Scalia: Torture is not a "punishment"

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 18:55:36 PM MST

Scalia was on 60 Minutes last night. Torture came up:

STAHL: If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person - if you listen to the expression "cruel and unusual punishment," doesn't that apply?

SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think - Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.

STAHL: Well I think if you're in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody-

SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

Torture? Not a "punishment"? That's the lamest use of semantics I've heard, and seemingly oblivious to the Constitution's demand for due process.

(Remember, it was Scalia who said, in a recent decision on lethal injection, that he'd "reject all challenges to an execution method unless it was 'deliberately designed to inflict pain.'" Does that change if the prisoner is to be kept alive?)

In essence, Scalia is here saying that any action taken by the executive that serves a utilitarian purpose for national security is legal. Sound familiar? That's the same line that the administration - specifically, John Yoo - takes.

And that line of legal thought is nowhere to be found in any of the Constitutional framers' intent. In fact, what bleeds through in the documents, writings, and thoughts of the framers is an inherent distrust of the executive, and the desire to give most of the power of our republic into the hands of the legislature, with certain defined checks against its power. Not to put unlimited power into the hands of a single official.

So much for "originalism." But then it often seems to be something other than the constitution that matters to Scalia, doesn't it?

Terror policies are for you, not al Qaeda

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:54:50 AM MST

In a world where some no longer believe that we can distinguish between simple right and wrong, we need your message to reject this "dictatorship of relativism," and embrace a culture of justice and truth.

Froomkin:

Yet some of Bush's most defining decisions -- such as launching a war of choice against Iraq and his picking and choosing which laws actually apply to him -- suggest a highly subjective sense of right and wrong. Most notably, he defends the use of interrogation tactics that violate human dignity by arguing that the ends justify the means.

Also consider Bush's attack on "moral relativism" in the context of the recent GAO report, which found that the Bush administration has no plan to eliminate al Qaeda as a threat to national security.

Think about that for a moment.

Think of all the sacrifices the Bush administration has asked us to make for the sake of national security - increased security screening and video surveillance in public places, the Patriot Act, Real ID, suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, online surveillance, and torture, to name a few - without it actually planning to address the threat of the one terrorist group that did breach our security and harm Americans.

Reminds me of what Jon Tester said back in the last election about the administration's policies, that they punish Americans first. Now it's evident that we're the only ones punished by the administration's "national security" policies. You can't even argue that the curtailing of our liberties fit in a larger context to battle terrorism.

And how does that all show that President Bush - or any one of his simpering GOP yes-men - knows right from wrong?

If I were an advocate of Bush's "anti-terror" policies, I'd be pretty embarrassed right now.

Bush knew, approved of torture

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:58:40 AM MST

President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.

"Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people." Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."

In a bold move, the one presidential candidate who actually has been tortured spoke out against using torture -- on Americans. I guess if you believe that foreigners are some kind of weird subhuman, that works. Oh, and if you don't mind that approving the use of torture of foreigners actually encourages the use of torture of Americans abroad, especially capture US service personnel.

Ugh. Not a proud moment for our country, that's for sure.

John Yoo, Dick Cheney, and torture

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 14:49:40 PM MST

Recently, some of Yoo's handiwork was declassified.

Stop me when you've heard this one before (the Attorney General remix)

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM MST

You're crazy if you think I'm going to admit that any of the interrogation practices previously performed by the Administration that just hired me are illegal. Saying that would suggest that people in the Administration violated the law and are subject to criminal prosecution, and that previous OLC opinions have condoned war crimes. The only thing I will tell you is that I sure hope we don't continue one of these practices in the future (lucky for me you haven't pressed me about the others!). But don't ask me to say that the President can't do any of them later on if he wants to....

Oh, and by the way, the President, my boss, never violates the law. Got that?

The interesting thing about the questioning was Mukasey's implicit approval of torture:

"Under what facts and circumstances exactly would it be lawful to waterboard a prisoner?" Mr. Kennedy asked.

