What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

Basically he said that he'd have to review individual cases where waterboarding was used and make a determination on whether or not it was torture. He also stated that torture is unconstitutional. What about this position? Is it reasonable?

Judiciary panel approves Mukasey

A lot of Democrats seem really worried about waterboarding, not sure why.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Basically he said that he'd have to review individual cases where waterboarding was used and make a determination on whether or not it was torture. He also stated that torture is unconstitutional. What about this position? Is it reasonable?

Judiciary panel approves Mukasey

A lot of Democrats seem really worried about waterboarding, not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot your sarcasm tag.

I hope.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically he said that he'd have to review individual cases where waterboarding was used and make a determination on whether or not it was torture. He also stated that torture is unconstitutional. What about this position? Is it reasonable?

Judiciary panel approves Mukasey

A lot of Democrats seem really worried about waterboarding, not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot your sarcasm tag.

I hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

?????????????

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He also stated that torture is unconstitutional. What about this position? Is it reasonable

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it matter?

It's a great day in human history when whether or not torture is "unconstitutional" is more than an archaic, trivial legality and actually stands to direct policy: "Hey guys, the Justice Department said they can't find [censored] in the Constitution prohibiting torture -- we're good to go! Get the vices ready!"

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of Democrats seem really worried about waterboarding, not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/51200/page/2

"For instance, there has been considerable press attention to a tactic called "waterboarding," where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth--causing the prisoner to believe he is being drowned. He isn't, of course; there is no intention to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating. The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her psyche in ways that may never heal. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture." - John McCain


But hey, WTF would this clown know about anything like torture, right? Right-wing uber-menches everywhere approve of the practice; only unAmerican Communists and terrorist sympathizers wouldn't torture a Koran-totting Bin-Ladenist if they could.

Frankly, I don't quite understand all this "concern" about waterboarding either! I saw Michelle Malkin is completely okay with it, and the bloggers over at Little Green Footballs and Power Line agree. So really who cares? Mostly just pussy Democrats.

So yeah, I don't get it either, dude. I just don't get it. All this concern about "human rights" and "moral decency"? Completely unfathomable. Don't those Democrats know there are terrorists out there?

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

It's the only reasonable position. Whether or not waterboarding as practiced by US interrogators is or is not torture depends (IMO at least) heavily on the specifics of the process.

The real question is Congress hasn't done something about waterboarding. They have much greater latitude to ban the process. They could criminalize it just because they found it repugnant. A principled AG, on the other hand, has to follow much stricter guidelines in declaring something unconsitutional.

It's all a political game.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The real question is Congress hasn't done something about waterboarding. They have much greater latitude to ban the process. They could criminalize it just because they found it repugnant.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with this is the same problem with assault rifle bans. Congress can play semantic games with those who they seek to regulate on what specific practices the CIA will be permitted to use, but if they do that the CIA will just figure out new ways to torture people. It's much more important that the AG and Congress are on the same page on the broad issue: that torture is bad, it won't be used and an overly narrow definition of torture won't be used.

That said, I like Mukasy and I think he'll make a fine AG.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not waterboarding as practiced by US interrogators is or is not torture depends (IMO at least) heavily on the specifics of the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Serious, non-sarcastic question: what kind of waterboarding procedure *isn't* torture? I mean, I don't think I need to tell you that if the process *didn't* cause extreme mental duress (regardless of the 'specifics of the process'), it probably wouldn't be used as a means for extracting information.

I posted the quote from McCain (someone who might have some first-hand knowledge of the brutality and inhumanity of such things) for a reason: the notion that waterboarding is "torture-lite" is pretty silly. If the "specifics of the process" are such that it *doesn't* produce severe pain or suffering (otherwise known as torture), then I'm not sure why we do it at all.

[ QUOTE ]
It's all a political game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote is a bit odd, too. It makes it sound like this debate merely involves your typical partisan chicanery.

From my point of view, we have a group of people (who I'm certainly not claiming aren't necessarily Democrats) who disapprove of waterboarding, find torture barbaric, and are disgusted by the thought of the US utilizing torture, regardless of the justification. Let's call this group "Human Beings With Souls and a Functioning Conscience."

And on the other side, it appears as if we have people who will use any means necessary to gather information to stop the terrarists and their unholy agenda.

