Neo-Cons Demand Mukasey's Criminal Complicity

Chip — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:09:25 -0500

Harper's Scott Horton just dropped da turd in da tank. Seems as though a few "movement conservatives" got some "private time" with the "independently minded" Judge Mukasey. They made two offers he couldn't refuse. First, don't appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the US Attorneys scandal - that's essential to protect the Bush toadies Rove and Miers. Secondly, they wanted Mukasey's assurance that he would continue the protection of the authors of the waterboarding torture program.

Welcome, folks, to the world of Alice in Wonderland, as we peer down into the rabbit's hole, reading Senator Schumer's (ir)rationalization for endorsing Mukasey:

"...the job will not be finished until we get a strong and independent attorney general. I believe Judge Mukasey is that type of person. Should we reject him, it is almost certain that an acting, caretaker attorney general will take office without the advice and consent of the Senate. Inevitably, that would enable those in this administration, who do not believe in the rule of law, and have done things that caused even former Attorney General Ashcroft to threaten resignation, to have the complete upper hand.

Only a strong and independent attorney general can return the Justice Department to what it once was and should always be. Under this administration, that nominee will certainly never share our views on issues like torture and wiretapping.

Wake up, you're not going to get a strong and independent attorney general. You're going to get another puppet whose primary function will be to hold the damn mess together for another year, until the corporate fascists can bail out to their K Street golden parachutes. If Mukasey has an ounce of integrity and a lick of sense, he'll bolt for the door.

But the really startling admission in Schumer's statement is his defeatist handwringing: "When an administration, so political, so out of touch with the realities of governing and so contemptuous of the rule of law is in charge, we are never left with an ideal choice..." Schumer must be tone deaf to his own words to be so accepting of the administration's lawlessness.

But, sadly, it gets worse. Mukasey either is waffling (hardly the stuff needed to manage the in-disarray DOJ) or he's scamming someone. Which is it? Or, Who is it? Schumer or the neo-cons? Here's what Schumer says Mukasey promised:

The judge made clear to me that were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the president would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.

But according to Scott Horton, Mukasey also shined on the neo-cons. "Mukasey, I am told, gave vague reassurances on both points, 'without completely giving away the shop.'”

Strong and independent? Or vague and waffling? And isn't conspiring to cover up crimes - even at the highest level - also a crime? Maybe not, down in Wonderland's rabbit's hole.

Schumer Supports Torture

Bob Fertik — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:07:41 -0400

Here is Chuck Schumer's justification for supporting Mukasey:

This afternoon, I met with Judge Michael Mukasey one more time. I requested the meeting to address, in person, some of my concerns. The judge made clear to me that were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the president would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.

Congress did pass a law banning "certain interrogation techniques" - it banned all forms of torture.

What is torture? Under international law it is

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person."

Congress explicitly prohibited torture twice.

First, the Senate ratified the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) on July 6, 1955, which protects prisoners of war against torture. And those who say Al Qaeda is not covered by the Geneva Conventions are wrong. GCIII includes Common Article 3, which protects all prisoners, including "enemy combatants." According to the Center for Defense Information,

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29, 2006, decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld applied Common Article 3 to a global conflict with a non-state actor, al-Qaeda, taking place within the territory of a country that is a party to the Geneva Conventions, Afghanistan. Its implications are that Common Article 3 applies to the global conflict with terrorists anywhere on earth involving the territory of a party to the Geneva Conventions.

Second, in 1996 Congress (then led by Republicans Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott) enacted the War Crimes Act of 1996, which defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions," specifically including torture.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling, Congress adopted the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to remove habeas corpus protection from "alien unlawful enemy combatants." It also amended the War Crimes Act of 1996

so that only actions specificly defined as "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 could be the basis for a prosecution, and it made that definition retroactive to November 26, 1997. The specific actions defined in section 6 of the Military Commissions Act include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages.

So despite MCA, torture is still a crime, and the definition of torture has never been changed so it still covers "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person."

And does this include waterboarding? Here's a description by Malcolm Nance, who trains American soldiers how to resist waterboarding.

“Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. When done right, it is controlled death. When performed with even moderate intensity over an extended time on an unsuspecting prisoner – it is torture, without doubt. Most people cannot stand to watch a high-intensity, kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American."

If Chuck Schumer doesn't think waterboarding is covered under current law, he needs to resign from the Senate immediately.