Fear or Faith?
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:
-
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);
-
Defend the U.S. Constitution, which he clearly believes prohibits torture, which he defined as that which shocks the conscience of the public;
-
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.