Is it really some kind of political game where people are just trying to score political points? Or is there actually a philosophical divide here of some kind? Because calling it "a political game" would make the debate seem a bit wonky, borne over frivolous details and shouldn't really be paid attention to -- Washington as usual and their trite debates over nothingness. I mean, does John McCain oppose torture because he's trolling for primary votes ("just a political game"), or because he has a personal conviction and this kind of thing matters to him?

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not waterboarding as practiced by US interrogators is or is not torture depends (IMO at least) heavily on the specifics of the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Serious, non-sarcastic question: what kind of waterboarding procedure *isn't* torture? I mean, I don't think I need to tell you that if the process *didn't* cause extreme mental duress (regardless of the 'specifics of the process'), it probably wouldn't be used as a means for extracting information.

I posted the quote from McCain (someone who might have some first-hand knowledge of the brutality and inhumanity of such things) for a reason: the notion that waterboarding is "torture-lite" is pretty silly. If the "specifics of the process" are such that it *doesn't* produce severe pain or suffering (otherwise known as torture), then I'm not sure why we do it at all.

[ QUOTE ]
It's all a political game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote is a bit odd, too. It makes it sound like this debate merely involves your typical partisan chicanery.

From my point of view, we have a group of people (who I'm certainly not claiming aren't necessarily Democrats) who disapprove of waterboarding, find torture barbaric, and are disgusted by the thought of the US utilizing torture, regardless of the justification. Let's call this group "Human Beings With Souls and a Functioning Conscience."

And on the other side, it appears as if we have people who will use any means necessary to gather information to stop the terrarists and their unholy agenda.

Is it really some kind of political game where people are just trying to score political points? Or is there actually a philosophical divide here of some kind? Because calling it "a political game" would make the debate seem a bit wonky, borne over frivolous details and shouldn't really be paid attention to -- Washington as usual and their trite debates over nothingness. I mean, does John McCain oppose torture because he's trolling for primary votes ("just a political game"), or because he has a personal conviction and this kind of thing matters to him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good questions, and I think there is a genuine philosophical divide for many people (including politicians [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ).

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He also stated that torture is unconstitutional. What about this position? Is it reasonable

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it matter?

It's a great day in human history when whether or not torture is "unconstitutional" is more than an archaic, trivial legality and actually stands to direct policy: "Hey guys, the Justice Department said they can't find [censored] in the Constitution prohibiting torture -- we're good to go! Get the vices ready!"

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of Democrats seem really worried about waterboarding, not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/51200/page/2

"For instance, there has been considerable press attention to a tactic called "waterboarding," where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth--causing the prisoner to believe he is being drowned. He isn't, of course; there is no intention to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating. The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her psyche in ways that may never heal. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture." - John McCain


But hey, WTF would this clown know about anything like torture, right? Right-wing uber-menches everywhere approve of the practice; only unAmerican Communists and terrorist sympathizers wouldn't torture a Koran-totting Bin-Ladenist if they could.

Frankly, I don't quite understand all this "concern" about waterboarding either! I saw Michelle Malkin is completely okay with it, and the bloggers over at Little Green Footballs and Power Line agree. So really who cares? Mostly just pussy Democrats.

So yeah, I don't get it either, dude. I just don't get it. All this concern about "human rights" and "moral decency"? Completely unfathomable. Don't those Democrats know there are terrorists out there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you describe exactly what waterboarding is? Could you describe to me exactly how waterboarding was implemented at Gitmo?

My take on what Mukasy was saying was that he'd have to review exactly what went on at Gitmo before he made a determination on whether or not it was torture. Since he, Mukasy, isn't confirmed he doesn't have access to the classified documents to make that determination.

[sarcasm]Thanks attributing me with a position that I did not take.[/sarcasm]

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Serious, non-sarcastic question: what kind of waterboarding procedure *isn't* torture? I mean, I don't think I need to tell you that if the process *didn't* cause extreme mental duress (regardless of the 'specifics of the process'), it probably wouldn't be used as a means for extracting information.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could say the same thing about an interrogation by the police. Why use an interrogation method if it isn't designed to extract information? So you're saying that a legal police interrogation never causes extreme mental duress to the person being interrogated?

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying that a legal police interrogation never causes extreme mental duress to the person being interrogated?

[/ QUOTE ]

well unless they're stupid they can stop it at any time by asking for a lawyer. also *any* physical duress is illegal.

let me guess, you now want non torture torture applied to suspected criminals?

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

Would it matter that we considered waterboarding a war crime in 1947 when the Japanese did it?

Does it matter that many people who supervise waterboarding in training our troops consider it torture, and say that it has no place in our armed forces outside of showing our soldiers what could happen if they fall into the wrong hands?

