Mobilise this Blog

Become a Fan on Facebook

Contributors

July 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Newsvine Top News

HBX


IceRocket

« Quid Pro Quo? | Main | Imitation Is the Sincerest Form... »

October 24, 2007

Senate to Mukasey: Clarify Position on Waterboarding

After last week's confirmation hearings left more than one senator uneasy with Michael Mukasey's stance on torture methods, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday sent the attorney general nominee a follow-up letter with a simple question:

"Is the use of waterboarding, or inducing the misperception of drowning, as an interrogation technique illegal under U.S. Law, including treaty obligations?"

Last Thursday, a day after he disavowed an infamous 2002 torture memo and charmed most senators with his answers, Mukasey backtracked and couldn't bring himself to categorically denounce waterboarding as a form of torture.

Earlier this month, The New York Times disclosed the Department of Justice issued two memos in early 2005 -- mere months after it had rescinded the 2002 memo -- sanctioning questionable interrogation practices by CIA officers, including waterboarding.

This is last Thursday's exchange that led to yesterday's letter:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.): Just to finish that thought: So is waterboarding constitutional?
Mukasey: I don't know what's involved in the technique. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.
Whitehouse: If water-boarding is constitutional is a massive hedge.
Mukasey: No, I said, if it's torture. I'm sorry. I said, if it's torture.
Whitehouse: If it's torture? That's a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn't. Do you have an opinion on whether waterboarding, which is the practice of putting somebody in a reclining position, strapping them down, putting cloth over their faces and pouring water over the cloth to simulate the feeling of drowning -- is that constitutional?
Mukasey: If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.
Whitehouse: I'm very disappointed in that answer. I think it is purely semantic.

The Judiciary Committee's letter, signed only by all ten Democratic members of the judicary committee, further states:

"We are deeply troubled by your refusal to state unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal...We want to give you an opportunity to clarify your views on this important question.

"It is surprising that you are unfamiliar with waterboarding since it has been the subject of much public discussion in recent years."

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e200e54efddb618833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Senate to Mukasey: Clarify Position on Waterboarding:

Comments

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Advertisements



Featured Job Listings

  • lawjobs.com

    TOP JOBS

Law.com Newswire

  • An Affiliate of the Law.com Network
    From the Law.com Newswire

    Sign up to receive Legal Blog Watch by email
    View a Sample

Legal Times on Flickr

Blog powered by TypePad

My Yahoo!

  • Add to My Yahoo!