Mr. Mukasey said he could not answer the question because it might be "telling our enemies exactly what they can expect in those eventualities" and "those eventualities might never occur."

Get it? Torture might be just fine, given a predetermined set of "eventualities."

Mukasey Not a Done Deal! (Baucus and Tester come out opposed-Fillibuster Possible?)

by: Steve W.

Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 14:39:37 PM MST

These defections could be critical should Senate Democrat's attempt a filibuster. I'm going to call Baucus and Teseter's offices and ask if they would be willing to join a filibuster should one materialize.

So far only Schumer and Feinstein have come out as voting in favor of the nomination, and of course Independent Lieberman. That leaves 48 Dems either opposed or undeclared.

Below is a joint statemnet released by Montana's US Senators.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester today released the following statement:
From fighting terrorism, fraud, corruption and the scourge of meth to gaining the trust of the American people the next Attorney General has a huge task ahead. Over the past several weeks, we have listened carefully to what both Judge Mukasey has said and what he has refused to say.

We are deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey's refusal to acknowledge what our courts, our military and every single previous administration has recognized: waterboarding is torture and it is illegal. Failure by our government to repudiate torture exposes American men and women fighting around the world to potential danger and injustice.

For too long the Department of Justice has lacked an independent leader who will attack the many problems that face this country, while preserving the liberties guaranteed in our Constitution. We do not believe that Judge Mukasey will be that needed independent voice and we cannot, in good conscience, vote for his confirmation.

Is Waterboarding Torture?

by: Matt Singer

Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:09:54 AM MST

It is heartening to know that I still live in a country that recognizes that torture ought to be illegal -- and that we know what torture is.

Bush has no one to blame but himself for Mukasey flap

by: Kilgore

Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:37:34 PM MST

Mukasey's said reason for holding out, i.e. to protect interrogators, who are simply following orders, from prosecution under international law, I think makes some sense, but the Democrats are right to demand an answer.  Senators McCain and Graham have stated that they'll vote to confirm if Mukasey issues a condemnation immediately after taking office, but honestly, given all we've been through, would you trust anybody these guys send us? 

Mukasey, who seemed to be sailing along until several days ago, is yet another victim of the administration's illegal and failed policies.  He's damned no matter what he says.  Bush's assertion that Mukasey "hasn't been briefed" makes no difference. What is there to be briefed on?  Either you do it or you don't. 

This all goes back to what we learned in kindergarten, folks.  Dubya must have been sick that day.  Once you betray trust, it's pretty tough to get it back.  If Bush really wants Mukasey to be confirmed and if Mukasey really is independent, then the administration will declare an end to waterboarding as an interrogation technique. 

But that's not going to happen because apparently international law applies to everybody but us, even though we're the ones who helped write it. 

Brilliant. 

Torture is not an option

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 20:18:42 PM MST

An eyewitness had seen Chikatilo with the victim, shortly before her disappearance, but his wife provided him with a cast-iron alibi that enabled him to evade any further police attention. A 25-year old, Alexsandr Kravchenko, with a previous rape conviction, was arrested and confessed to the crime under duress, probably as a result of extensive and brutal interrogation. He was tried for the killing of Lena Zakotnova, and executed in 1984.

Without the tortured confession from Kravchenko, who knows? Maybe the Soviet police arrest and convict Chikatilo for his first murder, not his 53rd. Police work is an inexact science, so it's impossible to say. What we can say, beyond all doubt, is that once the police extracted a false confession from Kravchenko through torture, Chikatilo was able to continue his ghastly work unimpeded for the next 12 years.

And when the police caught up with Chikatilo again in 1990, he confessed - not through torture - but to psychiatrist Aleksandr Bukhanovski, who had used a psychological profile to ease the killer into admitting his crimes.

Torture doesn't work. Those being tortured will tell their interrogators what they want to hear. And in the case of Chikatilo, torture had disastrous consequences. I know, I know. That's not how it works on 24...

