Mukasey on Waterboarding: 'It Would Be Torture If It Were Done to Me'

Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet at 11:32 AM on January 30, 2008.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey went before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning -- his first appearance since his confirmation hearings last fall -- but don't feel too bad if you weren't watching C-Span. Despite deploying some pointed questions -- "Would waterboarding be torture if done to you?" (Answer: "I would feel that it was") -- the Senators learned nothing new about the DOJ's torture policy from the man holding the position of top law enforcer in the country.

Not that it came as a surprise. Aside from Mukasey's repeated suggestions that he may never answer whether waterboarding is torture, last night the senators received a letter from the Attorney General, in which he promised to answer their questions "to the best of my ability," but reserved the right to impose certain "limits" on his answers. "I recognize that those limits may make my task [before the committee] more difficult for me personally," he wrote. Nevertheless: "My job as attorney general is to do what I believe the law requires and what is best for the country, not what makes my life easier." (What a guy.)

That said, Mukasey said he has given the matter a lot of thought and has concluded that all the CIA's current interrogation techniques "comply with the law." Moreover, "I have been authorized to disclose publicly that waterboarding is not among those methods." At least, not at the moment. Should, however, waterboarding be officially re-introduced as an official interrogation technique, Mukasey explained:

"That process would begin with the C.I.A. director's determination that the addition of the technique was required for the program … Then the attorney general [Editor's Note: That's him!] would have to determine that the use of the technique is lawful under the particular conditions and circumstances proposed. Finally the president would have to approve of the use of the technique."

So, it's not off the table. And even though the AG would have to approve it, he is not ready to do so now.

Mukasey waxed empathetic.

"I understand that you and some other members of the Committee may feel that I should go further in my review, and answer questions concerning the legality of waterboarding under current law. I understand the strong interest in this question, but I do not believe that it is advisable to address difficult legal questions, about which reasonable minds can and do differ, in the absence of concrete facts and circumstances."

In fact, he went on:

"…It is precisely because the issue is so important…that I, as the Attorney General, should not provide answers absent a set of circumstances that call for those answers."

One might be forgiven for thinking that a Senate hearing titled "Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice" might qualify as such a circumstance. But, as we've learned again and again, it's all about interpretation.

Not that the hearings were totally useless. Mukasey did weigh in on the current controversy over telecom immunity (he's for it) and hinted that investigations into the CIA torture tapes might -- might -- look beyond the destruction of the tapes themselves to consider the interrogation techniques depicted in the tapes.

As in … waterboarding.

Until then, the issue is, in the words of the Attorney General "unresolved."

"It is not enough to say that waterboarding is not currently authorized," said a pissed off Patrick Leahy. "Torture and illegality have no place in America." And yet…

In related news, from the Department of Reliable Sources: John Negroponte offered a bit of perspective on the matter. In a recent interview with the National Journal, the former spy chief said that, although he admits it has been used in the past, "waterboarding has not been used in years."

Tagged as: torture, mukasey, waterboarding

Liliana Segura is a staff writer at AlterNet and editor of the Rights & Liberties section.