Does it matter that now we don't mind doing that which we condemned 60 years ago? I thought we were supposed to rise above our enemies, not stoop to their level. I don't know which is sinking faster: our dollar or our spirit.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would it matter that we considered waterboarding a war crime in 1947 when the Japanese did it?

Does it matter that many people who supervise waterboarding in training our troops consider it torture, and say that it has no place in our armed forces outside of showing our soldiers what could happen if they fall into the wrong hands?

Does it matter that now we don't mind doing that which we condemned 60 years ago? I thought we were supposed to rise above our enemies, not stoop to their level. I don't know which is sinking faster: our dollar or our spirit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I predict within 5 or 10 years, almost all criminal activity will be considered terrorism.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

Even if we didn't waterboard, or engage in other such practices, don't we (we being the USA) send suspects to Egypt or other countries that will do things a lot worse than waterboarding? Has Mukasy given his opinion on exporting suspects to be tortured?

In a related note, PBS will deal with the issue of "rendition" on Frontline tonight.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

From the title I was hoping for some surfer post. Or some new technique of getting your clothes washed on the cheap and sly. But no, I have to be disappointed again.

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of Democrats seem really worried about waterboarding, not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]

This comment also made me think the post had something to do with surfing or washing clothes. Hopes dashed twice.

-Zeno

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

"A lot of Democrats seem really worried about waterboarding, not sure why."

They've always taken the surer vote for granted.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

When your sister can't get out of NYC and Mohammed el-dirtbag knows where the dirty bomb is, if you tell me then that its still wrong to torture i'll believe you all.

Till you have a personal stake in it you don't have a clue what your real philosophy is.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
When your sister can't get out of NYC and Mohammed el-dirtbag knows where the dirty bomb is, if you tell me then that its still wrong to torture i'll believe you all.

Till you have a personal stake in it you don't have a clue what your real philosophy is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, ok.

Well, if that's the case, I vote we use jumper cables, a vice, and two pairs of channel locks.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
When your sister can't get out of NYC and Mohammed el-dirtbag knows where the dirty bomb is, if you tell me then that its still wrong to torture i'll believe you all.

Till you have a personal stake in it you don't have a clue what your real philosophy is.



[/ QUOTE ]

You're working on the assumption that torture actually works.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real question is Congress hasn't done something about waterboarding. They have much greater latitude to ban the process. They could criminalize it just because they found it repugnant.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with this is the same problem with assault rifle bans. Congress can play semantic games with those who they seek to regulate on what specific practices the CIA will be permitted to use, but if they do that the CIA will just figure out new ways to torture people. It's much more important that the AG and Congress are on the same page on the broad issue: that torture is bad, it won't be used and an overly narrow definition of torture won't be used.


[/ QUOTE ]

And the way to accomplish this goal is to have a litmus test about a specific interrogation technique? That's the same thing, but less effective and less productive.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
When your sister can't get out of NYC and Mohammed el-dirtbag knows where the dirty bomb is, if you tell me then that its still wrong to torture i'll believe you all.

Till you have a personal stake in it you don't have a clue what your real philosophy is.

[/ QUOTE ]

When your sister can't get out of NYC because Mohammed el-dirtbags brother was tortured or because the CIA is acting under faulty information that they got because they put too much stock in torture, or [insert other arguments against torture]....get the point? As long as you claim my sister is going to be killed if I dont do it, I automatically win any argument. Stop torture now or my sister will be killed! Raise taxes or my sister will be killed! Legalize marijuana or my sister will be killed!

It sort of loses its impact on people who arent mouthbreathing morons, ya know?

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Serious, non-sarcastic question: what kind of waterboarding procedure *isn't* torture? I mean, I don't think I need to tell you that if the process *didn't* cause extreme mental duress (regardless of the 'specifics of the process'), it probably wouldn't be used as a means for extracting information.

I posted the quote from McCain (someone who might have some first-hand knowledge of the brutality and inhumanity of such things) for a reason: the notion that waterboarding is "torture-lite" is pretty silly. If the "specifics of the process" are such that it *doesn't* produce severe pain or suffering (otherwise known as torture), then I'm not sure why we do it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer's right there in your post. "Extreme." "Severe." Those are terms of degree. I don't doubt that it's an awful experience that's used to coerce confessions from people, but is it "extreme mental duress"? How does waterboarding compare to having electrodes hooked up to your balls? What exactly is the CIA-approved waterboarding process? It's all relevant, and it's 100% reasonable for Mukasey to want the facts before he makes a legal determination about it.

