TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
30.01.2008
Mukasey: Waterboarding Likely OK in Some Cases

As expected, at today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Attorney General Michael Mukasey declined to say whether he thought waterboarding was illegal, on the grounds that it's not currently being used by the administration. The most interesting part of the hearing, though, was a line of questioning from Joe Biden. Biden's back to serving his proper function as jovial Senate windbag, but in between bouts of rambling he nicely managed to pry some useful information out of Mukasey (unofficial transcript from my notes):

BIDEN: When you boil it down, the answer I heard today, it appears that whether or not waterboarding is torture is a relative question. ... For example, if the CIA or any government agency engaged in waterboarding of a captured prisoner and the purpose of it was there was a nuclear weapon about to be detonated in the city of Washington, that might be OK, but if you waterboarded to find out where they purchased their airline ticket, that wouldn't be OK.

MUKASEY: I think the Detainee Treatment Act engages the standard under the Constitution, which is a "shocks the conscience" standard, which is essentially a balancing test of the value of doing something against the cost of doing it. ... [You balance] the heinousness of doing it, the cruelty of doing it, balanced against the value. Hypothetically, getting some historical information that wouldn't save lives, you wouldn't have to reach the question of whether it's torture or not. It shocks the conscience.

See Marty Lederman for legal analysis. Marty says this implies that the administration has concluded that waterboarding is not torture--which may well be right, although it sounded to me like Mukasey was only talking about the Detainee Treatment Act and was trying to avoid answering the question of whether it's torture under the federal torture statute or the Geneva Conventions.

Mukasey's answer raises a whole host of interesting questions (How many lives have to be at stake before waterboarding becomes legal? How sure do you have to be that the information is needed to save lives in the first place?), but when Dick Durbin pressed Mukasey on these points, the attorney general clammed up. The takeaway here is that the administration is still reserving the right to waterboard detainees in a deliberately vague set of circumstances, even though it says it isn't currently doing so.

Update: TPM has a copy of the letter Mukasey sent yesterday to Senator Leahy elaborating his views on the matter here.

(Photo: Getty Images) 

--Josh Patashnik

Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:28 PM with 5 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ejbenjamin said:

More important: What authority declares that waterboarding saved lives?  The Bush administration is very good at this game.  They say they follow the rules, of course-- but reserve the right to make and change the rules themselves.

January 30, 2008 2:56 PM

rozenson said:

I think waterboarding should be illegal in all cases. If there's an imminent public danger and the authorities think that using the procedure is worth the risk of prosecution, be my guest. If it's a clear case of public safety, I don't think any judge would fault them too much for using it.

January 30, 2008 3:08 PM

ChanRobt said:

Instead of having this two-year presidential campaign and the endless debates, why don't we just waterboard the candidates on television to see who's lying and who's telling the truth.

Then the vote will be easy.

January 30, 2008 3:32 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Rozenson, it's a jury, not a judge, that would decide that. And no, not in a million years would a truly productive, civilian life-saving act of torture lead to a jury conviction.

But. Has anyone ever cited a single instance, ever, of an act of torture that revealed otherwise unobtainable information that saved the lives of, say, hundreds of people? Ever, in human history? Even American torture's strongest proponents -- Krauthammer, for example -- cite hypothetical law-school scenarios, not actual historical examples.

January 30, 2008 4:37 PM

bcbaird said:

Torture does not produce the results that any free country desires.  There was a reason that torture was considered passe prior to 9/11 and the Bush Administration: it didn't work.  There is no stronger argument against it.

January 30, 2008 5:48 PM