More

Jon Soltz

Jon Soltz

Posted: October 31, 2007 03:58 PM

Waterboarding: Call It What It Is, Mukasey


It seems somewhat hyperbole to say it, but some cloth and water should derail the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General.

Cloth and water are the two tools needed to perform waterboarding - the technique where an interrogee is tied down, and water is poured over cloth or cellophane over his face, to recreate the feeling of drowning. Some call it an "enhanced interrogation technique." What it is, though, is torture. Not only is it not proven to get any usable intelligence, but, more importantly, it puts our troops in danger.

Though the description of it sounds innocuous enough, there is no doubt that the technique meets all the definitions of torture under the Geneva Conventions, which provide the guideline under which our troops must operate. It is, without question, not as nice as it sounds.

In his confirmation hearing, and in a subsequent letter to the Judiciary Committee, Mukasey refused to say whether he considered the technique torture, and Constitutional.

As a veteran of Iraq who represents other Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, I can't speak to Constitutional issues. However, I can and must speak to the notion of having yet another Attorney General who advises the President that torture is not torture.

Among the greatest travesties of the tenure of Alberto Gonzalez at the White House and Justice Department was his steadfast belief that many different forms of torture were not forms of torture. His rationale went way beyond domestic Constitutional issues, and extended to the field in Iraq, where his rationale was the basis by some for the green-lighting of the use of torture against detainees.

This has terrible ramifications for our troops in harm's way.

First, the dismissal of the Geneva Conventions hurts our ability to win hearts and minds. Yes, this is proving terribly difficult, anyway, as the occupation of Iraq drags on. But there are still many Iraqis who are open to being allies of the U.S. But, when they hear that we use torture techniques, we lose credibility with them as a force that is trying to make things better. In fact, all it does is conjure up thoughts and feelings associated with Saddam Hussein, for them. That's a tragedy, because America, at its core, and our troops, represent everything the polar opposite that Saddam represented. But, it's hard to show that when Iraqis know that we employ the use of torture. The use of torture only fosters feelings of ill-will against Americans, feeds the insurgency, and leads to our troops being more heavily targeted.

Secondly, for thousands of years, the mentality of the region has been an eye for an eye. If we torture, it gives our enemies all the reason they feel they need to torture any of our troops who are captured.

This is far from a partisan issue. Democrats were joined by Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner, among others, in repudiating the use of torture. McCain and Graham, again, are voicing their concern over Mukasey's refusal to call waterboarding what it is.

America has to operate on a higher moral plane than our enemies. It, quite literally, is directly related to the safety and lives of our troops. If Mukasey will not make it abundantly clear that waterboarding and other techniques like it are torture, for our troops' sake, he must not be confirmed as Attorney General.

Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz

 
 
  • Comments
  • 118
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
11:05 AM on 11/02/2007
Jon, I applaud you and anyone else who speaks against the injustices of Busco. However, your blog in its use of the word "detainee" irks me to no end. Bush and his cronies declared an unequivocal war on terrorism. Therefore, anyone captured under these auspices should be designated a prisoner of war. Thir use of th word "detainee"
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wilson33
10:14 AM on 11/02/2007
All of you liberals that are so against waterboarding, and you think that you have all of your leadership with you, just go and listen to the John Ashcroft confirmation and LISTEN to what CHUCK SHUMER has to say about torture.

Please, please, please do this because he said that he is for torture when American lives are in danger and he also said that he believes that most, if not ALL of the Dems in the Senate and the House are for it too.

This is all just political posturing by the Dems since just as little as 3 years ago, CHUCKY was ALL for WATERBOARDING and yes, he said it, TORTURE.
03:55 PM on 11/01/2007
IT'S TORTURE - PERIOD. We've prosecuted it as a war crime, signed international agreements that expressly prohibit it, without exception for "war" or "emergencies." The U.S. State Department called it torture in 2005 when Tunisia did it. In 2006 the Army Field Manual prohibited its use by U.S. military personnel - what more do you need? (Just check Wikipedia under waterboarding - it's all right there)

But Mukasey can't offer an opinion on this??
Bush is totally clueless on this as well apparently.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NABNYC
01:53 PM on 11/01/2007
Who came up with the idea that the U.S. should torture Muslims? Because that is what we're discussing. Let's just be honest about what's being discussed.

We're not torturing Germans, or the English. We're not torturing the Irish, although the English did. We're torturing Muslims. And we're engaged in a truly bizarre national "debate" about whether we should continue to torture Muslims.

Can you imagine a national debate about whether we should, for example, rape women? That's a form of torture, remember. Would any civilized country have that debate? Nazi Germany would. But the United States, land of the free, home of the brave?

If it's okay to waterboard male Muslims, then why isn't it okay to rape female Muslims, as a form of torture? Or how about rape the male Muslims? Should we do that? Is it Constitutional? Can the President do it on his own? Or does he need Congress to approve it? Call Lieberman, Kyl and Clinton, maybe they'll vote for it.

Should we torture Muslims? The first time I read an article supporting torture was after 9/11, when an article by a national figure posited the "what if it's the only way to stop nuclear war" theory of why it's okay to torture Muslims. Then I believe it was a neocon fascist legal scholar who came up with the theory that it's entirely consistent with U.S. law for us to torture Muslims.