Administration approved of torture

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 19:17:45 PM MST

Still, the Times report has some interesting details. It would appear that the famous Gonzalez hospital visit to then Attorney General Ashcroft may have been about getting approval for torture. In any case, then acting Attorney General and Ashcroft drama participant, James Comey, objected strenuously to the policy and left the agency saying they would all be "'ashamed' when the world eventually learned of it."

The White House denies it all, naturally.

Anti-liberty left divides Democrats

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 06:21:33 AM MST

"The most controversial matters are the ones that people use to form their opinions on their members of Congress," said Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), who voted for the administration's bill. "I do know within our caucus, and justifiably so, there are members who have a real distaste for some of the things the president has done. But to let that be the driving force for our actions to block the surveillance of someone and perhaps stop another attack like 9/11 would be unwise"...

"People say to me, 'Well, what about the 30-second spots?' " said Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, referring to attack ads. He is pushing a bill to restore habeas corpus.

Repeat after me: this isn't about politics. This is about principle. All Congressional representatives - Republican, Democratic, and independent - should be concerned with preserving our civil liberties. The administration is perfectly capable of stopping terror attacks using the legal tools at its disposal, they do not need to violate civil liberties to guard our security. We cannot have separate laws for separate people. We cannot relax our vigilance against the executive branch's encroachments on our rights, no matter who populates the office.

Protect our country from enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your job.

As for the political fallout? As said at the Sideshow, "Tell, them it's their job to defend their position against all that spin." Not only that, but Democrats can make their own 30-second ads. To paraphrase...Grant?...Democrats need to stop worrying about what those people will do, and start making them worry about what we're going to do.

Here's a good example:

"We can do this, but you have to keep in mind Republicans care more about catching Democrats than catching terrorists," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "They have spent years taking Roosevelt's notion that we have nothing to fear but fear itself and given us nothing but fear."

Some have been criticizing the Netroots for attacking members of the Democratic party who stray from the fold. But it ain't about politics! You can vote with the GOP on farm subsidies, or taxation, or whatever. But civil liberties are not an option. It's your job to preserve our democracy.

Jose Padilla convicted

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 13:13:30 PM MST

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Mona of Unqualified Offerings:

The normal procedures of American justice were finally allowed to work. There was never a reason to subject Citizen Padilla to anything less, all the prior excuses notwithstanding.

Of note, the more serious accusations against Padilla didn't make their way into the charges, including the claims of a plot to set off a "dirty bomb" in the US:

The charges brought in civilian court in Miami, however, were a pale shadow of those initial claims in part because Padilla was interrogated about the plot when he was held as an enemy combatant for 3 1/2 years in military custody with no lawyer present and was not read his Miranda rights.

Get it? Torture and improper detention make it harder for the government to bring charges against the accused in court. (Although the "dirty bomb" plot turned out to be false.)

In short, the Padilla case was an example of what not to do in fighting terrorism. Dahlia Lithwick:

Of all the terrifically bad ideas implemented by the Bush administration since 9/11, probably the worst have involved torture. The decision to sideline criminal prosecutions and instead focus on "alternative interrogation" methods was wrongheaded from the get-go. It was wrongheaded as a tactical matter, wrongheaded as a legal matter, wrongheaded as an ethical matter, and wrongheaded as a matter of undermining world opinion. In fact the only thing the Bush administration has actually gotten right about torture is this one tiny truth: If you want to destroy someone-if that is your sole objective-torture works.

Torture

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 14:54:38 PM MST

Take torture. Once a condemned practice in this country, it's now being used by U.S. officials. The fact that I even have to write this post attacking torture is an indication of how President Bush has misused his office, contaminated the rule of law, and set an ugly precedent for executives that follow.

Unfortunately, torture has entered the national debate. It's no longer how do we stop torture worldwide, it's when can we use it? It's no longer done in secret or with shame, but shouted out on a national stage and met with raucous cheers.

Lately there's been some interesting articles and posts on the topic. It's as if the collective knowledge of our crimes has begun to bubble to the surface, like a splinter working its way from the flesh.

And still the case against torture is clear.