At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
"Well, that's a fine kettle of fish you put me in Georgie"
Our prospective Attorney General has been put into a tight spot by our fearless leaders (snicker, snicker). He either has to admit that waterboarding is torture (and thereby cause the CIA, the Defense Department, and Georgie himself, to be classified as CRIMINALS) or, if he say's waterboarding ISN'T torture, he doesn't get the job.
I really hate to be crass about it, but honestly--I got worse than waterboarding when I was surfing. But we've been over this before, so I'll leave it alone.
"Well, that's a fine kettle of fish you put me in Georgie"
Our prospective Attorney General has been put into a tight spot by our fearless leaders (snicker, snicker). He either has to admit that waterboarding is torture (and thereby cause the CIA, the Defense Department, and Georgie himself, to be classified as CRIMINALS) or, if he say's waterboarding ISN'T torture, he doesn't get the job.
Poor fellow. What's a lawyer to do?
excon
This is the grossest bunch of Bull I’ve come across; water boarding was done but the sentence was not based on that. It was based on beating a civilian with a club; burning using a cigarette and other forms of torture.
Whoooops….Sorry about that excon. That was meant for the Canadian chaps post: "Mukasey Won’t Say Waterboarding Is Torture But in 1947 the U.S. Called It a War Crime, Sentenced Enemy Officer to 15 Years Hard Labor"
"I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are stake"....
....Also, looming over this entire issue is still the question of what is and is not torture. Many are quick to define waterboarding as torture, despite the fact that it inflicts no pain and leaves no lasting damage. It scares the hell out of those being waterboarded, sure, and subjects them to a significant amount of emotional distress...but does that rise to the level of torture? .......
......It’s easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture cannot be used. But when you’re in the foxhole, it’s a very different deal. And I respect, I think we all respect, that the President’s in the foxhole every day. [Sen. Charles Schumer ]
Why is above quote relevant ? Because is was the schmukster who went to the White House and recommended Mukasey for the position of AG . If the Judiciary Committee votes along party lines then Chucky Cheese will be the swing vote. Then the schmucky one will have the choice of voting with the Republican minority to move the nomination to the Senate ,or to vote with his party ,knowing that his opinion about torture is part of the public record. Or he could take the weasel way out and skip the vote ,thus moving the nomination out of the deadlocked committee to the full Senate.
I expect Schumer to try to do a 2 step slide on the issue. He is already qualifying his remarks. He has already said ,"No nominee from this administration will agree with us on torture and wiretapping. The best we can hope for is someone who will rebuild the Justice Department and remain independent, even when pressured by this administration." He may by pure accident end up doing the right thing.
Let's also keep in mind that the Senate voted on this issue last year, and the vote went AGAINST listing waterboarding as torture in a 43-56 vote. (Ted Kennedy floated the bill to call it torture.)
Furthermore, there have actually been journalists who have volunteered for waterboarding just to see what it's like. None of them have ended up any worse for wear.
We use waterboarding to teach survival and resistance to special forces soldiers.
Such luminaries as Bill Clinton and John McCain have stated that waterboarding would be an acceptable interogation technique in a "ticking timebomb scenario".
So it seems to me that Congress and the political world are hardly unanimous on the subject of whether waterboarding is actually torture or not and whether it is illegal or not. And if they are not unanimous on the decision, why should Mukasey be forced to take a stance one way or the other. He should be able to say (as he has) "I don't have enough information yet to know whether it is torture or not or whether it is illegal or not." In fact, Mukasey has gone further than that and said that waterboarding may not legally be torture, but it may still be illegal because it might be "cruel, inhman, or degrading treatment". But he doesn't know because he doesn't have enough information yet to make a decision. Why is that an unacceptable response?
Mukasey has opined in a letter to the Senate that the McCain amendment called the Detainee Treatment Act ( to the Defense procurement bill ) ;SEC. 1003. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ; prohibits the use of waterboarding .
This could put him at odds with the President since his signing statement related to the bill said :
Quote:
"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
Personally I'm leaning towards rooting for a rejection of the nomination . He may be a very good judge but the initial Schumer endorsement makes me suspicious .
But he doesn't know because he doesn't have enough information yet to make a decision. Why is that an unacceptable response?
Hello again, El:
If the prospective chief law enforcement officer of our country doesn't know the definition of torture, then I doubt that he knows what murder or rape is either.
Parsing the word torture is lying, simply because you want to do it.
I would have a great deal more respect for you, them, and everybody else if you would just admit that waterboarding is torture, but that we need to do it.
I'll have that argument with you, but I'm not going to parse words. I feel real stupid doing it. I know that waterboarding is torture. I don't need to see it. I don't need to do it. I don't need to have it done to me. I am smart enough to figure it out for myself. You are too.
I understand the political advantage to playing dumb. But, I’m NOT dumb.
I would tend to agree with your skepticism, Tom. But as a matter of policy, the nomination should be brought up for a vote. There is nothing inherently wrong with the nominee, so the Senate should vote either up or down on the guy rather than stalling his nomination.
On the other hand, I have heard a number of people who I respect say good things about Mukasey. And then there's the fact that he's an Orthodox Jew from New York... I admitt to bias in his favor just for that reason alone. Not an overwhelming bias, but it is still there.
If the prospective chief law enforcement officer of our country doesn't know the definition of torture, then I doubt that he knows what murder or rape is either.
Parsing the word torture is lying, simply because you want to do it.
I would have a great deal more respect for you, them, and everybody else if you would just admit that waterboarding is torture, but that we need to do it.
I'll have that argument with you, but I'm not going to parse words. I feel real stupid doing it. I know that waterboarding is torture. I don't need to see it. I don't need to do it. I don't need to have it done to me. I am smart enough to figure it out for myself. You are too.
I understand the political advantage to playing dumb. But, I’m NOT dumb.
excon
I dunno, excon. There's one guy on this board who has been through waterboarding, and he doesn't seem to consider it torture. Do you, who have never experienced it, claim to know more about the practice than he does? Do you claim that a guy who has been through it is "parsing words" when he says it isn't torture? That smacks of a bit of hubris to me, to claim that you know more about a topic than someone who has actually experienced it. But then again, your hubris is part of what I like so much about you.
Dennis, would you care to chime in on this topic?
And again, Congress can't even get together to define waterboarding as torture. A majority of the Senate refused to accept that definition. What makes you so sure you are right about that definition?
Linear Mode
