[DVaut1]

[ 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.