Hello:

"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

kindj

OK, I'll put in my two-cents' worth.

It seems to me that the issue isn't so much about nailing down a definition of torture, or even about whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture. The way I read it, it's more about the AG getting put into a situation where there's no right answer. Once again, this looks to me like more purely political bullsh!t, and a whole lot less like genuine concern about "human rights," which is another slippery term to define to everyone's satisfaction.

But as to the issue of waterboarding itself: It sucks, I'll not argue about that. It sucks slightly more than having a classroom full of wannabe gangsters, whores, pimps, and welfare brats, but less than a vasectomy. I've had all three, and I realize that all three might be subjective. There's those that would rather have a vasectomy than teach thugs, and others who would get waterboarded for hours before they'd let a doc cut on their cajones.

But if--and I say if--it really is that subjective, why are so many of my tax dollars going to try and prove or disprove an elusive definition?

However, I reiterate: I think this is political maneuvering, and has nothing to do with genuine concern for the alleged "rights" of our enemies. This is internal, domestic politics.

excon

Hello again:

I agree that the Bushies are trapped. But not because the Dems are so smart, but because Bush is so dumb.

Given the discussion about torture and waterboarding, and our previous AG's stance on it, I think the question is perfectly legitimate one to ask of our NEW AG. It's really an OBVIOUS question too, isn't it? Certainly, if YOU were providing oversight, you'd ask too.

You just don't like the question, because your dude and his lackey are TRAPPED, into a lose lose situation. Poor Bush.

excon

PS> Sorry again, El. There are certain experiences in life that one doesn't have to go through to understand them. I'm bright enough to be able to do that. No hubris, just brains.

tomder55

If we are still undecided we can always ask Ted Kennedy

kindj

I disagree. I don't think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask the new AG.

I think that those posing the question are shirking the issue themselves.

Look, if this is that big a deal, and apparently it is on the Hill, then why haven't any of these champions of other's rights put together a commission to study, research, and define these things? If they are REALLY that concerned, why are they waiting for some other guy---ONE GUY---to tell them? I realize that this might be a stretch, but surely they can find an odd number of guys smart enough to tackle this question and define the terms. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the AG isn't a lawmaker, he's a law enforcer. How can he enforce a law that the lawmakers haven't defined? What about SCOTUS? Aren't they the final arbiter on what a law or a term of law means? Why haven't these gentlemen consulted the SC for an opinion or a ruling?

For all their pi$$ing and moaning about so many things being left up to one man, that's exactly what they're trying to do here, and their motives for doing that (and the ethics of those motives) is what concerns me.

excon

Hello Dennis:

It IS defined in the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. It's as clear as a bell.

You want congress to LIST the things they can and can't do. But, that doesn't clarify anything. In fact, it muddies the waters even more. The problem with LISTING things or DEFINING them specifically is that ALL the things NOT listed, will be ok to do. If thumbscrews aren't listed, then they must be ok. Or, if you just waterboarded a little differently than the law defines it, then it's ok to do it.

I think they call that a slippery slope. Nahh, that ain't gonna happen.

excon

kindj

Your bells must be of a higher quality than mine, because I don't see squat in the 8th Amendment, any other Amendment, or anywhere in the Constitution a thing in the world about treatment of enemy combatants.

I saw a whole mess o' stuff about how we can and can't treat American citizens, but nothing on enemy combatants.

I don't think the Constitution is the best instrument to use for this. It was written to regulate domestic affairs and limit the powers of the three branches of government from a domestic point of view. Foreign policy isn't addressed.

ETWolverine

Excon,

The 8th Amendment does not define torture. It doesn't even mention torture.

The 8th Amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

It does not define cruel and unusual punishments. It certainly does not say that waterboarding shall fall into the category of cruel and unusual punishments. And it never mentions the word torture torture at all. Are "cruel and unusual punishment" and "torture" the same thing? I don't know. If they were the same thing, why not simply say "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor torture inflicted"? Save on a few words and some ink. But they didn't do that, which leads me to believe that there is a difference somewhere between "torture" and "cruel and unusual punishments". And NEITHER TERM is explained by the 8th Amendment.

Therefore, the 8th Amendment cannot be said to "define" torture. As much as you would like to think that it does, it doesn't.

Unless you can give me a DEFINITIVE LIST of what constitutes "torture" and what does not, the fact is that YOU don't have a definition for it either. If you did have a definition, compiling a list of appropriate and inappropriate interrogation techniques would not be difficult to create. Since no such list exists, we are forced to rely on our own judgement... and at that point the entire concept of a definition of torture becomes subjective. What you consider torture, somone else might not.

You consider waterboarding to be torture. I get that. You would like everyone to agree with you. I get that too, who doesn't want everyone to agree with them. You would like Congress to make a law so that there is no longer any question of what torture means. Also understandable. Problem is that not everyone agrees with you. In fact, it seems pretty clear to me that MOST people do not agree with you and your definition of torture. And since there is no clear definition, they are free to disagree until such time as a definition does become clear.

Elliot

kindj

Not to mention that the U.S. Constitution only applies to citizens of the U.S.