Politics Over Principle - The Shame of Democrats

Politics Over Principle

The news that two Senators on the Judiciary Committee have now agreed to support the nomination of Judge Michael B. Mukasey as the next US Attorney General is a clear example of placing politics over principle. The controversy surrounding the nomination, and the issue that has caused a number of Democratic Senators to oppose the nomination, has been the unwillingness of the nominee to state unequivocally whether the “waterboarding” technique of “aggressive” interrogation constitutes “torture” that is unacceptable under the laws of this country as well as international law. The technique is intended to coerce the prisoner to reveal information through the experience of extreme pain and psychological pressure – the sense of death by drowning. There is no evidence of any beneficial use of the procedure for any therapeutic purpose.

It appears that all GOP senators are in support of the Attorney General nominee because he was put forward by the President, regardless of his qualifications to hold the position as top law enforcement official in the United States. One has to wonder whether a candidate like Josef Mengele would have been an acceptable nominee to these senators if President Bush had put such a person forward. Party loyalty and politics seem more important that any moral standards.

The argument put forward by Bush, that the nominee has not been “briefed” on the use of his Administration’s interrogation techniques is a senseless and facile one. In the first place, the Administration reuses to brief ANYONE on the techniques it uses. Second, the nominee is in a position to respond to the question whether he views waterboarding as torture precisely because he has not been briefed on specific instances. Had he the awareness of specific cases that might come before him, he would be obliged to decline comment. But the current question is asked in general and as a matter of moral judgment and principle in order to gauge his character and philosophy. These are legitimate questions to assess the fitness of a person to hold such an important position.

Does placing a plastic bag over a prisoner’s head and tightening it until the prisoner passes out from asphyxiation rise to the level of torture? How about use of the ancient “dunking” chair process used against reputed “witches” to force them to confess their possession by evil spirits – not entirely dissimilar to waterboarding – as a form of torture? How about electrode shocks, attack dogs, simulated execution by injection of solutions that the prisoner believes are lethal? If the nominee has an internal moral compass and a line that he draws regarding what he deems inhumane treatment, the Judiciary Committee is entitled to probe for an understanding of his character and philosophy before recommending him to the full Senate for confirmation.

That these Democratic senators have shirked their responsibility to press the nominee to disclose his beliefs and moral standards is lamentable. Unfortunately, in the US today we cannot rely upon elected officials to take a stand on principle rather than bow to political pressure. These days, when our elected representatives do take a stand and insist upon doing something because it is “right,” [based upon internationally accepted principles of human rights and decency] rather than because it is convenient or popular, it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.