What About Mukasy's Position on Waterboarding?

[adios]

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.

[Ineedaride2]

[ 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.

[adios]

[ 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 ]

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

[DVaut1]

[ 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?

[bobman0330]

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.

[iron81]

[ 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.

[DVaut1]

[ 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?

[John Kilduff]

[ 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] ).

[adios]

[ 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]

[adios]

[ 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?