What About Mukasy's Position on Waterboarding?

[vhawk01]

[ 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?

[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.)

[iron81]

[ 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.

[vulturesrow]

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.

[BCPVP]

[ 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?

[vulturesrow]

[ 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.

[MidGe]

Re: What About Mukasy's Position on Waterboarding?

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

[BCPVP]

[ 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?

[owsley]

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?

[Max Raker]

[ 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)