Live Blog: Senate Hearing re Torture Commission

… that if Repubs won’t help in getting the truth out then we may have to go through more “traditional” means — prosecution?

… brings up adhering to the army field manual, the one Valtin has shown still allows torture.

Wouldn’t have known that if it hadn’t been for Valtin’s essays.

What a commissiom should look like — (1) It should stand above politics.  Should report to and answer to the American people.  Ought to be comprised of persons whose duty is to truth and our founding principles.

(2) Should operate in public to the maximum extent possible.

(3) Should be separate and distinct process from investigation or prosecution.  Establishment of commissiion would not preclude prosecution.  But prosection would not be purpose of commission.

(4) Should have subpoena power in order to gather and tell the whole story of what has transpired.

(5) Difficult issue of whether the commissiom should have power to grant immunity — will engender a great deal of debate.  He’d hope policy makers would consider immunity very carefully.  Persons can invoke their 5th Amendment rights.  In Pickering’s view, the Commission should not be able to grant blanket immunity. … Should grant immunity only in very limited circumstances.

(link)

A Nominee With A Troubling View On Torture

In addition to Mr. Haynes, there is another nominee of this Administration who has spoken and written widely on these matters. That is David B. Rivkin Jr. Mr. Rivkin has been nominated by President Bush to an executive position in the Department of Justice to rule on claims, including claims of mistreatment and torture. I have been deeply concerned by the Mr. Rivkin’s views concerning torture and concerning cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. He has claimed, for example, that some forms of “aggressive interrogation” — which according to him could include deprivation of food and water, mental pain and suffering, contorted positions, sleep deprivation, and even beatings – are arguably technically legal in certain cases. Of course the fact that most legal authorities, including the Israeli Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights, disagree with Mr. Rivkin’s views have done little to dissuade him, and he has continued to write and speak in defense of the Administration’s “aggressive” approach to detainees and in favor of punishment for captured insurgents, including with respect to Iraq, as recently as last month.

Mr. Rivkin’s position is clear from an article he co-authored in January 2003: “The United States has not granted the rights of honorable prisoners of war to the Guantanamo Bay detainees because they are neither legally nor morally entitled to those rights. . . . Article 17 of that treaty . . . is inapplicable to the Guantanamo detainees and does not limit the United States’ right to interrogate them. Moreover, even assuming that the detainees have been subjected to the interrogation methods . . . including painful bindings, contorted positions, sleep deprivation, piercing noises and even beatings — a claim that al Qaeda members are trained to make and that has not been substantiated — these do not, as a matter of law, constitute torture.”

Mr. Rivkin’s narrow views of human rights law and the definition of torture raised significant concerns in connection with his nomination and raise additional concerns about this Administration’s policies and practices. In numerous articles over the years, Mr. Rivkin has argued that international humanitarian law, a well-established component of international law that protects civilians during wartime, is illegitimate. He has also criticized the International Committee of the Red Cross and other organizations for “relentlessly” promoting international humanitarian law.

I voted against Mr. Rivkin last year when his nomination was considered by this Committee because I did not think, based on his positions, that he could consider such claims fairly. I am astounded that the Administration chose to resubmit his nomination this year — after abuses at several U.S. detention centers were widely reported in the press and alleged to have been due, in part, to the same narrow view of our obligations under international law that Mr. Rivkin has espoused. The Senate’s obligation to consent on nominees is not a rubber-stamp but an essential check to ensure that those who serve in positions of public trust uphold core constitutional values and human rights.

Sounds like a real groovy fellow.

… “war crimes” in air quotes.

What an asshole.

… is calling Bush’s conduct “exemplary.”

Why the fuck is he in this hearing?  What’s the point of this?  More fucking “fair and balanced.”

… Whitehouse was furious at Rivkin over his bullshit.

Rivkin is slime.