Click here to support CAE
   
 
16beavergroup.org ARTicles 16beavergroup.org About Mondays ARTicles Journalisms Events


Rene -- US JUSTICE CHIEF REFUSES TO CALL WATERBOARDING TORTURE -- 02.02.08

Printer-friendly verion

US JUSTICE CHIEF REFUSES TO CALL WATERBOARDING TORTURE
by Paul Handley

Agence France Presse
January 30, 2008

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused
Wednesday to define waterboarding as illegal torture, even while
admitting that if he underwent the interrogation technique that he
would "feel" it is torture.

Fending off pressure in a Senate Justice Committee hearing to
categorically call waterboarding, which simulates drowning, as torture
under US law, the top US legal official suggested that under certain
conditions it could be legal, and said that learned people could
disagree on the issue.

"I don't think it would be appropriate for me to pass definitive
judgement on the technique's legality," he said.

"There are some circumstances where current law would appear clearly
to prohibit waterboarding's use. Other circumstances would present
a far closer question."

In his first testimony to the committee since becoming attorney general
on November 9, Mukasey said that torture is illegal under US statutes,
but that waterboarding is not definitively covered by those statutes.

"There is a statute which says it is a relative issue," Mukasey said
to questioning by Senator Joe Biden.

He also said that the Central Intelligence Agency does not now use
waterboarding and that the technique is "currently" not approved for
its interrogation program.

However, he declined to say whether it had been used in the past.

"I am not authorized to talk about what the CIA has done in the past,"
he told the Senate panel.

Senators were adamant that it is torture, with committee head Patrick
Leahy insisting that waterboarding "has been recognized as torture
for the last 500 years."

"Would waterboarding be torture if it was done to you?" Senator Ted
Kennedy asked Mukasey.

"I would feel it was," Mukasey said, while insisting that that does
not constitute a legal opinion.

"It's like saying you are opposed to stealing but aren't sure if bank
robbery would qualify," Kennedy said.

The hearing renewed pressure on the administration of President George
W. Bush to categorically ban waterboarding and other interrogation
techniques as torture.

As Mukasey testified, seven women sat in the audience wearing orange
jumpsuits and black hoods resembling those of the US war on terror
prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and waved signs saying "I will not
be silent" and "No torture."

Leahy said that the CIA has used the technique in the recent past,
an assertion implicitly confirmed by Deputy Secretary of State John
Negroponte, who was the US spy chief from 2005 to 2007, in a National
Journal interview Monday.

"We've taken steps to address the issue of interrogations, for
instance, and waterboarding has not been used in years," Negroponte
told the magazine.

Mukasey insisted that, based on briefings he has received since he
became attorney general, that the CIA at the moment is not authorized
to use the method in its interrogations.

But he said he would not make a categorical statement on it because he
did not want to signal to US enemies what they would face in US hands.

"Any answer that I could give could have the effect of articulating
publicly and to our adversaries the limits and the contours of
generally worded laws that define the limits of a highly classified
interrogation program," he said.

The issue was central to the committee's hearings late last year on
Mukasey's nomination to head the Justice Department.

At the time he declined to answer questions on it, saying he had
not been briefed on CIA practices or the Bush administration's legal
reasonings.






Email this article to a friend:
Friend's email (required):
*Separate multiple emails with commas.



Your email address (required):



Message (optional):



 
Post or contact
Subscribe

Search
Archives
April 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003


Recent
Slavoj Zizek: “Neoliberalism is in Crisis”

Rene -- A revolution against neoliberalism?

Independent -- The US bank and the secret plan to destroy WikiLeaks

Counterpunch -- The Libyan Labyrinth

Rene -- In search of an African revolution

Democracy Now -- Chomsky -- “Democracy Uprising” in the U.S.A.?

Counterpunch -- How Democracy Could be Hijacked

LRB -- After Egypt

Dan -- Nettime -- Wisconsin report

Nettime -- Decentralizing the Internet So Big Brother Can’t Find You