The Democrats, because of attorney-general-nominee Mukasey's amiable face, are inclined to confirm him, except for this one fly in the ointment: Mukasey refuses to say whether waterboarding constitutes torture.
In a previous post, I pointed out that a senate Democrat mentioned the case of a US soldier who was prosecuted for using waterboarding on a Filipino insurgent. The effect of the method is to make the captive feel he is drowning. Now, if that is not torture, I don't know what is.
In his speech at the Heritage Foundation yesterday, George W. explained his tortured logic why Congress should just confirm the nominee immediately:
- If the menu of methods in interrogation were to be published, suspected terrorists could adopt mitigation measures. How? By bringing scuba gear or snorkels all the time, during suicide missions, especially, I suppose. And Osama might send his trainees to explore the rich marine life in the Philippines in aid of proper certification as a torture-proof and dead terrorist. That makes sense and would be good for Philippine tourism. (How about this Ace Durano and GMA? Why don't you testify bravely against your idol?)
- Mukasey has not been briefed on the method and could not possibly make a judgment. So brief him immediately then.
- The whimpy Democrats, ever soft on national security, are just making political hay.
- Finally leading to his pitch on the "war on terror", soi-disant, the US should employ all means to accomplish the ends of his foreign and phallic fallacy.
Does this debate have any implications for the Philippines? Are our definitions of torture rigorous? What are these?
Ruben Carranza Jr., formerly defense assistant secretary under Erap, recently reminded me that since EDSA 1, no one has been prosecuted successfully for torture. What a shame.
4 comments:
King,
My ICTJ colleague in the office next to mine is a lawyer from Chile. He wrote this paper on waterboarding under Pinochet and waterboarding under Bush.
Thanks. Is my assertion on prosecution correct?
Yup. First of all, even if the Philippines is a party to the UN Convention Against Torture, we haven't made torture a crime in itself. So any act of torture that isn't fatal becomes "merely" a crime involving physical injury. That explains why the pulis don't "present" suspects to the "media" until after the bruises and wounds are gone -- physical injury as a crime requires some proof of injury and will prescribe if not filed soon enough. Torture victims are traumatized far longer than the physical wounds that heal.
On the related subject of torture victims and their choice of underwear, this article about a lawyer for Guantanamo's torture victims is of utmost legal importance, briefs-wise.
So, because I'm not rich enough to buy bullet and pinch-proof underwear, I can be tortured and die a thousand deaths in my mind, and have no right to sue for torture. Is this, briefly, correct?
Post a Comment