Saturday, November 3, 2007

Nutshell Issue - The United State's Next Attorney General

What's Going On
The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a Tuesday vote for the president's choice to be America's next Attorney General, retired federal judge Michael Mukasey.

The Issue
Mukasey's stance on torture. Some Democrats on the Judiciary committee say they will vote against Mukasey because of concern about his testimony regarding an interrogation technique that could be considered torture.

Some History
In 1984 the Convention Against Torture was created in order to set a global precident for the treatment of other human beings during a time of conflict. Their opening statement is as follows:
"Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms..."

135 Nations, including The United States, have ratified this precident. At the convention they have defined torture as "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

These words... these statments were supposed to mean something when they were put forth. At the time, they were to help guide us during harsh times of war when we tend to forget such ideals.
Back to the Attorney General.

Alberto Gonzales was appointed to the post as Attorney General in February 2005 by President George W. Bush. Under Gonzales's leadership, the Justice Department and the FBI have been accused of improperly, and illegally, using the USA PATRIOT Act to uncover personal information about U.S. citizens.

Gonzales' inability to explain his role and influence in the dismissal of seven U.S. attorneys led several members of the United States Congress from both major political parties to call for his resignation. Through his testimony before Congress on issues ranging from the Patriot Act to U.S. Attorney firings, Gonzales commonly admitted ignorance.

For example, in response to a Washington Post article which stated that Gonzales was told about FBI violations involving the Patriot Act, Justice officials "could not immediately determine whether Gonzales read any of the FBI reports in 2005 and 2006"

On August 27, 2007 Gonzales announced his resignation as Attorney General, effective September 17, 2007.


Which leads us to the next Attorney General appointed by George W. Bush, Michael Mukasey. On September 16, 2007, various publications reported that Mukasey accepted Bush's offer to replace Alberto Gonzales as the Attorney General.


As of November 1, 2007 five senators –

  • Christopher Dodd of Connecticut,
  • Joseph Biden of Delaware,
  • John Kerry of Massachusetts,
  • Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts
  • and Bernie Sanders of Vermont

had all announced their intention to vote against Mukasey's confirmation due to concerns about his stance on torture. Mukasey's confirmation as attorney general next week will apparently hinge on his refusal to state that water-boarding (drowning torture) is indeed torture.

The Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Michael Mukasey's nomination is scheduled for Tuesday, November 6, 2007. The announcement came a day after Mukasey replied via letter to the committee, to questions and requests for clarification.

Leahy and the other nine Democratic committee members had indicated the week before, via letter, to Mukasey that they were "deeply troubled by your refusal to state unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal during your confirmation hearing..."

By holding an unusual Oval Office meeting with journalists on November 1, 2007, President Bush signaled his concern that the nomination which was previously judged to be a sure bet, is in peril, primarily over what is and is not considered illegal torture.

Mukasey has refused to state an unequivocal legal position on the interrogation technique known as waterboarding

There are several concerns on multiple levels, the first and foremost being why does Mukasey not admit that waterboarding is torture? A follow up question would be why do so many people think it's acceptable for Americans to conduct torture when the history of our own country has shown that it is a deplorable act that the American people and historical American governments have defined as being unacceptable.

The CIA claims that they do not utilize torture, yet they still conduct water-boarding in the pursuit of their own goals. Yet, Senator John McCain, himself a torture victim during the Vietnam War, states that water-boarding is a "very exquisite torture" that should be outlawed.

Counterterrorism consultant Malcolm Nance trains soldiers on water-boarding so that they will know what to expect if they are ever captured. Nance states that water-boarding is indeed torture and goes against everything that the United States stands for.

... yet sycophants continue to parrot that it is ok to torture.

Yet what of our own Constitution? What of the Geneva Convention? What of the 1984 Convention Against Torture that the US has signed on board with?

Are ideals and morals something to be shelved when it is too inconvenient to grapple with as our cognitive dissonance prevails? Do we set these same values next to our coffee, to be pulled down and presented as virtues that we hold sacred only when we are pointing the fingers at others that are in the way of our economic growth?

How hard is it for us as Americans to walk the moral talk?



No comments: