Eric Holder answered the important questions right in his confirmation hearing. In his sworn testimony, under questioning from Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, Holder stated unequivocally that “waterboarding is torture.”
Waterboarding, where a person is strapped to a board and water is poured over their face, filling the lungs, has been written off as “simulated” drowning. In fact, as Malcolm Nance, who has been waterboarded and performed waterboarding at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School, wrote:
“Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again.”
After years of Bush administration doublespeak on the matter, with the official line being “The United States does not torture,” while officials defended CIA “enhanced interrogation techniques, it is refreshing to hear the nominee for Attorney General speak so clearly on the subject.
He went on to state that “the president does not have the power” to allow torture. In addition, Holder swore to uphold and protect the Constitution, not simply do the president’s bidding.
In the past eight years, we’ve gone through three Attorneys General, starting with John Ashcroft, famous for his song “Let the Eagle Soar” and his spending $8000 on curtains to hide the breasts on the Statue of Justice. But Ashcroft also created the PATRIOT Act (which did not appear to be an area of questioning for Holder).
Ashcroft was then succeeded by Alberto Gonzalez, and the opinion on the left was widely considered to be “He can’t be worse than Ashcroft.”
Oh, were we wrong. Gonzalez was the author of the infamous torture memo, describing parts of the Geneva Conventions as “quaint.” He also oversaw the firings of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.
Holder doesn’t come without his own baggage, As a deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton, Holder’s advice led to the pardon of billionaire Marc Rich, which created controversy and led to a grand jury investigation in 2001 after Rich’s former wife’s donations to Clinton’s library and causes came to light.
Republicans on the committee pressed Holder hard on the issue, but he was prepared. And since pardons are unlikely to be a major question until the end of an Obama term (or two), we should be more concerned with Holder’s views on torture (opposed), Guantanamo (supports closing it), and the rights of the executive.
And even more than current (and compromise) Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Holder appears to actually understand the position of Attorney General–to be the attorney not for the president (that’s what White House Counsel is for) but for the United States.
Holder drew applause for stating that Guantanamo will be closed, and that the current process of military commissions needs revamping.
Another question that no one seemed to be asking, however, was whether Holder believes Bush administration officials who practiced torture should be prosecuted. Obama has stated that he “will not focus” on prosecutions, but has not entirely ruled them out. If I might make a suggestion to Holder, it would be that he uphold his own words, when questioned on the president’s ability to immunize people who torture.