Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Human Rights Law Blogs -> Never In Our Names

Human Rights Law

: Never In Our Names

The Maddening Equivocation of Dianne Feinstein

By Alexa

Anyone else confused (again) by DiFi? She's not my Senator, but in January, she'll become the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Feinstein's ambiguity on torture is puzzling, to say the least. On November 26:

Feinstein stated:

[..] that she wants to see the closure of Guantanamo Bay within one year and to outlaw "once and for all" the nation's use of torture.

Feinstein, meeting with reporters in her San Francisco office, said she also wants to prohibit government contractors from interrogating detainees and give the Red Cross access to detainees. She also called for Obama to appoint a new CIA chief and director of national intelligence.

"I very much want to see America's credibility and integrity returned," said Feinstein, who has served on the Senate intelligence committee for eight years.

All well and good, but for a statement today that I can't reconcile as being either clearly contradictory or that old-tyme favorite of the past few years, Mixed Messages.

But in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility. "I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible," she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures.

Afterward, however, Mrs. Feinstein issued a statement saying: "The law must reflect a single clear standard across the government, and right now, the best choice appears to be the Army Field Manual. I recognize that there are other views, and I am willing to work with the new administration to consider them." (The New York Times)

Great. Just great. Perdona, but this ambiguity reminds me of a fellow blogger's mathematical equation of just a little over a year ago (h/t dunneasley):

If A = "Mukasey will protect the president's illegal and immoral torturing of prisoners," and B = "Diane Feinstein will vote to confirm Mukasey as AG," then A+B=C: Feinstein IS endorsing torture and it IS just that simple.

Indeed. The same Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey who would have you and I believe, at his confirmation hearings last year, that he just wasn't real sure exactly what the term "waterboarding" means.

The waterboarding tactic generally involves strapping the prisoner to a board, covering his face or mouth with a cloth, and pouring water over his face to create the sensation of drowning, according to human rights groups. The practice dates to at least the Spanish Inquisition, and has been prosecuted as torture in U.S. military courts since the Spanish-American War.

In testimony before the Judiciary panel on Oct. 18, Mukasey demurred when asked whether waterboarding constitutes torture and is therefore illegal. "I don't know what's involved in the technique," he said. "If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional."

But hold the phone, amigos. Even that bit of estupidamente - please, find me a 14 year old American who doesn't know what waterboarding is; better yet and worse yet, a younger child who's seen the SpongeBob SquarePants Robo-Waterboard theme park attraction isn't quite vague enough.

Mukasey also testified that while the president could not authorize conduct that would violate torture laws, there may be occasions when the president's powers as commander in chief could trump a federal law requiring that a special court approve intelligence-related wiretaps.

Asi. The plot sickens.

Blitzer: When you both announced on Friday you will support the confirmation of Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general, that effectively guaranteed that he'll not only get out of the committee but eventually will be confirmed as the attorney general. Even though he's taking what some are calling a wishy-washy position on waterboarding or torture, why do you believe he should be confirmed?

Feinstein: Well, first of all, because he is a bright, independent figure. Well-steeped in national security law, presided over some of those trials. In the 172 pages of written questions and answers, the independence of thought comes through.

Senator Feinstein, please. What's bright or independent about Mukasey's refusal to answer the question after confirmation?

"I understand that you and some other members of the (Judiciary) Committee may feel that I should go further in my review, and answer questions concerning the legality of waterboarding under current law," Mukasey wrote in his three-page letter to Leahy, D-Vt. "I understand the strong interest in this question, but I do not think it would be responsible for me, as attorney general, to provide an answer."

The attorney general added: "If this were an easy question, I would not be reluctant to offer my views on this subject. But, with respect, I believe it is not an easy question. There are some circumstances where current law would appear clearly to prohibit the use of waterboarding. Other circumstances would present a far closer question."

Y'all have nothin' on Waffle House, I'll say that much for you. Together, you've served up some waffle rhetoric that in a better word, would have you refilling maple syrup pitchers instead of advising the president on torture policy. Let me quote Liliana Segura one more time. This is from last February, during the presidential primary campaign, but Ms. Segura gets it in a way I wish our elected representatives could aspire to.

Now, with his election campaign in full swing, Obama has positioned himself as just that: a level-headed candidate who can transcend political pettiness and bring people together in order to get things done. To his credit, he has promised he will restore habeas corpus and declares that it is "never OK" to torture. He has called for closing Guantanamo (all the leading candidates have, in fact, with the exception of the recently departed Mitt Romney, who would have famously "doubled" it). For anyone opposed to the Bush administration's stampede on human rights, such promises are reassuring. But they are also a sad indication how dismally low our political standards have become. Opposition to torture is not a brave stance. You're supposed to be against it.

The art of not getting it didn't begin or end with Dianne Feinstein or Michael Mukasey, but Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) wondered if Congress has to specifically state that forcing water into someone's lungs is cruel, inhuman and degrading.

"Are we going to have to outlaw the rack because there's a question whether the rack is torture in this country," Cardin asked.

Nonetheless, Feinstein has been at times been a strong voice against torture, perhaps most notably in the proposed legislation of the Feinstein-Hagel-Whitehouse-Feingold Measure. This bill, opposed by John McCain and vetoed by Decider George W. Bush, would have banned waterboarding and other forms of torture and applied the same standards on the CIA and other intelligence agencies that Congress imposed on the Defense Department in the Detainee Treatment Act.  Any technique not authorized by the Army Field Manual would have been prohibited, had this bill passed Congress.

So with Senator Feinstein poised to head up the Senate Intelligence Committee in the administration of President-Elect Obama, a president who's against torture and actually, well, cares about people who have been silenced and shunned in torture gulags, the future looks bright, si?

Not so much. In a late evening update to the original quote above:

UPDATE: An aide to Feinstein contacted me this evening to say that the New York Times cut off part of her statement to the paper. That full statement, however, seems to only confirm the Times' suggestion that Feinstein is backing away from the Army Field Manual standard for all interrogations, in favor of an alternative, still undefined, "single standard across the government." More to come.

In the meantime, here is the Feinstein statement in full, which was given to the Times to clarify a comment Feinstein made in a Tuesday interview with the paper:

"The law must reflect a single, clear standard across the government, and right now the best choice appears to be the Army Field Manual," Senator Feinstein said. "I recognize that there are other views, and I am willing to work with the new Administration to consider them. However, my intent is to pass a law that effectively bans torture, complies with all laws and treaties, and provides a single standard across the government."

For want of a shoe, the kingdom was lost. For want of straight answers, what will our accumulated losses be?

Full post as published by Never In Our Names on December 03, 2008 (boomark / email).