J
John
Guest
Surprise! Mukasey covers up torture
17/12/2007 11:30:00 PM GMT
Mukasey is slapping the Congress by demanding it back off
probes into why the CIA destroyed videotapes of waterboarding.
By Robert Parry
Last month, Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and
Dianne Feinstein of California joined Republicans to ensure Michael Mukasey's
confirmation as Attorney General, even though he refused to acknowledge that
the simulated drowning or waterboarding was torture.
Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada helped
the Bush administration, too, by rushing a floor vote on Mukasey before
rank-and-file Democrats could get organized and push for a filibuster.
To show thanks, Mukasey now is slapping the
Democratic-controlled Congress in the face by demanding it back off any
oversight investigations into how and why the CIA in late 2005 destroyed
videotapes of the waterboarding of al-Qaeda suspects.
Mukasey is pressing the House Intelligence Committee to shelve
its investigation into the videotape destruction and is refusing to turn
over information to other congressional committees. He claims that to do so
would interfere with his own investigation of what appears to be criminality
that his Justice Department may have sanctioned.
And, to add insult to the stonewalling, Mukasey justified his
refusal to provide information to Congress by citing his promise during his
confirmation hearing that he would "ensure that politics plays no role in
cases brought by the Department of Justice."
In other words, Mukasey is arguing that congressional oversight
of possible criminal wrongdoing by President George W. Bush and other senior
administration officials represents "politics" - and that the only
legitimate investigation of Bush's Executive Branch is one carried out by
Bush's Executive Branch.
Some senior Democrats objected to Mukasey's actions, though
mostly in muted tones.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, expressed disappointment and restated that his panel "needs to
fully understand whether the government used cruel interrogation techniques
and torture, contrary to our basic values."
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking
Republican, issued a joint statement saying they were "stunned" by Mukasey's
decisions.
"There is no basis upon which the Attorney General can stand in
the way of our work," Reyes and Hoekstra said.
a.. What will Congress do?
But it's less clear what Congress can - or will - do.
Over the past year, since Democrats won control of both houses,
Bush has bested them time and again, with the Democrats often surrendering
their most promising opportunities for pressuring the administration to make
concessions.
In line with that pattern, Schumer and Feinstein broke with
other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and joined with
Republicans in November 2007 to clear Mukasey's confirmation. They did so
despite Mukasey's adamant refusal to designate the centuries-old tactic of
waterboarding as torture.
Furious rank-and-file Democrats argued that Mukasey's
equivocation on torture should have disqualified him to be the nation's
chief law-enforcement officer, since torture violates domestic law,
international law and the U.S. Constitution with its ban on "cruel and
unusual punishment."
They also noted that Mukasey embraced the Bush administration's
view of an all-powerful executive and, as a federal judge, had endorsed
indefinite incarceration of hundreds of Muslims on phony material witness
warrants after the 9/11 attacks. (See video: Attorney General Michael
Mukasey defends torture policies Part 1, Part 2 & Part 3 )
Ironically, the post-9/11 round-up of Arab cab drivers, pizza
delivery men and students came as the Bush administration was granting
special permission for rich Saudis, including members of Osama bin Laden's
family, to flee the United States after only cursory FBI questioning.
The arresting of the "usual suspects" - while the well-connected
who actually might know something were whisked away - was perhaps the first
signal of how Bush's "war on terror" would proceed, draconian actions that
create the appearance of a tough crackdown when the reality is entirely
different.
Bush made clear, too, that he was prepared to say anything, no
matter how transparently false, to fend off public oversight.
For instance, he has said repeatedly that his administration
doesn't "torture" although U.S. intelligence operatives have acknowledged
subjecting terror suspects to waterboarding, which has been considered
torture since the days of the Inquisition.
Waterboarding involves strapping a person to a board tilted so
the head is lower than the feet, covering the face with cellophane and
pouring water over it to create the sensation of drowning.
Bush's semantic defense of his administration - claiming that
whatever he approved was not torture - made Mukasey's word games to the
Senate Judiciary Committee necessary. If Mukasey agreed that waterboarding
was torture, he would have had little choice but to mount criminal
investigations of Bush and other senior officials.
