Obama: "I Cannot Support" Mukasey Without Clarity On Waterboarding
Barack Obama's campaign has just sent over a statement saying that he cannot support Michael Mukasey for AG absent some clearer language from him on waterboarding:
"I have been consistent in my strong belief that no Administration should allow the use of torture, including so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques' like water-boarding, head-slapping, and extreme temperatures. It's time that we had a Department of Justice that upholds the rule of law and American values, instead of finding ways to enable the President to subvert them. No more political parsing or legal loopholes. I cannot support Judge Mukasey unless he clearly and unequivocally rejects techniques like water-boarding."
Earlier today Chris Dodd came out firmly against Mukasey, prompting us to wonder what the other Senators running for President would say about this. We now have Obama's answer: No clarity on waterboarding, no support.
Comments (13)
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 5:38 PM:So, Obama would not subject a known terrorist to 10 seconds under cellophane where water doesn't even get into the mouth or nose, in order to save the lives of 300 million Americans?
Jak King wrote on October 29, 2007 5:44 PM:Jake: what single terrorist act will threaten 300 million Americans? How do you know that "waterboarding" only lasts 10 seconds? Facts not emotional BS would help your case more, I think.
elial wrote on October 29, 2007 5:44 PM:Jake,
That sounds like a situation where a Presidential pardon would be warranted...for taking an illegal action in dire circumstances.
The illegality of torture is not disputed by anyone.
Spencer Nash wrote on October 29, 2007 5:46 PM:Torturing just confirms to terrorists that they are right to hate the West. It does not work.
Jake D. Look up verschaerfte vernehmung, and stop confusing 24 with reality.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin, 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor) Tue, Nov 11, 1755.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 5:49 PM:I'm sure we'll hear from Senator Clinton any day now. Probably we here about her willingness to support a filibuster of any bill containing retroactive immunity. Btw, why isn't TPM running a headline about her silence? Where's Firedoglake? Atrios? Kos? Greenwald? They were all crapping their pants over Obama not speaking out at the exact moment that Dodd did. HRC's silence on the issue is met with . . . silence.
Love the double-standard.
Jake D helps recruit terrorists - every time he speaks up for torture.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 6:04 PM:Say what you will, Hillary's campaign knows how to work the refs, including both the MSM and especially the liberal blogs.
Kos, TPM, Atrios, Greenwald, FDL all take the bait every time she sends out an email. I think they all are going to face some backlash. 2004 played out much differently. Some early blogs supported Howard Dean pretty openly and some did not, but it wasn't the sort of behind-the-scenes process that you get the sense of now, where every liberal blogger is getting oppo research all the time and running with it, just like the MSM always does.
Reading Kos should not feel like reading The Note circa summer 2004.
In a way, it's not surprising that Obama's campaign does not thrive in this environment. Luckily, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't really matter in the end but it's sure annoying.
Diverik wrote on October 29, 2007 6:22 PM:While waterboarding certainly is torture and therefore is illegal, his waffling on waterboarding is not as troubling to me as his refusal to give a clear answer on whether the president is required to obey federal statutes.
Mukasey should not be confirmed regardless of his answer to the waterboarding question. We can’t have another AG that believes that the president is above the law.
“…in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.” – Thomas Paine, Common Sense
Jak King and elial:
According to the information out in the public, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded one to five times -- as for what type of hypothetical terrorist attack could kill 300 million Americans, I agree it would have to be multiple nukes and/or weaponized biological attacks -- a Presidential "pardon" after such a doomsday scenario would be utterly meaningless.
DTM wrote on October 29, 2007 6:42 PM:Jake D.,
Would you torture an innocent child in order to save the lives of 300 million people? If so, please specify exactly how many such children you would torture, what you would be willing to do to them, and so on until you get to the point at which you would stop torturing children.
Or ... maybe these contrived hypotheticals are a bad way to set moral and legal rules? Maybe we should instead look at the real use of torture and its real effects in the world? Just a thought.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 6:53 PM:Here's the "real" waterboarding technique, which can include 10 seconds or less with no water in the mouth or nose all the way up to actual drowning (I do agree that "actual drowning" would qualify as torture): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Technique
In the hypothetical scenario above (saving 300 million lives), I would definitely allow waterboarding of one innocent child -- I take it you are referring to Professor Yoo's "crushing testicles" scenario? Obviously, the cost-benefit analysis would change at some point before 300 million innocents are tortured. Is that what you are asking?
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 7:37 PM:See next "Obama Too Queasy for Torture" thread: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/obama_i_cannot_support_mukasey_for_ag.php#comments
