The Stench of Torture

Cheney's position on waterboarding doesn't take a lot of guesswork. Here he is in an October 24, 2006, interview with right-wing radio host Scott Hennen:

Hennen: "Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?"

Cheney: "It's a no-brainer for me."

The Washington Post editorial board writes: "It's a sad day in America when the nominee for attorney general cannot flatly declare that waterboarding is unconstitutional. The interrogation technique simulates drowning and can cause excruciating mental and physical pain; it has been prosecuted in U.S. courts since the late 1800s and was regarded by every U.S. administration before this one as torture. . . .

"The fault for this evasion lies as much, if not more, with President Bush and Congress as it does with Mr. Mukasey. Mr. Bush authorized waterboarding in the past, most notably against al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If Mr. Mukasey now condemns the interrogation method as unconstitutional, he would probably be in conflict with Justice Department memoranda that implicitly endorse such techniques and that have been used by CIA interrogators and others to cloak their actions in legal legitimacy. The president could also be legally implicated for approving the method."

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board writes: "Waterboarding is torture. If he cannot unambiguously define it as such, he should not be confirmed. . . .

"Mukasey, in declining to answer whether the technique that simulates drowning in its victims is constitutional, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he is unfamiliar with it. This is implausible. But he stuck to the story even when the method was explained to him.

"'If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional,' he said. But this is very much like the president's own unsatisfactory answer, which, in a nutshell, is that this country doesn't torture but that he gets to define what that is. . . .

"The president should have leeway to appoint cabinet members who share his views. But like-mindedness in an appointee on the matter of torture is no virtue. It is difficult to imagine how such a person, taking such an expedient view in the nomination process, could be independent enough to stand up to the president if need be."

Joan Walsh writes for Salon: " It's worth paying attention to what Mukasey said, exactly, during his testimony (thanks to Paul Kiel at TPM for highlighting this):

"'I don't think that I can responsibly talk about any technique here because -- (pause) -- of the very -- I'm not going to discuss and I should not -- I'm sorry I can't discuss, and I think it would be irresponsible of me to discuss particular techniques with which I am not familiar when there are people who are using coercive techniques and who are being authorized to use coercive techniques. And for me to say something that is going to put their careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenial, I don't think it would be responsible of me to do that.'"

"So it seems Mukasey refused to call any particular technique torture, or to say whether it was 'unconstitutional,' because he believes someone out there may be using these controversial techniques right now, under orders from above, and he doesn't want to get them in trouble just to be 'congenial.'"