FORUM
Op-eds on legal news by law professors and JURIST special guests...

Waterboarding: The Key Question for Mukasey

JURIST Guest Columnist Anthony D'Amato of Northwestern University School of Law says that US Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey should acknowledge that waterboarding employed by US interrogators is torture, and not attempt to dodge the critical question...


Former judge Michael B. Mukasey, nominated by President Bush to serve the United States as Attorney General, has been giving conclusory answers to questions about the legality of torturing persons held in detention by the military. He says that if the torture is unconstitutional, then he is opposed to it. But he has been unwilling to answer operative questions, such as whether particular methods of torture are illegal.

One might ascribe Mr. Mukasey’s unwillingness to address specific methods of torture to the normal reluctance of senior judges to decide cases before hearing all the facts. But the essays Mr. Mukasey has written belie this assumption of legal distancing. He showed himself to be quite the pragmatist when he argued that outlawing too many methods of torture would only lead to the killing of torture victims so as to permanently silence the evidence. This is indeed an ultra-realist view of law, on a par with arguing that if a homeowner unexpectedly comes home and spots a burglar in the midst of gathering loot, the burglar should get a free pass from the law. Otherwise it would be in the burglar’s interest to shoot the homeowner and get rid of the only eyewitness to the crime.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island cut through the fog with pointed questions:

WHITEHOUSE: Is waterboarding constitutional?

MUKASEY: If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.

WHITEHOUSE: It either is or it isn’t. Waterboarding is the practice of putting somebody in a reclining position, tying them down, putting cloth over their faces, and then pouring water over them to simulate drowning.

MUKASEY: If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.

The fear of drowning — of having one’s air supply cut off by water — is the most atavistic and greatest fear known to homo sapiens. Psychologists are uniform in saying that no threat or pain we can possibly experience comes close to the shock of drowning.

The Torture Convention, which is part of the supreme law of the United States, defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.” Only the most brilliant law professor in the United States, Professor John Yoo of the Berkeley Law School, could possibly read that language as excluding waterboarding. Of course, Yoo’s interpretation would at best merit a “But see” footnote in someone’s article were it nor for the fact that Yoo included it in his infamous Torture Memo which was readily accepted by the Department of Defense as the Attorney General’s definitive word on the subject.

Since it was former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s signing on to the Yoo Torture Memo (we don’t know if Gonzales read it) that, among other things, got him kicked out of his job, maybe Mr. Mukasey is just trying to distance his confirmation hearings as far as possible from anything having to do with torture. After all, the job of Torturer-in-Chief should not be allocated to the Department of Justice. It rightfully belongs to Homeland Security.


Anthony D.Amato is Leighton Professor of Law at Northwestern University, where he teaches international law and human rights.


October 19, 2007


Link | | e-mail op-ed | print | post comment | 1 comments | how to subscribe | © JURIST

Comments:

Yes, and other forms of torture include use of dogs against naked and hooded detainees for terroristic purposes during interrogation, threatening to kill family members, and use of the torturous "cold cell," among other tactics utilized. A major additional point is that far more than "torture" is patently illegal. Also proscribed is the use of "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment and any form of "inhumane" treatment of any detainee of any status under customary and treaty-based international law -- as documented in the recent book, Paust, Beyond the Law.... (Cambridge University Press 2007) available thru www.cambridge.org

October 19, 2007  


LATEST OP-EDS

 Arizona Legalizes Racial Profiling
April 27, 2010

 The Iraqi High Court's Understated Rise to Legitimacy
April 23, 2010

 Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?
April 21, 2010

 Not Child's Play: Revisiting the Law of Child Soldiers
April 13, 2010

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news on your intranet, website, blog or news reader!

SUBMISSIONS

E-mail Forum submissions (about 1000 words in length - no footnotes, please) to JURIST@pitt.edu.

SYNDICATION

Add Forum op-eds to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Add to My AOL

E-MAIL

Subscribe to Forum op-ed alerts via R|mail. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.
MyBlogAlerts also e-mails alerts of new Forum op-eds. It's free and fast, but ad-based.

FORUM SEARCH

Search JURIST's op-ed archive...


Powered by Blogdigger badge

CONTACT

JURIST and our op-ed authors welcome comments and reaction from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@law.pitt.edu