So, it should come as no surprise now that Mukasey is trying to
fend off any independent investigation of Bush's possible criminal exposure,
while twisting words and logic again - this time, by defining outside
inquiries as playing "politics" and insisting that his internal
investigation will be impartial.
a.. Democratic failure
Schumer and Feinstein claim they voted for Mukasey in November
because he was an improvement over Alberto Gonzales, who helped establish
the framework for Bush's torture policies both as White House counsel and
Attorney General.
Nevertheless, the failure to force clear answers on torture from
Mukasey represented another moment when the Democrats abandoned a pressure
point that might have won them some concessions - or at least some straight
talk - from the administration.
That has been the Democrats' pattern dating back to the November
2006 elections when they followed up their stunning victories by reverting
to their timid practices of taking Bush at his word and avoiding aggressive
oversight.
The Democrats not only failed to mount a sustained challenge to
Bush's policies, they avoided any systematic hearings that would educate the
American public about why Bush's presidency has represented such an
extraordinary threat to the Republic.
In exchange for their repeated surrenders, the Democrats have
gotten nothing from Bush and the Republicans, other than their contempt.
As the first session under the new Democratic majority nears an
end this month, Bush is riding roughshod over the Democrats on a wide range
of issues. He insists that they sign off on his budget figures; he demands
another blank check for the Iraq War; and his Attorney General is
obstructing congressional oversight of the torture scandal.
Yet, the Democrats are in a far worse position today to stand up
to Bush than they were a year ago. Then, they had a majority of the American
people behind them, hoping that the Democrats would protect the nation from
Bush's executive power grab and would bring Bush's disastrous Iraq War to an
end.
Today, only a tiny fraction of Americans believes that the
congressional Democrats will do much more than run up the white flag, once
again.
-- Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the
1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The
Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush , can be ordered at
neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of
the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine,
the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.
ConsortiumNews
-- Middle East Online
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/print.php?newid=69176
17/12/2007 11:30:00 PM GMT
Mukasey is slapping the Congress by demanding it back off
probes into why the CIA destroyed videotapes of waterboarding.
By Robert Parry
Last month, Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and
Dianne Feinstein of California joined Republicans to ensure Michael Mukasey's
confirmation as Attorney General, even though he refused to acknowledge that
the simulated drowning or waterboarding was torture.
Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada helped
the Bush administration, too, by rushing a floor vote on Mukasey before
rank-and-file Democrats could get organized and push for a filibuster.
To show thanks, Mukasey now is slapping the
Democratic-controlled Congress in the face by demanding it back off any
oversight investigations into how and why the CIA in late 2005 destroyed
videotapes of the waterboarding of al-Qaeda suspects.
Mukasey is pressing the House Intelligence Committee to shelve
its investigation into the videotape destruction and is refusing to turn
over information to other congressional committees. He claims that to do so
would interfere with his own investigation of what appears to be criminality
that his Justice Department may have sanctioned.
And, to add insult to the stonewalling, Mukasey justified his
refusal to provide information to Congress by citing his promise during his
confirmation hearing that he would "ensure that politics plays no role in
cases brought by the Department of Justice."
In other words, Mukasey is arguing that congressional oversight
of possible criminal wrongdoing by President George W. Bush and other senior
administration officials represents "politics" - and that the only
legitimate investigation of Bush's Executive Branch is one carried out by
Bush's Executive Branch.
Some senior Democrats objected to Mukasey's actions, though
mostly in muted tones.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, expressed disappointment and restated that his panel "needs to
fully understand whether the government used cruel interrogation techniques
and torture, contrary to our basic values."
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking
Republican, issued a joint statement saying they were "stunned" by Mukasey's
decisions.
"There is no basis upon which the Attorney General can stand in
the way of our work," Reyes and Hoekstra said.
a.. What will Congress do?
But it's less clear what Congress can - or will - do.
