[bobman0330]

[ 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.)