Didn't the Catholic church decide this a long time ago? That it was okay to torture Muslims?

Should we have a constitutional amendment saying that it's okay to torture Muslims? If it was legal, if the Supreme Court said it "passes muster" to torture Muslims, does that mean it's okay? Is there any person in national leadership in the U.S. anymore who has any decency whatsoever?

Good discussions on this subject at Swimming Freestyle.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
01:27 PM on 11/01/2007
Whoever votes to confirm Mukasey is explicitly pro-torture.
01:21 PM on 11/01/2007
Most of the GOP-reich still standing and shouting never had any morals to begin with. They are lower forms of creatures than the human beings who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and The Constitution of the united states.

It seems that the XtianRiech are really just fascists, the Christian Mafia. And by the way, the Supremes are fascist, too. At least the ones who stole Gore's presidency, and our rightful president in Kerry. They stopped the vote count, for God's sake people, and people did not riot in the streets.
12:36 PM on 11/01/2007
Civilized people, moral people and good people all recognize that torture is unacceptable, including waterboarding. Al-qaeda and other terrorists groups are perceived worldwide as butchers and barbarians. Now that same world sees the USA as one and the same as al_qaeda b/c we have lost our way. Torturing does NOT I repeat NOT gain any usable intell from the enemy and therefore had been previously rejected by the Geneva Convention and the USA who sign on, on several grounds. If the US is to remain a civilized democratic nation, and that is in much doubt at the moment, we cannot stoop to barbarianism.

Waterboarding puts our troops in further danger of all kinds of barbarianism like beheadings, etc. We need not become them to defeat them.
Impeach, indict and convict Bush and Cheney for war crimes.
11:25 AM on 11/01/2007
The “ticking bomb scenario” represents a narrow exception to what should otherwise be our categorical prohibition against torture. After all, “in the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans,” it might be necessary for a president to make “the decision to depart from standard international practices[.]” The president, of course, “must be held accountable” for such a decision; but the president would have to be prepared to make it in such dire circumstances."- Hillary Clinton-Oct 2006...You loony lefty Liberals and your Hypocrisy... You have no shot with this bitch running for President...WWRD
11:10 AM on 11/01/2007
Why is it that for the 200 plus years of our country's history the country has never endorsed torture or even quibbled about its definition? Was there torture? Oh yes but was it ever endorsed as national policy or redefined as "enhanced interrogation technique"? No. British troops burning the capitol, Civil war rampant across the land, Facsism threatening our very existance as a country and the cold war threatening the world's very existance did not cause this country to endorse "enhanced interrogation technique". Jon is correct this regime has dragged the shinning city on the hill down and thrown it into the mud and harmed our military while doing it.
photo
elkabong
Campaign finance is the disease.
10:39 AM on 11/01/2007
If Mukasey were to call waterboarding torture, he'd be responsible for prosecuting the people who hired him.
09:33 AM on 11/01/2007
the u.s. constitution is worthless if it's tenets are not enforced. the fact is that lawyers and judges are sell out whores en mass. many have come forth to profit from the bush fascist bullshit while none have come forth to vehemently protest. same thing happened in germany in the '30's.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Praedor
09:28 AM on 11/01/2007
It is what it is: torture. For those that put forth a "defense" of Mukasey because he is in a "delicate position" such that if he declares it torture, then a bunch of people are in danger of prosecution for war crimes, I call bullshit. Of COURSE they are in danger of being prosecuted for war crimes because they have committed war crimes! It is not acceptable as a defense to say that he can't declare torture torture because that will place many, including Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, etc, in danger of being prosecuted. If they approved of torture being used, then they SHOULD be prosecuted for it.

It really is as simple as "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". Hell, prosecuting the lot would go a LONG ways to restoring the standing and honor of the USA again in world opinion. Letting them skate away free and clear simply puts us in the same category as any and all other criminal and monstrous regimes around the world that do not fall under the Rule of Law.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
DRaymond
Network administrator, voiceovers
01:31 AM on 11/01/2007
The problem we run into is that if the administration admits that waterboarding is torture then whoever authorized it is guilty of a war crime. That's why Mukasey has to wiggle and squirm around a simple statement of fact.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CAPTAINSKIPPY
11:44 PM on 10/31/2007
Judging by Mukasey's tortured answers, appearing before the judidicary committee must qualify as torture. How is it that Bush neocons struggle mightily with such issues as definition of torture, or the Chimperor's character in light of his signing statements? Will it be necessary for Mukasey to experience waterboarding to know objectively whether it is an "edge" sport, rather than torture?
11:07 PM on 10/31/2007
I don't think something less harmful than what most fraternities are doing to their pledges in this country can be considered "torture."

ESPECIALLY if it protects America and innocents GLOBALLY from terrorism.

If pouring water on someone's face will keep me from jumping over dead secretaries after running out of my office as I did on 9.11, hand me the spout.

I remain, Semper Fidelis,

CPL FINELLI, USMC, inactive (sole WTC 9.11 Survivor to enlist in the Marines and fight in Iraq).