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

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 (http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/10/29/mukasey-wont-say-waterboarding-is-torture/)

"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"

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

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 (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/16/103418.shtml)

Soccer Players Describe Torture by Hussein's Son (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/emay/6_sports.html)

Or what happens in camps throughout North Korea

Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag | North and South Korea | Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1136483,00.html)

Survivors Report Torture in North Korea Labor Camps (http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm)


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 !

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

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

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

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-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ148.109.pdf#page=61

He also wrote a letter addressing the concerns of some of the Senators over the issue .
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mukasey_letter_103007.pdf#page=2

In the letter he says :
"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 :


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.

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 don't know 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.

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.

http://www.psywarrior.com/JeffreyZaun.jpg

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.

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
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.

Sorry, but this fails the Bull test. :D

http://www.fightthebull.com/resources/bull_small.jpg

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?

Elliot

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 :
"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."
President's Statement on Signing of H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html)

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.

excon

I think we shoud taser them instead .

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.

Elliot

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.

excon

I don't know, 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?

Elliot

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 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.

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.

http://www.ytedk.com/car1sm.jpg
If we are still undecided we can always ask Ted Kennedy

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.



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.

How can he enforce a law that the lawmakers haven't defined?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 going to happen.

excon

Hello Dennis:

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



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.

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, someone 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

The 8th Amendment does not define torture....

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