Waterboarding is Inherently Evil. Oh, wait.

I was so excited when I read the headline: "Waterboarding: Catholic Law Professor Says Such Torture Methods are Intrinsically Evil."

Finally, I thought, someone who will oppose torture on purely moral grounds irrespective of whether it works, whether it harms us, or whether it destroys our soft power.

But as it turns out, Professor Marcy Strauss's argument is basically utilitarian, not moral. According to Catholics Online:

"The law professor detailed four reasons why torture should never be an option for any government. First, it’s forbidden by international law.. Second, it doesn’t work. Strauss feels just as strongly about the untold harm done to the nation’s image around the world by photos of abuse and torture from Abu Ghraib. Final[ly]...sanctioning torture in exceptional circumstances can’t possibly be contained and will always lead to innocent victims being tortured in non-exceptional circumstances."

So let's get this straight, torture is not inherently evil, it's only bad policy because it is bad for us. In other words, if it were OK with our allies, if it worked, if it didn't affect our reputation and if it didn't include a nasty contagion effect on innocents, no *&#^ing problem.

This is where "the debate" has been for awhile now; I can't believe her remarks constituted "news" or that a Catholic law professor couldn't come up with anything better.

Hey, Waterboarding is Perfectly Legal!

So says the White House.

Well, at least this should clear up Attorney General Mukasey's confusion on the subject.



Cleitus, I believe the real acts depicted in this fake video would fall under "strategic" violations of the laws of war by governments rather than your "operational" violations by generals or "tactical" violations by troops in the field. Eh?

One Heckuva Guy

It didn't get much coverage on the TV news, but Attorney General Michael Mukasey faced the Senate again last week and refused to acknowledge that waterboarding is torture.



For more, see this analysis by Helen Thomas in yesterday's Washington Post. She focuses on whether he admitted it was "illegal." Of course, torture can be perfectly legal if domestic laws permit it, though international law does not. Though the CIA and Pentagon have a blanket ban on the practice, according to Thomas:

"Waterboarding remains a technique in the CIA’s arsenal but that it would require the president’s consent and the attorney general’s legal approval before being administered."

No wonder Mukasey's confused. It's illegal... unless he and the President say it's not? But he's not prepared to say it's torture (unless it were done to him), so why would it be illegal?

Say WHAT???

According to the Washington Post, "Evidence from Waterboarding Could be Used in Military Trials":

"The top legal adviser for the military trials of Guantanamo Bay detainees told Congress yesterday that he cannot rule out the use of evidence derived from the CIA's aggressive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, a tactic that simulates drowning.

"Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, who oversees the prosecutors who will try the detainees at military commissions, said that while "torture" is illegal, he cannot say whether waterboarding violates the law. Nor would he say that such evidence would be barred at trial."

It was bad enough when the USG practiced waterboarding, allegedly to gain "actionable intelligence" in extreme cases, in violation of international and domestic law. But out and out claiming it is defensible as a means of gathering evidence for military trials must constitute some kind of bizarre tipping point.

What is the deal with this guy? Is he actually representing the policy of the USG or has just committed a political and legal blunder that will cost him his career? Let's hope the latter: distancing itself quickly from this argument and seeking the Hartmann's resignation would seem to be a no-brainer for the Bush Administration.

Comments on this article from the Post blog suggest such a move would have widespread support:

"This filthy sonofabitch should be drummed out of the military on his totalitarian fascist derriere. Even Republican Lindsay Graham can't stand him."

"With your support of using "evidence" obtained by torture you have smeared America, our constitution and our honor with your feces."

"God help this country. Can someone help me out with what to tell my kid about this, about what this country stands for?"

In reponse to that last, tell your kid this country stands for speaking out when your leaders predictably become corrupted by power. We as a people are not defined by the barbarism of our government's practices, so long as we actively oppose it. Let's hope the Senate Judiciary Committee remembers this.

Blowing the Whistle on Torture

Ian over at The Agonist follows Michael Froomkin in berating lawmakers who knew of water-boarding as early as 2002 for failing to raise their concerns on the floor of the House and Senate. Froomkin makes an interesting point that:

"The emerging consensus in the blogosphere seems to be that even if they had the presence of mind to object, the Representatives and Senators who were briefed were in a bind: as members of the Intelligence Committees or the leadership, they signed various secrecy pledges which stopped them from going public... All this misses a critical aspect of our constitutional structure. Thanks to the Speech and Debate Clause there was a way for any Senator or Representative who wanted to blow the whistle to do so in a way that involved no risk of jail or fines – at worst they might have lost their security clearances (and even there the law is a little murky)."

To support his argument, Froomkin excerpts Article 1 of the US Constitution which reads:

"The Senators and Representatives... shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Note, however, the exemption for acts of “treason,” defined in Article 3 of the US Constitution:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Who supposes a government who can claim water-boarding is not torture wouldn’t happily call such whistle-blowing “aiding and comforting the enemy” and thus the construct the whistleblowers as traitors?

I endorse the idea that any right-minded congressperson should have gladly gone to prison if necessary to blow the whistle on these practices. But let’s not “misunderestimate” the gravity of the personal choice they may have faced.

Why Would Jesus Not-Torture?

Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has admitted he is firmly against torture, after meeting in Des Moines with a group of human-rights-minded military personnel. He includes waterboarding in his definition, though it's unclear whether he would also include needles inserted beneath fingernails or all other "unpleasant" interrogation techniques.

Ironic, though, that the candidate some believe is “too moral” to be President would oppose torture not because it’s immoral, but because it supposedly wouldn’t work. (Hear his logic in this stream from NPR.)

“If only” torture were effective, no problem; Christian ethics per se be damned.