• Home
  • News
  • Holder Says Waterboarding is Torture

Attorney General

Holder Says Waterboarding is Torture

Posted Jan 15, 2009 10:52 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Attorney general nominee Eric Holder told senators in no uncertain terms at his confirmation hearing today that waterboarding is torture.

Holder spoke in response to a question by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, reports The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times. "I agree with you, chairman, that waterboarding is torture," Holder said.

Current Attorney General Michael Mukasey wasn’t as straightforward when he was asked the waterboarding question. “There are some circumstances where current law would appear clearly to prohibit the use of waterboarding,” Mukasey said in a written response to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Other circumstances would present a far closer question.”

The CIA has used waterboarding, which simulates drowning, in interrogations of at least three terrorism suspects, the Associated Press reports.

Holder's waterboarding answer "sent a wave of approval through the public viewing gallery" where protesters held signs calling for an end to torture, the AP wrote.

Holder also said U.S. officials could be held responsible for transferring detainees to foreign governments that torture, the BLT report says. And he said that interrogations conducted during the Obama administration would be consistent with treaty obligations.

Holder also said he made mistakes in his conduct regarding the pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, according to a live blog account by the New York Times. The account says Holder was "nearly leaping at the chance to admit that, yes, he made mistakes in dealing with the pardon.”

Holder said he will be a better attorney general because he learned from his mistakes.

Holder adopted a conciliatory tone in his opening statement, saying his decisions were not always perfect when he served in the Department of Justice under Attorney General Janet Reno.

Comments

1.

J.D.
Jan 15, 2009 1:19 PM CST

The new liberal agenda: Anything that can be used to protect us should be defined as “torture” and outlawed. That way, we can’t defend ourselves, and the nation collapses so that it can be reborn as a socialist state.

Flag this comment

2.

B. McLeod
Jan 15, 2009 2:28 PM CST

We have already become a largely socialist state.  It also seems likely that we will be able to protect ourselves without resorting to torture, just as several past generations have done.

Apart from a few buildings in New York City, very little real damage has in fact been done by these poorly armed and loosely organized Jihadists.  The “threat” has been blown entirely out of proportion by fear mongers.  Most of the direct damage (two wars, scores of inconsequential prisoners to feed, trillions in debt, etc.) has flowed from our own government’s inept and ill targeted reactions.  We have thus far managed to attack a country and kill a bunch of people who never did anything to us, but Osama Bin Laden still roams free.  I miss the days when the U.S. was a “superpower.”

Flag this comment

3.

J.D.
Jan 15, 2009 3:26 PM CST

“Several past generations” have prevented the immigration of people from muslim countries; today they pour across our borders undetected.

“Several past generations” put people in internment camps out of fear of spying and domestic terrorism; today that would be politically impossible.

“Several past generations” never tolerated socialism; today, Obama has appointed an avowed international socialist to his cabinet.

Times have changed, and if the gov’t is unwilling to do what is necessary to protect us, the natural result is that people will begin taking the law into their own hands. Not a good thing.

It’s sad how quickly you dismiss 3.000 dead Americans as “very little real damage.” But that is in keeping with leftist dogma.

Flag this comment

4.

B. McLeod
Jan 15, 2009 4:21 PM CST

J..D., man, those first 4 sentences are simply misstatements of history.

With respect to the ultimate, two-sentence paragraph of the comment, I offer a few responsive observations.  First, official death toll (by certifications of mortality) for 9/11 was 2,750.  Second, many were not Americans.  Third, despite the sadness attendant upon this loss of life, it remains true that the event did not much damage the United States.  By contrast, to date, the unnecessary war in Iraq has resulted in 4,226 dead U.S. soldiers and 30,934 wounded U.S. soldiers (U.S. government figures) while the Afghan war (at least geographically closer to a real enemy) has cost another 637 dead U.S. soldiers.  So, to reiterate, the Bush reaction has destroyed far more American lives than the 9/11 attack.  To further reiterate, none of the massive and poorly-directed reaction has actually resulted in the death or capture of Osama Bin Laden.  Bush has managed to kill a lot of Americans and a lot of disinterested third parties, but not the enemy that actually attacked our country.  These are merely facts, which are widely known throughout the country.  If they are in keeping with “leftist dogma” (as to which, I venture no opinion), perhaps it is due to the leftists working from know facts.  You should give that a try.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.