bush is finally out of office.

God. Someday Bush will in fact be out of office. Just imagine how wonderful that will be.

:argh:

The Plaid Adder