Mukasey Torture Testimony Weak

News Analysis

By Daniel Schorr

October 21, 2007

Michael Mukasey waffled on how he defined torture before Congress last week. 

He seemed to have three main goals:

1. Preserve the right of the President to do what he thinks is best as far as interrogation techniques are concerned (and we already know what that means since the administration’s practice already contradicts the President’s public statements against torture);
2. Defend the U.S. Constitution, which he clearly believes prohibits torture, which he defined as that which shocks the conscience of the public;
3. Demonstrate his intention to serve as a fully independent attorney general, which would be in keeping with his reputation and was the overall effect of his performance in last week’s hearings according to most critics.

The semantic argument about torture turns entirely, of course, on what shocks the public conscience, which has a lot to do with how frightened we are.  This plays into how presidential election politics are being framed.  We can already see how Republicans are suggesting “radical Islamic terrorists” are the greatest enemy we face, as if we are challenged in a one-front war.  Never mind that the disruptions already caused by global warming are expected to escalate even further as the years go by if we don’t mobilize global cooperation. 

The torture problem is much deeper than semantics, however; and even though it seems that Congress must move on and approve a decent man such as Mukasey, we also have to groan as we see the trust placed in the American president get further eroded.  When you see a person who is a strong supporter of presidential powers being asked to serve a president who has overstepped those powers in the opinion of a very large number of people, then we can expect only greater conflict between the branches of government rather than cooperation. 

Eventually we will have to face the fact that, “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand”(Mark 3:25).   Separation of powers to balance competing interests can be a good thing; but distrust and dissention on fundamental human values is a totally different matter.  Our nation is founded on a common vision of human rights, and it cannot continue to exist if it leaves that foundation. 

Fortunately the ballot box allows us to reaffirm our foundations.  But we have to decide whether we are motivated primarily by our fears or by our beliefs.  Either one or the other must take the priority.  That seems to be the way we are designed to function. 

Brand Romney

Now that the religious right seems to have given its nod of approval to Mitt Romney for president, we can imagine the possibility of recognizing the Psalmist’s insight - that God will be laughing at our country - if the choice for our new president becomes a match between Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton.

That election contest would surely expose some of our deepest national prejudices.  We would have to choose between a woman and a Mormon as head of state: a choice between two devils for some people.

What is especially interesting about this Brand Romney audio report is that politically speaking, Romney seems to operate a lot like Clinton.  They appear to be a good match to go against each other. 

What will clinch the election for either side, if these two finally do become the candidates, will be the hotheads who decide to not vote “on principle” -  in which case they might help the election become a test of which national prejudice is the strongest.  And the winner loses!

Nobel Peace Prize Goes Green

Now that Al Gore and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize we are naturally inclined to ask, what does global warming have to do with world peace? 

James McCarthy of Harvard University gave a nice outline of the answer and a sense of perspective on the issue in this discussion. 

Over the past 20 years the scientific debate has been challenged with and responded to three consecutive questions:

Is global warming real?

Do humans have anything to do with it?

Does it really matter anyway?

Here’s how he summarized it…

When it began, there really was a legitimate debate as to whether the earth was warming in an unusual way. Then when that was settled, the debate was as to whether humans had anything to do with it and if so, how much? And then the question was, well, so what? Will this really have any significant effects?  And I think in each case the IPCC has brought clarity to the scientific message.

A broad scientific and political consensus has now been reached that humans must take action in order to avert dire environmental consequences in the future.  That is now understood.

Many of the world’s internally displaced people are displaced due to climate change, illustrating McCarthy’s claim that…

A warmer world, is one in which there will be more conflict. There will be shortages of water, shortages of food, there will be regional strife, civil unrest.

So we know that action must be taken.  We know the industrialized nations must lead the way because it is the poor nations that will experience the most disastrous effects of global warming and have the least ability to combat it. 

All of a sudden we are challenged with the thought that global warming and not the Middle East might be the greatest long range threat to world peace we are now facing. Muslims have already shown that they are able to transcend their barriers far more readily than Christians in the West have been able to achieve.  Conservative Christians have tended to lead the way in resisting efforts to combat global warming.

We are now challenged with the thought that attempting to reduce global warming ranks with peacemaking and helping less fortunate neighbors in the community of nations.

Will this affect the debate in the next presidential election?  Do we care enough? 

President Bush Vetoes Children’s Health Insurance Legislation

Here’s how you play:  If you have a job that doesn’t have insurance for your children, quit and get on welfare so you can get health insurance.  But you can only stay on welfare for 5 years. Then you’re off.  Decent people work for a living, you know.  And don’t go aborting any babies, either.

It’s pretty easy to see the malicious game plan in the words of Rep. Eric Cantor, as all he could do in defending the president’s veto of the SCHIP program was to repetitiously reiterate that we should “deal with poor kids first” - meaning of course that only they should be covered.  He showed no sympathy for parents who work and are therefore above the poverty line but cannot afford private health insurance.

He gave no definition of poor kid.  But we know that means even poorer than the ones the vetoed bill would cover, which were children of working families who could not afford enough insurance to cover their health care needs.  He gave no reason for aiming so low, but he obviously thinks families need to step down a notch if they really need health insurance.

This discussion with Rep. Rahm Emanuel on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer is worth a listen for those not familiar with the debate, or you can read the transcript.  In contrast to the above emphasis, Rep. Cantor’s main point was… “41 days of the war in Iraq, 10 million kids get health care for a year.”  In other words, the annual cost of this program is only a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war.  Yet it is an investment in our country’s future.

It is difficult to reconcile how the president can veto a bill such as this given his stated promises.

In contrast, the president is now requesting $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Seems to me if the Democratic Congress is serious, then their new game plan should now be No SCHIP, No$190B