[ QUOTE ]
This quote is a bit odd, too. It makes it sound like this debate merely involves your typical partisan chicanery.

From my point of view, we have a group of people (who I'm certainly not claiming aren't necessarily Democrats) who disapprove of waterboarding, find torture barbaric, and are disgusted by the thought of the US utilizing torture, regardless of the justification. Let's call this group "Human Beings With Souls and a Functioning Conscience."

And on the other side, it appears as if we have people who will use any means necessary to gather information to stop the terrarists and their unholy agenda.

Is it really some kind of political game where people are just trying to score political points? Or is there actually a philosophical divide here of some kind? Because calling it "a political game" would make the debate seem a bit wonky, borne over frivolous details and shouldn't really be paid attention to -- Washington as usual and their trite debates over nothingness. I mean, does John McCain oppose torture because he's trolling for primary votes ("just a political game"), or because he has a personal conviction and this kind of thing matters to him?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how you can compare John McCain's record to the Mukasey confirmation. McCain's been a long-standing, outspoken critic of current interrogation practices. He introduced the Detainee Treatment Act to correct problems.

OTOH, we have a consensus nominee, cruising through confirmation hearings. Then this waterboarding issue comes up, and all of a sudden everyone has second thoughts and takes the opportunity to denounce waterboarding. Then just as suddenly, everyone decides that he's OK after all and the confirmation continues. Pure political theater.

(It's also important to contrast the role of the lawyer and the legislator. It's fine for Senator McCain to stand up against waterboarding because he finds it barbaric and is disgusted by it. AG Mukasey isn't there to inject his opinions and his policy decisions. He's there to say whether waterboarding violates the 8th Amendment or the Convention Against Torture.)

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
And the way to accomplish this goal is to have a litmus test about a specific interrogation technique? That's the same thing, but less effective and less productive.

[/ QUOTE ]
IIRC, the President signed into a law a ban on torture. Congress has the right to determine whether Mukasy will enforce the ban. The reason for the litmus test (which it isn't because he's going to be confirmed anyway), is that Congress wants to get a handle on what Mukasy's views on torture are and send a signal to the DOJ that Congress expects a strict interpretation of the torture ban.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

My two cents:

There is a line and it is reasonable to have a debate about it. My personal opinion is that waterboarding doesnt cross that line. I have plenty of friends that got to experience going through SERE (Survival, Escape, Resistance and Evasion) training. I didnt get the waterboard, but I got to experience some other "fun" things. All the guys I knew agree it sucks hard. But because it doesnt do physical damage and because it is very safe and its effective, I consider an acceptabe, if distasteful, interrogation procedure.

On effectiveness of torture: Read some books on the POW experience and tell me that physical torture cant be effective. Yes it has a much higher likelihood of obtaining false information but not always. And I find this particular line of argument to be a non-sequitur because I find it hard to believe that anyone who is opposed to any sort of torture would suddenly have a change of heart if physical torture reached a certain level of effectiveness.

I'm pretty sure its something I understand as well as anyone on this board. I've done a lot of reading the POW experience in Vietnam and as a military aviator I have a great appreciation for the fact that I could very easily be at the receiving end of interrogation and torture. With all due respect to John McCain, I simply cannot place the practice of waterboarding on par with the things he experienced in Vietnam.

BTW, if anyone is interested in the subject of interrogation, there is a good book written by an Army interrogator, the name of the book is "The Interrogators". He presents a fairly non-partisan view of his experiences as an interrogator in Afghanistan. Its a good read, check it out.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have plenty of friends that got to experience going through SERE (Survival, Escape, Resistance and Evasion) training. I didnt get the waterboard, but I got to experience some other "fun" things. All the guys I knew agree it sucks hard. But because it doesnt do physical damage and because it is very safe and its effective, I consider an acceptabe, if distasteful, interrogation procedure.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would hope you can see how the experience received in SERE training isn't quite the same as it is for prisoners being waterboarded. Is it your position that as long as something doesn't do any lasting damage, it's ok?

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have plenty of friends that got to experience going through SERE (Survival, Escape, Resistance and Evasion) training. I didnt get the waterboard, but I got to experience some other "fun" things. All the guys I knew agree it sucks hard. But because it doesnt do physical damage and because it is very safe and its effective, I consider an acceptabe, if distasteful, interrogation procedure.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would hope you can see how the experience received in SERE training isn't quite the same as it is for prisoners being waterboarded. Is it your position that as long as something doesn't do any lasting damage, it's ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize its not quite the same. But you be surprised at how realistic this training can be and how many people really get immersed in it, so I dont think its a completely useless comparison.

