What About Mukasy's Position on Waterboarding?

adios · #1 11-06-2007, 05:31 PM

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 · #2 11-06-2007, 05:36 PM

[ 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 · #3 11-06-2007, 05:40 PM

[ 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 · #4 11-06-2007, 06:01 PM

[ 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?

adios · #5 11-06-2007, 07:42 PM

[ 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]

bobman0330 · #6 11-06-2007, 06:11 PM

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 · #7 11-06-2007, 06:22 PM

[ 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.

bobman0330 · #8 11-06-2007, 10:45 PM

[ 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.

iron81 · #9 11-06-2007, 11:05 PM

[ 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 · #10 11-07-2007, 01:45 AM

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.