Over the past year, since Democrats won control of both houses,
Bush has bested them time and again, with the Democrats often surrendering
their most promising opportunities for pressuring the administration to make
concessions.
In line with that pattern, Schumer and Feinstein broke with
other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and joined with
Republicans in November 2007 to clear Mukasey's confirmation. They did so
despite Mukasey's adamant refusal to designate the centuries-old tactic of
waterboarding as torture.
Furious rank-and-file Democrats argued that Mukasey's
equivocation on torture should have disqualified him to be the nation's
chief law-enforcement officer, since torture violates domestic law,
international law and the U.S. Constitution with its ban on "cruel and
unusual punishment."
They also noted that Mukasey embraced the Bush administration's
view of an all-powerful executive and, as a federal judge, had endorsed
indefinite incarceration of hundreds of Muslims on phony material witness
warrants after the 9/11 attacks. (See video: Attorney General Michael
Mukasey defends torture policies Part 1, Part 2 & Part 3 )
Ironically, the post-9/11 round-up of Arab cab drivers, pizza
delivery men and students came as the Bush administration was granting
special permission for rich Saudis, including members of Osama bin Laden's
family, to flee the United States after only cursory FBI questioning.
The arresting of the "usual suspects" - while the well-connected
who actually might know something were whisked away - was perhaps the first
signal of how Bush's "war on terror" would proceed, draconian actions that
create the appearance of a tough crackdown when the reality is entirely
different.
Bush made clear, too, that he was prepared to say anything, no
matter how transparently false, to fend off public oversight.
For instance, he has said repeatedly that his administration
doesn't "torture" although U.S. intelligence operatives have acknowledged
subjecting terror suspects to waterboarding, which has been considered
torture since the days of the Inquisition.
Waterboarding involves strapping a person to a board tilted so
the head is lower than the feet, covering the face with cellophane and
pouring water over it to create the sensation of drowning.
Bush's semantic defense of his administration - claiming that
whatever he approved was not torture - made Mukasey's word games to the
Senate Judiciary Committee necessary. If Mukasey agreed that waterboarding
was torture, he would have had little choice but to mount criminal
investigations of Bush and other senior officials.
So, it should come as no surprise now that Mukasey is trying to
fend off any independent investigation of Bush's possible criminal exposure,
while twisting words and logic again - this time, by defining outside
inquiries as playing "politics" and insisting that his internal
investigation will be impartial.
a.. Democratic failure
Schumer and Feinstein claim they voted for Mukasey in November
because he was an improvement over Alberto Gonzales, who helped establish
the framework for Bush's torture policies both as White House counsel and
Attorney General.
Nevertheless, the failure to force clear answers on torture from
Mukasey represented another moment when the Democrats abandoned a pressure
point that might have won them some concessions - or at least some straight
talk - from the administration.
That has been the Democrats' pattern dating back to the November
2006 elections when they followed up their stunning victories by reverting
to their timid practices of taking Bush at his word and avoiding aggressive
oversight.
The Democrats not only failed to mount a sustained challenge to
Bush's policies, they avoided any systematic hearings that would educate the
American public about why Bush's presidency has represented such an
extraordinary threat to the Republic.
In exchange for their repeated surrenders, the Democrats have
gotten nothing from Bush and the Republicans, other than their contempt.
As the first session under the new Democratic majority nears an
end this month, Bush is riding roughshod over the Democrats on a wide range
of issues. He insists that they sign off on his budget figures; he demands
another blank check for the Iraq War; and his Attorney General is
obstructing congressional oversight of the torture scandal.
Yet, the Democrats are in a far worse position today to stand up
to Bush than they were a year ago. Then, they had a majority of the American
people behind them, hoping that the Democrats would protect the nation from
Bush's executive power grab and would bring Bush's disastrous Iraq War to an
end.
Today, only a tiny fraction of Americans believes that the
congressional Democrats will do much more than run up the white flag, once
again.
-- Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the
1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The
Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush , can be ordered at
neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of
the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine,
the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.
ConsortiumNews
-- Middle East Online
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/print.php?newid=69176
