More Of The Same
"’It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else,’ he said. When asked about it again by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Mukasey allowed that if waterboarding were actually defined as torture, then it could not be permitted by the president.
‘If it is torture as defined by the Constitution, or defined by constitutional standards, it can't be authorized,’ Mukasey said.” NPR.org.
Well said, except, he would not say whether is was or was not torture at the hearing today on his nomination to be the Attorney General of the United States. He is retired United States District Court Judge Michael Mukasey.
OK, let’s give him the benefit of the legal doubt, he can’t be up to speed on every legal issue that he will face in the new job. Having seen confirmation hearings in the past, he’s justifiably leary of committing to one course or another, foreclosing his options. So he waffles.
“Senators also sought to pin down Mukasey about his views on executive authority. They asked when, if ever, the president should be permitted to override laws that Congress has passed. Mukasey, again, equivocated.
‘We are not dealing here with black and white,’ he said. ‘Which is why it's very important that push not come to shove, because the result could be not just divisive but disaster.'" NPR.org.
Again, a waffle, excusable? It so happens that Congress passed a law that says that waterboarding is not allowed. It is against United States law. The soon to be Attorney General doesn’t seem to see that as a big thing, just a matter of grey, not black and white. If we all don’t push, then there isn’t any shoving. Divisiveness and disaster, the end of torture, can be avoided.
There ought to be at least one lawyer with no axe to grind on each panel with the power to say "wait a minute, you’re under oath and you said something stupid, let’s engage in a bit of cross examination."
4 comments:
Boy, talk about creating a convoluted situation in my mind, you sure can do it to me, Dave! LOL
On one hand, I really hate looking at everything and saying "Well, it's either black or it's white!" End of that discussion.
But then too - and I do tend to be one who tries, often does see "Grey" in many things. But at the same time, I was also really of the "Black and White" with respect to other hearings on other appointees of the past -or other top level governmental hearings, like an impeachment process a few years back. I loathed hearing candidates up for Attorney General claim ignorance of what I see as "black and white" with respect to immigration laws, hiring of illegals, non-payment of social security, etc. I hated the hair-splitting too about whether oral sex constitutes a sexual act as well.
And yet, I wonder too if maybe a little waffling isn't in line now and again too?
I dunno-don't profess to comprehend the legal language near well enough to decide even in my own mind, definitions of words like "torture" for one. Part of me says it's like your post a while back about torture and pornography - I know it when I see it - but do I, do we, really? Maybe having someone who DOESN'T always see, doesn't always come out immediately with a black and white statement maybe deserve further consideration? Maybe a person like that would be more willing and able to call shots a little differently where a certain power player in this equation has always had "yes" people surrounding him. Just a thought - and maybe not a very comprehensive one to boot.
"We are not dealing here with black and white, which is why it's very important that push not come to shove, because the result could be not just divisive but disaster."
That doesn't sound like a waffle, that sounds like a threat. "Don't question the president, because if you do some unspecified Very Bad Thing will happen."
(And torture is a black-and-white issue; I don't trust people who say it isn't.)
Torture is not something that a lot of people have to deal with, practically speaking. In the world we live in, we might say that waiting at the doctor's office is "torture" but I don't many people in positions of power have a real concrete handle on experiencing real torture.
That's why I have suggested, somewhat facetiously, and somewhat seriously, that anyone who has to determine whether a specific act is torture or not really isn't in a position to decide until he/she has experienced that act.
On an episode of Mythbusters, they decided to "bust" the chinese water torture by subjecting themselves to it. Guess what? They initially thought it would be "no big deal" because as they imagined it, it was just water dripping on their head. They were wrong. They were visibly messed up by it -- and they knew that they had a safe word they could use to get them sprung immediately.
There ought to be at least one lawyer with no axe to grind on each panel with the power to say "wait a minute, you’re under oath and you said something stupid..."
Instead of a lawyer, I would like to nominate Lewis Black. ;o)
Post a Comment