If the Bush Administration wants to turn torture into a litmus test, so must Congress.

[kpete]

If the Bush Administration wants to turn torture into a litmus test, so must Congress.

The Torture Litmus Test
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED November 2, 2007


When is waterboarding not torture? When it interferes with Dick Cheney’s and David Addington’s retirement plans.

Friday, November 02, 2007
Marty Lederman
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/11/washington-post-jumps-shark.html

Has it really come to this? Can one of the nation's leading newspapers actually decide to publish the words that
it's about time "the Senate" finally "ban torture" -- something it has thus far "declined to do"?

The Washington Post today, straining to demonstrate Solomonic wisdom, urges Senators to do two things simultaneously:
They should confirm Judge Mukasey and, at the same time, ban torture.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/01/AR2007110102306.html
....................
Just in case the Washington Post has forgotten about yet another legal text,it's worth reminding Fred Hiatt that although the Senate's vote to confirm Judge Mukasey would effectively make him the Attorney General, the Senate does not have the power to "pass" the Biden bill. That would require President Bush's signature, as well (or supermajority votes of both chambers) -- and President Bush won't sign such a bill, precisely because he wants to be able to keep violating the longstanding legal prohibitions on torture and cruel treatment.

...............

The Bush Admininstration will not nominate anyone to be Attorney General who will state publicly that what the Administration did was illegal or dishonorable. That means that the only persons who can be nominated are those who are willing to be complicit in its illegality and dishonor. For if the nominee admitted that the Administration had repeatedly misled the American people about the legality of its actions, he would not be welcome in the Bush Administration.

The real reason why Judge Mukasey cannot say that waterboarding is illegal is that Administration officials have repeatedly insisted that they do not torture, and that they have acted both legally and honorably. If Judge Mukasey said that waterboarding is illegal, it would require the Bush Administration to admit that it repeatedly lied to the American people and brought shame and dishonor on the United States of America. If Judge Mukasey were to say waterboarding is illegal and not just “a dunk in the water” in Vice President Cheney’s terminology, he would have announced that, as incoming Attorney General, he is entering an Administration of liars and torturers.

If you’re prepared to hedge on whether waterboarding is torture, then you might be counted upon to do anything. Indeed, there is no question about it. Waterboarding is torture and has been understood to be torture in a formal sense for over a hundred years. Soldiers who used it were court-martialed, and the attempted defense of military necessity was smacked down by the Army’s Judge Advocate General in 1903. There is no shortage of other precedent. This is why Mukasey’s dodge on the issue—first a very primitive dodge, and then a more sophisticated one—is so troubling.

If the Bush Administration wants to turn torture into a litmus test, so must Congress. The question therefore ultimately becomes one of principle and not personality. The Judiciary Committee should not accept any nominee who fails to provide meaningful assurance on this issue. And, though it saddens me to say this, Michael Mukasey has not.

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001567

[spanone]

1. AGREED

[OHdem10]

2. It will be fun to see who votes for WB and who votes against

it.

[Solly Mack]

3. Just how many times does the US have to ban torture before

people who implement a torture policy are held accountable?

Torture was already illegal..both by federal and international law... when Bush took office. Torture is still illegal...effectively banning it.