And no that isnt my position. I think its a component and honestly I dont have a bright line standard to offer. But lasting damage would be a pretty big red flag.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

Re: What About Mukasy's Position on Waterboarding?

His position should be supine on the board, till he accepts it is torture.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I realize its not quite the same. But you be surprised at how realistic this training can be and how many people really get immersed in it, so I dont think its a completely useless comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it would only be useful in the sense that you get the physical experience. But there's more to it than that. The psychological aspect of it is essentially missing.

[ QUOTE ]
And no that isnt my position. I think its a component and honestly I dont have a bright line standard to offer. But lasting damage would be a pretty big red flag.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does lasting psychological damage count or does it have to be physical damage?

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

For those who think it is ok for us to waterboard people, is it ok for other countries (read: countries run by brown people) to torture Americans if they are in danger? Say American officers were captured by Iran, who are right now probably pretty worried about getting bombed the [censored] into the stone age by us and want to learn more. But I mean, it wouldn't have lasting psychological effects of course. Fair game?

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
For those who think it is ok for us to waterboard people, is it ok for other countries (read: countries run by brown people) to torture Americans if they are in danger? Say American officers were captured by Iran, who are right now probably pretty worried about getting bombed the [censored] into the stone age by us and want to learn more. But I mean, it wouldn't have lasting psychological effects of course. Fair game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does whether we do it or not impact the probability of our enemies doing it to us? (I am being serious)

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I realize its not quite the same. But you be surprised at how realistic this training can be and how many people really get immersed in it, so I dont think its a completely useless comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it would only be useful in the sense that you get the physical experience. But there's more to it than that. The psychological aspect of it is essentially missing.

[ QUOTE ]
And no that isnt my position. I think its a component and honestly I dont have a bright line standard to offer. But lasting damage would be a pretty big red flag.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does lasting psychological damage count or does it have to be physical damage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely it is not only the residual damage, it is the pain inflicted and experienced that is the issue!

Sen. Edward Kennedy added: “Make no mistake about it: Waterboarding is already illegal under United States law. It is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit ‘outrages upon personal dignity,’ including cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment. It is illegal under the Torture Act, which prohibits acts ‘specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.’ It is illegal under the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.’ And it violates the Constitution.” He went on: “Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout 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.”

Link

This is as bad as the inquisition> Of course under pain you will admit to anything including the fact that there are WMD's in Iraq. This is sheer barbarian behavior. The USA, in this way, does not belong to the civilized world. They are at the same level as terrorists! The very fact that it is even an object of discussions/arguments make the US a barbarians nation, nothing more!

C'mon people don't participate/tolerate these abysmal tactics. Stand up for what the US did and can stand for!

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Re: What About Mukasy's Position on Waterboarding?

His position should be supine on the board, till he accepts it is torture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to see MidGe supports torture, just as long as it's happening to an American.

Also, this is dumb. Of course it's torture. It also causes a ridiculous amount of work for American operatives, who must now chase 5000 totally false leads, just to find the 1 true one which came through.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those who think it is ok for us to waterboard people, is it ok for other countries (read: countries run by brown people) to torture Americans if they are in danger? Say American officers were captured by Iran, who are right now probably pretty worried about getting bombed the [censored] into the stone age by us and want to learn more. But I mean, it wouldn't have lasting psychological effects of course. Fair game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does whether we do it or not impact the probability of our enemies doing it to us? (I am being serious)

[/ QUOTE ]

Torture is already common and legal in Iranian prisons, and I doubt that the US´s stance on waterboarding has anything to do with that.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is as bad as the inquisition

[/ QUOTE ]

WTFLOL? You obviously never read Foxe's Book of Martyrs. The Inquisition generally dislocated almost every joint in your body on the rack, drove screws into your thumbs, and then burned you alive.

Waterboarding is a picnic compared to the Inquisition.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Serious, non-sarcastic question: what kind of waterboarding procedure *isn't* torture? I mean, I don't think I need to tell you that if the process *didn't* cause extreme mental duress (regardless of the 'specifics of the process'), it probably wouldn't be used as a means for extracting information.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could say the same thing about an interrogation by the police. Why use an interrogation method if it isn't designed to extract information? So you're saying that a legal police interrogation never causes extreme mental duress to the person being interrogated?

