House Dems Introduce Anti-Torture Bill

On the heels of today's torture hearings in a House Judiciary subcommittee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the subcommittee chairman, and Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) have introduced a bill to force all American interrogators to conform to the Geneva Conventions-compliant standards of the Army Field Manual on Interrogation (pdf). That would mean no waterboarding, no "cold cells," no stress positions -- none of that stuff that Malcolm Nance and Steve Kleinman testified doesn't work anyway.

Under current law -- Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) 2005 Detainee Treatment Act -- torture is (once again) prohibited, but the law's provisions don't apply outside the U.S. military. The CIA still, in principle, can employ "enhanced interrogation" techniques, waterboarding being among the most infamous. In September, CIA Director Mike Hayden resisted bringing CIA interrogations in line with the Army Field Manual, telling the Council on Foreign Relations, "I don't know of anyone who has looked at the Army Field Manual who could make the claim that what's contained in there exhausts the universe of lawful interrogation techniques consistent with the Geneva Convention." Michael Mukasey echoed that sentiment during his confirmation hearings.

The Nadler-Delahunt bill, called the American Anti-Torture Act of 2007, would indeed make the field manual exhaustive of that "universe of lawful interrogation techniques."

In a statement, Delahunt said, "The use of torture and so-called 'enhanced' interrogation -- such as waterboarding -- contradicts our commitment to the rule of law and basic human decency." Their bill complements a Senate measure sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE).

Of course, even if the bills pass, and for some reason President Bush signs them, Bush could easily attach a signing statement saying he'll ignore them when he wants to, as he did with the McCain torture bill.

WE DID IT AGAIN!

I say we because I consider myself a democrat and Mukasay was confirmed! WTF... How could this happen? So much for sticking up for the constitution and thamks for supporting the progressives and netroots.

‘Waterboarding is torture and should be banned,’

Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a former Navy instructor of prisoner of war and terrorist hostage survival programs, told a House Judiciary subcommittee today. Nance described the experience as a “slow motion suffocation” that provides enough time for the subject to consider what’s happening: “water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel(ing) your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs.” “The victim is drowning,” Nance said. Lt. Col. Stuart Coach was supposed to testify but was prevented from doing so by the Pentagon.

Rep. Trent Franks compares torture to abortion

Spencer Ackerman writes that, during today’s House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on torture, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) offered an “an intellectually stimulating comparison of torture to abortion.” Franks questioned why the committee isn’t concerned about abortion, even though he claims some abortion techniques purportedly torture the woman:

FRANKS: And not once during this term have we even considered the personhood and protection of unborn children. And yet last Congress, we had a bill before the Congress that said that, if torturous techniques were used to abort a child, that the mother would be offered anesthetic for the child. And most of the members of this committee that voted on that voted against it, against allowing anesthetic for procedures that, if done to an animal, would be illegal.

Pentagon Counsel William Haynes Bars Gitmo Prosecutor From Testifying About Torture

Today, a House Judiciary subcommittee is holding an oversight hearing on the “effectiveness and consequences of ‘enhanced’ interrogation.” The Committee had invited Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, a former Guantanamo Bay prosecutor, to testify about his experiences. The Wall Street Journal reports, “Asked last week to appear before the panel, Col. Couch says he informed his superiors and that none had any objection.” But Counch’s appearance was blocked by Cheney-backed Pentagon counsel William Haynes:

Yesterday, however, [Couch] was advised by email that the Pentagon general counsel, William J. Haynes II, “has determined that as a sitting judge and former prosecutor, it is improper for you to testify about matters still pending in the military court system, and you are not to appear before the Committee to testify tomorrow.“

Haynes has been a forceful advocate and key architect for the administration’s harsh interrogation techniques. Couch’s potential testimony posed a serious danger to Haynes’ work.

As a Gitmo prosecutor, Couch had been assigned to prosecute accused al Qaeda operative Mohamedou Ould Slahi, one of fourteen “high value” prisoners. “Of the cases I had seen, he was the one with the most blood on his hands,” Couch said of Slahi. Yet Couch determined he could not prosecute Slahi because his incriminating statements “had been taken through torture, rendering them inadmissible under U.S. and international law.”

