Exactly What is the Argument in the Trib Editorial
The confirmation of Michael Mukasey as the next U.S. attorney general is in trouble. Some Democratic leaders are threatening to kill the nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee next week unless Mukasey explicitly declares that a harsh interrogation technique known as waterboarding is illegal.
He won’t do that. And he shouldn’t.
Mukasey’s stand has nothing to do with whether he favors the technique, which gives prisoners the sensation of drowning. He doesn’t. He has said he’s personally against it, that it is “repugnant” and “over the line.”
But he won’t say it is illegal. And there’s at least one important reason: Such a declaration could open the potential for criminal prosecution or lawsuits against CIA officers who used the harsh interrogation practice. It could also endanger their bosses and anyone else who authorized the practice.
Why, yes, it could open up for prosecution people who waterboarded others. Here’s a hint why it matters, the Attorney General is supposed to enforce the law.
It gets better
A vote for Mukasey is not a vote to defend waterboarding. The technique is illegal under the 2005 anti-torture amendment promoted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). That law prohibited “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment of prisoners — including waterboarding, as McCain and others reiterated in a letter sent to Mukasey this week.
So now, the Trib has completely undercut its argument because if it is clearly illegal, then why won’t Mukasey say it is?
It isn’t a dangerous liability if people broke the law to say that they broke the law. It is the rule of law.
November 6th, 2007 at
ummmm…if CIA agents and their bosses were, you know, BREAKING THE LAW, shouldn’t they be prosecuted for, you know, BREAKING THE LAW?
How stoopid is the Tribune? By agreeing that an illegal practice is illegal, it may open law breakers to prosecution for breaking the law? And that’s…bad?!
WTF?!
I mean, next thing you know, somebody’s going to ask Mr. Mukasey if he thinks that insider trading is illegal, and that may open insider traders to prosecution for breaking the law. Is that a bad thing tribune?
If Mukasey says that murder is illegal, and that opens murderers up for prosecution, is that a bad thing?
Since when is it a bad thing for law breakers to be prosecuted for such law breaking?
November 6th, 2007 at
If this torture method is so blatantly illegal, why is Congress considering a new law to explicitly outlaw it. It’s already illegal. Is there any reason to believe that Mukasey would prosecute lawbreakers under the new law when he won’t prosecute them under the old one?