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone else has pointed out, Americans detained by their local/state/federal law enforcement have the Constitutional right to request a lawyer at any time if they're experiencing extreme duress from a police interrogation method that's too aggressive.

So no, you really *can't* say the same thing about interrogations by the American law enforcement.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The answer's right there in your post. "Extreme." "Severe." Those are terms of degree. I don't doubt that it's an awful experience that's used to coerce confessions from people, but is it "extreme mental duress"? How does waterboarding compare to having electrodes hooked up to your balls? What exactly is the CIA-approved waterboarding process? It's all relevant, and it's 100% reasonable for Mukasey to want the facts before he makes a legal determination about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I've never thankfully never been waterboarded, so I can't make a claim as to whether or not it causes extreme mental duress. That's why I quoted John McCain, as he's someone with first-hand knowledge about what kind of anguish those kinds of experiences can produce.

And again: if the CIA-approved waterboarding process really *isn't* causing extreme mental duress, I doubt they'd even do it, given the questionable legality of it all. If the expectation was that it wasn't causing extreme duress, then the CIA probably wouldn't see it as an "effective" means of obtaining information.

Let's hypothetically claim the CIA has approved "Waterboarding-Lite" -- a method that doesn't really cause that extreme pain and suffering. Even if they're internally comfortable that it isn't torturous in nature, why would the CIA use such a questionable practice, given that it would inevitably provoke a firestorm of criticism among those who don't share their comfort? Waterboarding probably violates a bunch of international treaties, to which we're signatories. So they're already engaging in a terribly risky behavior approving *any* form of waterboarding, even if they're confident it's not torture.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how you can compare John McCain's record to the Mukasey confirmation. McCain's been a long-standing, outspoken critic of current interrogation practices. He introduced the Detainee Treatment Act to correct problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really comparing McCain's record to the Mukasey confirmation; I introduced McCain's quote to defend the notion that waterboarding really is torture, since the typical right-wing talking point in this debate seems to be one of two things:

1) "it's not torture, it's Torture-Lite -- no worries, why all the debate?" (see adios). I think the McCain quote contradicts that, which is why I posted it.

2) "of course it's torture, we want those dirty Muslims to suffer, they might know someone who knows someone about a bomb that might go off and kill my sister in New York" (see various posters here). I think this is patently absurd and disgusting, but I don't have any pretense that my indignation and sarcasm is going to change anyone's mind who holds that position.

[ QUOTE ]
OTOH, we have a consensus nominee, cruising through confirmation hearings. Then this waterboarding issue comes up, and all of a sudden everyone has second thoughts and takes the opportunity to denounce waterboarding. Then just as suddenly, everyone decides that he's OK after all and the confirmation continues. Pure political theater.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's overly cynical to claim that the concerns over Mukasey's position on waterboarding is mere political theater -- but okay, I understand that's a subjective assessment.

And while I don't think you're trying to do this, I do think the impetus to paint it as "political theater" is at least a somewhat purposeful attempt by some to hand-wave away the real and actual concerns people have (including some Senators, like McCain) over waterboarding. It's something along the lines of: "who cares about these Congressmen and their objections, they're just playing politics, nothing to see here, move along."

[ QUOTE ]
(It's also important to contrast the role of the lawyer and the legislator. It's fine for Senator McCain to stand up against waterboarding because he finds it barbaric and is disgusted by it. AG Mukasey isn't there to inject his opinions and his policy decisions. He's there to say whether waterboarding violates the 8th Amendment or the Convention Against Torture.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree that Mukasey's role as Attorney General isn't to inject his personal opinion about waterboarding, so I'll gladly concede he *shouldn't* do that.

But there's a larger point here: I responded to adios's OP because his first question, roughly stated along the lines of "is torture Constitutional" should be nothing more than a whimsical inquiry about some kind of arcane legal point; but as I said -- and this really has nothing to do with adios per se -- but the "is torture Constitutional" is apparently a serious legal question that will apparently dictate the conduct of our military and other intelligence gathering bodies -- and to that point, I think it's a sad commentary on the current state of the affairs.

And again -- the notion that opposition to waterboarding is some kind of unfathomable and esoteric position (the "a lot of Democrats seem really worried about waterboarding, not sure why" crowd) is another sad commentary on the current state of affairs.

