Kettle of fish

excon · #1 Nov 1, 2007, 06:22 AM

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

NeedKarma · Nov 1, 2007, 06:26 AM

It used to be a war crime as per the U.S.: Pensito Review » 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

"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"

kindj · Nov 1, 2007, 06:28 AM

He could always take the now-famous "Clinton Strategy" and move for an independent hearing on the definition of the word "is."

tomder55 · Nov 1, 2007, 07:06 AM

Real torture is being compelled to testify before the Congress for a cabinet position.This is why I argued before Mukasey's selection that Bush should just wait until the holiday break and make a recess appointment of Ted Olsen for the position . Mukasey's nomination was an attempt to appease the Dems. That did not work so Bush should withdraw his nomination and go with my plan.

If waterboarding is torture then we have to find a new word for what Saddam and his sons were doing .

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

Soccer Players Describe Torture by Hussein's Son

Or what happens in camps throughout North Korea

Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag | North and South Korea | Guardian Unlimited

Survivors Report Torture in North Korea Labor Camps

Heck blasting loud Linda Rondstadt and Nancy Sinatra music at a Waco complex before torching it and its inhabitants isn't described as torture .I have not heard a Dem. condemn that act !

excon · Nov 1, 2007, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

If waterboarding is torture then we have to find a new word for what Saddam and his sons were doing .

Hello again, tom:

You're right. How about if we called waterboarding, torture light?

excon

ETWolverine · Nov 1, 2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

You're right. How about if we called waterboarding, torture light?

excon

Or we could just call it what it is... harsh interrogation.

Needkarma,

The way waterboarding is used today is very different fom the way the Nazis did it. The Nazis actually drowned their victims. We do not.

Waterboarding as it is used today in the intelligence community is more a case of a psychological technique to make a subject FEEL like he's drowning without actually drowning them. There's a good example of waterboarding in the movie GI Jane where Demi Moore's character is waterboarded as part of her training. She was in no danger of actually drowning, but water being poured over her face from a hose made her FEEL like she was drowning. THAT is what our interrogators use, as opposed to actually drowning the subject (which gets you no information and a dead body that needs to be explained).

So there are significant differences (both in how it is done and in terms of legality) between waterboarding as used by the Nazis and waterboarding as used by our interrogators.

Elliot

excon · Nov 1, 2007, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Or we could just call it what it is... harsh interrogation.

Hello again, El:

Were that so, you'd think the applicant for Attorney General, the highest law officer in the land, Bush's hand picked dude, wouldn't have any trouble saying that.

But he DOES have trouble saying that, cause he knows it AIN'T true - and he's a rightwinger. But, he can't SAY it's true, because his bosses Cheney and Bush will go to jail. Looks like a conundrum that even a rightwinger can't get out of.

See post about Bush in jail.

The only way he could get away with saying nothing about it, is if the lily livered libs confirm him anyway, thereby giving Bush ANOTHER victory in a long string of victory's.

Now, don't get a swelled head. He winning these victory's because the Dems are pussies, not because he's right.

excon

tomder55 · Nov 1, 2007, 10:11 AM

Ex
It seems to me that the best Mukasey could do at this point is to pledge to review the legality of waterboarding after he becomes AG. If he says it is an illegal act now he is making an opinion without having access to all the information needed to make that opinion.

Anyway here is a fact to consider . According to Mukasey waterboarding cannot be used by the United States military because its use by the military would be a clear violation of the Detainee Treatment Act passed at the end of Dec. 2005 . The CIA already stopped using waterboarding as a policy before the law was passed.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...09.pdf#page=61

He also wrote a letter addressing the concerns of some of the Senators over the issue .
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...007.pdf#page=2

In the letter he says :

Quote:

"I have not been briefed on techniques used in any classified interrogation program conducted by any government agency. For me, then, there is a real issue as to whether the techniques presented and discussed at the hearing and in your letter are even part of any program of questioning detainees."

