A New ‘Water’gate?

Perhaps what we need in the United States is a new “Watergate”. I don’t mean a recorded Presidential scandal resulting in impeachment proceedings, although I understand there are a few supporters of something like that. I am talking about an investigation into the whole waterboarding blame game. The reason I propose this is based upon the intense focus this topic seems to elicit and the passion with which waterboarding gets discussed in congress, the news, at home, and across the internet.

What exactly is waterboarding?

Well, if you can lay down in the shower, put a towel over your face and allow the shower to cascade water onto your face through the towel, that is a very simple example of the method. The difference being that an actual prisoner would be tied to a board and the board would be tilted head down. A claustrophobic response, mixed with the helplessness of being restrained, combined with inhaling small amounts of water creates a feeling of drowning. It is reported as have no lasting physical effects, however the psychological effects are impossible to measure consistently. The purpose of this practice is to create a great deal of stress in order to elicit someone, as an example, to tell us where bad guys are or what they are planning.

Is waterboarding torture? Well, several lawmakers in Washington asked Michael Mukasey if he thought waterboarding constituted torture and Mr. Mukasey stated he found it “personally repugnant”, but refused to define waterboarding as torture. On its face, this seems to be troubling - the President’s choice for the top law enforcement post in the nation refusing to do this obviously simple thing. However, if you peel the onion a little bit, there is an insidious element to this entire line of questioning. The debate regarding the legal definition of torture should not be happening between the candidate for Attorney General and congressional lawmakers. The Attorney General does not decide what is and is not legal. His job is to enforce the laws of our nation, and in this case the lawmakers who posed the question to Michael Mukasey have not done their job of defining waterboarding as torture.

Obviously, defining waterboarding as torture is not as important an issue as condemning Turkey for an event which occurred 95 years ago. If it was important enough, I am certain the lawmakers would have brought their considerable influence to bear and get a bill through Congress. Instead, these lawmakers have foisted the responsibility of making a law onto someone else, solely for the purpose of political expediency. That should be the basis of the New Watergate.

If these lawmakers wish to allow the Attorney General to define the legality of issues facing our nation, maybe there are other questions they could have posed. Perhaps they could have asked Michael Mukasey to define Marriage, or the legality of abortion, or the legality of certain types of lobbying. Unfair to everyone involved, don’t you think?

After all of the posturing and news conferences on the hill, Michael Mukasey was confirmed as Attorney General. It was not because these lawmakers were satisfied with Mr. Mukasey’s responses to their questions. In the end, they believe two things - they got to take their shot at the president and they believe that a year from now it won’t matter anyway. But that discussion is for another article - No Pundit Intended.