Right Wing Nut Opines: Democrats and Waterboarding - Alan Dershowitz
 

Does Mr. Dershowitz have legitimate credentials to weigh in on Mukasy's position regarding waterboarding? I'm amazed that so many people seem to have drawn an absolute conclusion about waterboarding and what interrogation tactics the U.S. is using. Apparently for many folks that responed in this thread, Mukasy's position is unreasonable. Alan Dershowitz wrote an Op Ed piece that appears in todays WSJ. The Opinion Journal is free site that posted his op ed piece.

Democrats and Waterboarding

From the op ed piece:

This brings us to waterboarding. Michael Mukasey, whose confirmation as attorney general now seems assured, is absolutely correct, as a matter of constitutional law, that the issue of "waterboarding" cannot be decided in the abstract. Under prevailing precedents--some of which I disagree with--the court must examine the nature of the governmental interest at stake, and the degree to which the government actions at issue shock the conscience, and then decide on a case-by-case basis. In several cases involving actions at least as severe as waterboarding, courts have found no violations of due process.

So Mr. Dershowitz believes that Mukasy's position is correct hmmm........

He writes further:

The members of the judiciary committee who voted against Judge Mukasey, because of his unwillingness to support an absolute prohibition on waterboarding and all other forms of torture, should be asked the direct question: Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans in a situation of the kind faced by Israeli authorities on the eve of Yom Kippur? Would you want your president to authorize extraordinary means of interrogation in such a situation? If so, what means? If not, would you be prepared to accept responsibility for the preventable deaths of hundreds of Americans?

Anyway I think it's fairly clear at this point that the likes of Senator Leahy are just undergoing an excercise in political posturing in the reasons for not supporting Mukasy's nomination. The Democrats opposition to Bush seems to influence some Democrats to take ridiculous positions at times. This is certainly one of them. Senator Schumer stated that he reluctantly voted to send the Mukasy nomination to the Senate. I guess he had no other option but to support Mukasy since he actually recommended Mukasy to Bush. Dershowitz discusses the stupidity of the Democrats in his op ed piece btw.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I've never thankfully never been waterboarded, so I can't make a claim as to whether or not it causes extreme mental duress. That's why I quoted John McCain, as he's someone with first-hand knowledge about what kind of anguish those kinds of experiences can produce.

And again: if the CIA-approved waterboarding process really *isn't* causing extreme mental duress, I doubt they'd even do it, given the questionable legality of it all. If the expectation was that it wasn't causing extreme duress, then the CIA probably wouldn't see it as an "effective" means of obtaining information.

Let's hypothetically claim the CIA has approved "Waterboarding-Lite" -- a method that doesn't really cause that extreme pain and suffering. Even if they're internally comfortable that it isn't torturous in nature, why would the CIA use such a questionable practice, given that it would inevitably provoke a firestorm of criticism among those who don't share their comfort? Waterboarding probably violates a bunch of international treaties, to which we're signatories. So they're already engaging in a terribly risky behavior approving *any* form of waterboarding, even if they're confident it's not torture.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, presumably they think it causes less-than-extreme mental duress, but more duress than other permissible tactics. From the limited information I've heard, waterboarding is viewed as the worst thing that it's permissible to do. It also seems to be the case that it's only used on the most important/resistant targets, which implies that they are sensitive to the PR/legal risks involved.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer's right there in your post. "Extreme." "Severe." Those are terms of degree. I don't doubt that it's an awful experience that's used to coerce confessions from people, but is it "extreme mental duress"? How does waterboarding compare to having electrodes hooked up to your balls? What exactly is the CIA-approved waterboarding process? It's all relevant, and it's 100% reasonable for Mukasey to want the facts before he makes a legal determination about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I've never thankfully never been waterboarded, so I can't make a claim as to whether or not it causes extreme mental duress. That's why I quoted John McCain, as he's someone with first-hand knowledge about what kind of anguish those kinds of experiences can produce.

And again: if the CIA-approved waterboarding process really *isn't* causing extreme mental duress, I doubt they'd even do it, given the questionable legality of it all. If the expectation was that it wasn't causing extreme duress, then the CIA probably wouldn't see it as an "effective" means of obtaining information.