In a lengthy Wall Street Journal profile published in March, Couch revealed evidence of torture he witnessed at Guantanamo Bay — images that captured his conscience and forced him to become a critic of the administration’s interrogation system. Couch reported that Slahi “had been beaten and exposed to psychological torture, including death threats and intimations that his mother would be raped in custody unless he cooperated.” Here’s what happened when Couch announced his decision not to prosecute:

In May 2004, at a meeting with the then-chief prosecutor, Army Col. Bob Swann, Col. Couch dropped his bombshell. He told Col. Swann that in addition to legal reasons, he was “morally opposed” to the interrogation techniques “and for that reason alone refused to participate in [the Slahi] prosecution in any manner.”

Col. Swann was indignant, Col. Couch says, replying: “What makes you think you’re so much better than the rest of us around here?”

Col. Couch says he slammed his hand on Col. Swann’s desk and replied: “That’s not the issue at all, that’s not the point!”

An impassioned debate followed, the prosecutor recalls. Col. Swann said the Torture Convention didn’t apply to military commissions. Col. Couch asked his superior to cite legal precedent that would allow the president to disregard a treaty.

On his first day in Guantanamo, Couch said he saw treatment of a prisoner that “resembled the abuse he had been trained to resist if captured.” Couch’s willingness to tell the truth posed such a threat to the administration that they have prevented him from speaking to Congress. The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), said he would consider seeking a subpoena for Couch if the Pentagon maintained its stand

Dianne Feinstein on Michael Mukasey: He’s so Bright and Independent…

Dianne Feinstein describes Mukasey as a man that is “well-steeped in national security law.” If that’s true then why doesn’t he know if waterboarding is torture? via CNN’s Late Edition on Sunday
Blitzer: When you both announced on Friday you will support the confirmation of Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general, that effectively guaranteed that he’ll not only get out of the committee but eventually will be confirmed as the attorney general. Even though he’s taking what some are calling a wishy-washy position on waterboarding or torture, why do you believe he should be confirmed?

Feinstein: Well, first of all, because he is a bright, independent figure. Well-steeped in national security law, presided over some of those trials. In the 172 pages of written questions and answers, the independence of thought comes through.

He’s not going to wear two hats like Gonzales did. He’ll wear one hat, and that will be an independent attorney general for a department which right now, today, is in disarray. Twenty-three out of 93 U.S. attorneys are not filled with permanent confirmed U.S. attorneys. The 10 top positions are vacant.

What I believe this president would do if Mukasey was — failed to be confirmed was put in an acting, also make recess appointments. That would bring about diminished transparency, diminished Congressional oversight and would not be for the benefit of the department. So this is a strong independent figure. I’d be happy to talk about my views on torture, if you want.

We’re only interested in what Mukasey’s views on torture are, Dianne. He’s the one trying to get confirmed here. And if they don’t match up to your view on waterboarding then why did you push his nomination through? Sigh…Then she goes on to quiver at the thought of what George Bush might do if he doesn’t get his way. Mr. 24% is making her nervous.

What the heck is wrong with these people? She actually used the term “diminished transparency,” and “diminished Congressional oversight” to describe what might happen in the Justice department if Bush had a hissy fit…Isn’t that what we’ve had since Bush and Cheney took office? I could go on, but what would be the point. Please contact her and let her know (It does help) this is not acceptable:

Washington Office:
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0504
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954

Main District Office:
One Post Street, Suite 245
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 393-0707

Chavez responds to Cheney

After Vice President Cheney claimed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is the president of Peru, Chavez “mocked” Cheney, saying the comment shows the United States is governed by a “bunch of ignorant fools”:

“The vice president of the United States was talking about us, but he made a mistake,” Chavez said, laughing. “Since those who govern the United States are a bunch of ignorant fools…he thinks I’m president of Peru.”

“They don’t know where Venezuela is, nor do they know where Peru is,” Chavez told the crowd.