Senators Ask: Are "Waterboard AUTHORIZERS Criminals?"

[kpete]

Senators want to know if waterboard authorizers (DECIDERS?) are criminals
Nick Juliano
Published: Wednesday February 13, 2008

Two Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats are requesting that the Justice Department's internal watchdog investigate whether Bush Administration officials who authorized waterboarding are guilty of any crimes themselves.

Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sheldon Whitehouse's (D-RI) request comes as the CIA and White House finally admitted the use of waterboarding, and as Attorney General Michael Mukasey is standing with the Bush administration in refusing to open an investigation. The senators say that Mukasey's refusal on grounds that the Justice Department had authorized the simulated drowning technique did not answer whether the authorizations themselves were legal.

In a letter sent Tuesday to the Justice Department's Inpsector General and Counsel for Professional Responsibility the two wrote:
http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=292726

Waterboarding has a sordid history in the annals of torture by repressive regimes, from the Spanish Inquisition to the Khmer Rouge. The United States has always repudiated waterboarding as a form of torture and prosecuted it as a war crime. The Judge Advocates General, the highest-ranking attorneys in each of the four military services, have stated unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Yet, despite the virtually unanimous consensus of legal scholars and the overwhelming weight of legal precedent that waterboarding is illegal, certain Justice Department officials, operating behind a veil of secrecy, concluded that the use of waterboarding is lawful. We believe it is appropriate for you to investigate the conduct of these Justice Department officials. As you know, a similar investigation is underway regarding Justice Department officials who advised the National Security Agency that its warrantless surveillance program is lawful.

.......

Sens. Durbin and Whitehouse asked the Justice Department IG to investigate:


* Did Justice Department officials who advised the CIA that waterboarding is lawful perform legal work that meets applicable standards of professional responsibility and internal Justice Department policies and standards? For example, did these officials consider all relevant legal precedents, including those that appear to contradict directly their conclusion that waterboarding is lawful? Did these officials consult with government attorneys who are experts in the relevant legal standards, e.g. Judge Advocates General who are experts in the Geneva Conventions? Was it reasonable to rely on standards found in areas such as health care reimbursement law in evaluating interrogation techniques?

* Were Justice Department officials who advised the CIA that waterboarding is lawful insulated from outside pressure to reach a particular conclusion? What role did White House and/or CIA officials play in deliberations about the lawfulness of waterboarding?

more at:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Senators_want_to_know_if_waterboard_0213.html

[niyad]

1. yes

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Yes. It's the only correct answer.

[Angela Shelley]

3. Yes.

[L. Coyote]

4. AND a deafening chorus of billions of humans collectively shout, "D'OH!"

Plus it both sucks and blows :rofl:

[Subdivisions]

5. Yawn. n/t

[angstlessk]

6. I wonder if that is the same as the old 'Chinese water torture' I heard about as a kid

I was always told it was someone who let water drip for so long it drove you crazy, sorta like a faucet dripping? Maybe the folks were just trying to protect my innocence or mabye even they did not know?

[pitohui]

9. i was told you were secured and the water dripped into your mouth and throat

the water was dripped, like, a drop every minute (or every second?), so you never actually drowned but neither could you actually relax and sleep either

as a kid i was told the chinese water torture wasn't just listening to the water, it was a technique for preventing the person from being able to sleep, after several days of sleeplessness, most people are functionally psychotic

[pitohui]

7. well, uh, duh

any time you give an order to someone else to commit a crime, you are considered to have committed that crime

comes up all the time when rich assholes hire "hit men," they are charged equally with the triggerman

[baldguy]

8. Yes

[Winterblues]

10. Torture is defined by Webster as

Inflicting excruciating pain or anguish..A cause of Anguish..
I wonder if one would suffer anguish if you made them feel like they were in the process of drowning???:shrug: Bush* made his own definition and it was.. loss of life or organ failure. IOW I could take pliers and tear out your fingernails and that would not be torture since loss of life did not occur not organ failure...I guess the Decider can make up any definition he feels like and the hell with established English definitions..

[L. Coyote]

11. War crimes are subject to death penalty, right? Like hanging if in Iraq, right?

Will the hangings be teleivised?

[Solly Mack]

12. DUH doesn't quite say it

Seriously

what a fucking joke

Is hiring a hit man a crime even if you aren't the one pulling the trigger?

Sheesh

there is NO "whether" (or not) to it.

IT IS!

[RuleOfNah]

13. An act? Mere placation? Stalling tactic?

Lead or get out of the way.

[DemReadingDU]

14. wow, Whitehouse was just on cspan2