Let's hypothetically claim the CIA has approved "Waterboarding-Lite" -- a method that doesn't really cause that extreme pain and suffering. Even if they're internally comfortable that it isn't torturous in nature, why would the CIA use such a questionable practice, given that it would inevitably provoke a firestorm of criticism among those who don't share their comfort? Waterboarding probably violates a bunch of international treaties, to which we're signatories. So they're already engaging in a terribly risky behavior approving *any* form of waterboarding, even if they're confident it's not torture.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how you can compare John McCain's record to the Mukasey confirmation. McCain's been a long-standing, outspoken critic of current interrogation practices. He introduced the Detainee Treatment Act to correct problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really comparing McCain's record to the Mukasey confirmation; I introduced McCain's quote to defend the notion that waterboarding really is torture, since the typical right-wing talking point in this debate seems to be one of two things:

1) "it's not torture, it's Torture-Lite -- no worries, why all the debate?" (see adios). I think the McCain quote contradicts that, which is why I posted it.

2) "of course it's torture, we want those dirty Muslims to suffer, they might know someone who knows someone about a bomb that might go off and kill my sister in New York" (see various posters here). I think this is patently absurd and disgusting, but I don't have any pretense that my indignation and sarcasm is going to change anyone's mind who holds that position.

[ QUOTE ]
OTOH, we have a consensus nominee, cruising through confirmation hearings. Then this waterboarding issue comes up, and all of a sudden everyone has second thoughts and takes the opportunity to denounce waterboarding. Then just as suddenly, everyone decides that he's OK after all and the confirmation continues. Pure political theater.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's overly cynical to claim that the concerns over Mukasey's position on waterboarding is mere political theater -- but okay, I understand that's a subjective assessment.

And while I don't think you're trying to do this, I do think the impetus to paint it as "political theater" is at least a somewhat purposeful attempt by some to hand-wave away the real and actual concerns people have (including some Senators, like McCain) over waterboarding. It's something along the lines of: "who cares about these Congressmen and their objections, they're just playing politics, nothing to see here, move along."

[ QUOTE ]
(It's also important to contrast the role of the lawyer and the legislator. It's fine for Senator McCain to stand up against waterboarding because he finds it barbaric and is disgusted by it. AG Mukasey isn't there to inject his opinions and his policy decisions. He's there to say whether waterboarding violates the 8th Amendment or the Convention Against Torture.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree that Mukasey's role as Attorney General isn't to inject his personal opinion about waterboarding, so I'll gladly concede he *shouldn't* do that.

But there's a larger point here: I responded to adios's OP because his first question, roughly stated along the lines of "is torture Constitutional" should be nothing more than a whimsical inquiry about some kind of arcane legal point; but as I said -- and this really has nothing to do with adios per se -- but the "is torture Constitutional" is apparently a serious legal question that will apparently dictate the conduct of our military and other intelligence gathering bodies -- and to that point, I think it's a sad commentary on the current state of the affairs.

And again -- the notion that opposition to waterboarding is some kind of unfathomable and esoteric position (the "a lot of Democrats seem really worried about waterboarding, not sure why" crowd) is another sad commentary on the current state of affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

What philosophical structure leads you to conclude "torture is bad"? This isn't a gotcha question, since I assume you don't endorse the concept of natural rights. Doesn't torture like water-boarding fit neatly in the framework of individuals relinquishing personal liberty for the collective good? Or do you rather reject "natural rights" only for property? Or is it ad-hoc? In all seriousness, water-boarding strikes me as superficially reasonable.

Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What philosophical structure leads you to conclude "torture is bad"? This isn't a gotcha question

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if it's a gotcha question or not, but sure sounds like a thinly veiled AC hijack.

To answer your question, I think some normative formation of a Kantian categorical imperative would obligate us not to torture -- something along the lines of "Don't torture people" fits all three formulations well.

[ QUOTE ]
since I assume you don't endorse the concept of natural rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what makes you think that; I think I've made it clear here in this thread that even if experts in jurisprudence agree torture isn't prohibited by the law, it shouldn't be considered a legitimate interrogation tactic; this isn't to say I've explicitly endorsed natural right theories, either, but I'm not sure what I've said in this thread that would make you think I've rejected them.

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't torture like water-boarding fit neatly in the framework of individuals relinquishing personal liberty for the collective good? Or do you rather reject "natural rights" only for property? Or is it ad-hoc?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. This is question begging: it implies torture will produce results that contributes to "a collective good" while simultaneously assuming social contract theorists (or whoever you're referring to that adheres to 'the framework of individuals relinquishing personal liberty for the collective good') are necessarily consequentialists whose concern is with "the collective good".

But again, this is thinly veiled ACist hijacking, IMO. You've managed to word it more articulately and only dance around it via subtle questions, but it's essentially the "lolz but you want to steal all my moniez with your jackbooted thuggery, why don't you approve of torture too" argument. You should take it to another thread, IMO.