He goes on to answer in my opinion any of their concerns they may have about his opinion of the technique. I do not think he can be more clear about the issue :

Quote:

I was asked at the hearing and in your letter questions about the hypothetical use of certain coercive interrogation techniques. As described in your letter, these techniques seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me, and would probably seem the same to many Americans. But hypotheticals are different from real life, and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical. As a judge, I tried to be objective in my decision-making and to put aside even strongly held personal beliefs when assessing a legal question because legal questions must be answered based solely on the actual facts, circumstances, and legal standards presented. A legal opinion based on hypothetical facts and circumstances may be of some limited academic appeal but has scant practical effect or value.

I have said repeatedly, and reiterate here, that no one, including a President, is above the law, and that I would leave office sooner than participate in a violation of law. If confirmed, any legal opinions I offer will reflect that I appreciate the need for the United States to remain a nation of laws and to set the highest standards. I will be mindful also of our shared obligation to ensure that our Nation has the tools it needs, within the law, to protect the American people.

Legal opinions should treat real issues. I have not been briefed on techniques used in any classified interrogation program conducted by any government agency. For me, then, there is a real issue as to whether the techniques presented and discussed at the hearing and in your letter are even part of any program of questioning detainees. Although I have not been cleared into the details of any such program, it is my understanding that some Members of Congress, including those on the intelligence committees, have been so cleared and have been briefed on the specifics of a program run by the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"). Those Members know the answer to the question of whether the specific techniques presented to me at the hearing and in your letter are part of the CIA's program. I do not.

I do know, however, that "waterboarding" cannot be used by the United States military because its use by the military would be a clear violation of the Detainee Treatment Act ("DTA"). That is because "waterboarding" and certain other coercive interrogation techniques are expressly prohibited by the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation, and Congress specifically legislated in the DTA that no person in the custody or control of the Department of Defense ("DOD") or held in a DOD facility may be subject to any interrogation techniques not authorized and listed in the Manual.......

I emphasize in closing this answer that nothing set forth above, or in my testimony, should be read as an approval of the interrogation techniques presented to me at the hearing or in your letter, or any comparable technique. Some of you told me at the hearing or in private meetings that you hoped and expected that, if confirmed, I would exercise my independent judgment when providing advice to the President, regardless of whether that advice was what the President wanted to hear. I told you that it would be irresponsible for me to do anything less. It would be no less irresponsible for me to seek confirmation by providing an uninformed legal opinion based on hypothetical facts and circumstances.

As I testified, if confirmed I will review any coercive interrogation techniques currently used by the United States Government and the legal analysis authorizing their use to assess whether such techniques comply with the law. If, after such a review, I determine that any technique is unlawful, I will not hesitate to so advise the President and will rescind or correct any legal opinion of the Department of Justice that supports use of the technique. I view this as entirely consistent with my commitment to provide independent judgment on all issues. That is my commitment and pledge to the President, to the Congress, and to the American people. Each and all should expect no less from their Attorney General.

Confirm him or not ;I really don't care either way. But he has adequately answered their questions .The rest of the hearing is pure theater and a waste of time.

excon · Nov 1, 2007, 10:25 AM

Hello again, tom:

There are some absolutes. You might say abortion is an absolute. I'll bet you would. Waterboarding, on its face, IS absolutely torture.

Saying I'll study it and get back to you, is saying it ISN'T torture.

excon

PS> I dunno why you don’t understand that if you get your way, our guys will be tortured too, and we’re not going to have the high ground anymore.

tomder55 · Nov 1, 2007, 10:50 AM

He gave them more than enough to make a decision .Let them make it . You hit on the Dem. motivation when you posted this . They are looking for entrapment .That seems to be the motive of most of their hearings these days .

There are circumstances where I think abortion is justified and I actually like the comparison. If the life of the mother is at risk then I think the choice is a moral one. Likewise ;I have argued that the famous 'ticking time bomb ' scenario would justify much harsher "techniques" .

Our enemies are going to treat our prisoners as they choose regardless of our policies. Let's assume that it was only Bush that authorized these techniques and no other President had done so. (not true of course as I have documented in previous postings)
Did that protect our troops in Korea and Vietnam ? How about Desert Storm ? Here is a pix of pilot Jeff Zaun when he confessed after he was captured .Note that he was treated with kid gloves.



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. Accept money for answers that you provide. Communicate privately with other members (PM). See fewer ads. Sign Up!