What About Mukasy's Position on Waterboarding?

[ConstantineX]

IMO you should read the body of posts before you begin inferring things I clearly took pains not to say as not to provoke hostility. First, I am not an ACist.
[ QUOTE ]

To answer your question, I think some normative formation of a Kantian categorical imperative would obligate us not to torture -- something along the lines of "Don't torture people" fits all three formulations well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this moral choice the "correct" one? When pvn argues the difference between action A or B, he takes some statements axiomatically and begins to deduce acceptable and unacceptable behavior from those priors, which stems from ideas like "self-ownership" and "natural rights". I realize you can just assert this and be consistent philosophically, but if you accept, like I do, that society should decide its rules in a utilitarian manner then your opposition is peculiar. When confronted with some results from theoretical economics, a liberal instinct is to appeal to pragmatic considerations, i.e. "reality has a liberal bias", tacitly admitting that the heart of the philosophy relies on some utilitarian considerations, quite different from those loony "Libertopians". For these reasons, when I argue in favor of libertarian principles, I usually make normative judgments on the societal level, rarely on an individual one - I firmly believe that libertarianism leads less violence and more prosperity for the ENTIRE society. If you choose your priors in an ad-hoc manner, well, I don't think society should listen to you.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what makes you think that; I think I've made it clear here in this thread that even if experts in jurisprudence agree torture isn't prohibited by the law, it shouldn't be considered a legitimate interrogation tactic; this isn't to say I've explicitly endorsed natural right theories, either, but I'm not sure what I've said in this thread that would make you think I've rejected them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I made no reference to actual jurisprudence when I posed my question.

[ QUOTE ]

This is question begging: it implies torture will produce results that contributes to "a collective good" while simultaneously assuming social contract theorists (or whoever you're referring to that adheres to 'the framework of individuals relinquishing personal liberty for the collective good') are necessarily consequentialists whose concern is with "the collective good".


[/ QUOTE ]

If your concern isn't with the collective good, why should any society listen to you or employ your rules? I don't see how a pragmatic society can be anything BUT consequentialist.

More pointedly, I think you're making a pretty bold assertion. My question is: why is the optimal level of torture in a society zero, as you seem to imply? I can think of plenty of situations where it would useful to employ torture for the collective good. Framing the normative judgment society makes as a "Kantian imperative" ignores the question because amongst a population with differing moral views some sort of utilitarianism must and will be employed.

That's exactly my problem with ACists actually. It seems pretty apparent to me there's a non-zero optimal level of government from a societal perspective. Why is the line for individual liberty so clearly demarcated for your on this issue, but not on other issues? No doubt because you're more learned in philosophy than I there is some elegant answer with appealing and consistent priors. That's why I asked - but I don't suspect any other than an instinctual, visceral opposition to torture (which could be fine, actually, clearly evolution gave us moral instincts for a reason).

[Jorge10]

[ 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 ]

This type of scenario is presented in political debates and I think it’s the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Here is the problem with this from a logic standpoint. The dudes who set up a bomb probably spent months if not years planning the attack. Their lives revolved around this goal. Are you telling me that someone who is this driven will actually tell the truth and screw up all of his work because he gets a little beaten up? I think not. I can’t imagine torture working at all against people who don’t seem to care about their lives very much.

[wire]

Are interrogations supposed to be pleasant?

How do you personally know if waterboarding has been effective in foiling terror attacks? As far as I know, John McCain doesn't interrogate captured jihadists.

Waterboarding doesn't cause physical harm. Just scares the hell out of you. If a terrorist has bad dreams because of it, I'm fine with that. Though I think it's more likely his dreams would be haunted by the innocent people he has killed.

[PLOlover]

why don't we torture suspected criminals? I mean, they might kill someone.

we can torture to save thousands, but not to save one or a few?

if it can possibly save a life, how can we not torture?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
why don't we torture suspected criminals? I mean, they might kill someone.

we can torture to save thousands, but not to save one or a few?

if it can possibly save a life, how can we not torture?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because criminals have a right to a lawyer and their lawyers wouldn't stand for such a tactic? Which brings up the inevitable questions about the legal status of enemy combatents. I think this is an issue that is more important than the issue of waterboarding. Perhaps Mukasy was questioned about the legal status of the detainees at places like gitmo in the hearings. If so the Senators that opposed his nomination seemed to be ok with his answers. If not those same Senators IMO aren't concerned about what's really important regarding the new AG.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Waterboarding doesn't cause physical harm. Just scares the hell out of you.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not completely true even though proponents like to claim it is. Waterboarding can cause plenty physical harm as well as death. Waterboarding means you intentionally asphyxiate the person. It was used by such role model-worthy folks as the Spanish Inquisition, WWII Gestapo and Japanese troops (one of whom was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor by the U.S. in '47), and the Khmer Rouge.

Interestingly enough, the term used by the Nazis, Verschärfte Vernehmung, means enhanced interrogation techniques, the same term used by the Bush Administration for these types of techniques.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Because criminals have a right to a lawyer and their lawyers wouldn't stand for such a tactic?

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're saying lawyers are aiding the terrorists. I agree. as part of the war on terror we have to (and have) give up certain rights, and the right to a lawyer seems to be the main one we have to give up next.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because criminals have a right to a lawyer and their lawyers wouldn't stand for such a tactic?

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're saying lawyers are aiding the terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope didn't say that at all.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. as part of the war on terror we have to (and have) give up certain rights, and the right to a lawyer seems to be the main one we have to give up next.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does an enemy combatant captured in Afghanistan have the same rights in the U.S. as a U.S. citizen? No U.S. citizens needn't give up the right to a lawyer or other rights. I'm not even implying that.

Again we're getting into the legal status of enemy combatants. Unless I missed something that's something Congress hasn't asked Mukasy too much about yet.

[owsley]

[ 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 ]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Al-Qaeda enemy combatent different from a soldier in the Iranian Army or a soldier in the U.S. Army? I think the administration would argue that indeed they are and that the Geneva Convention applies to the soldiers in uniform and not necessarily to the enemy combatent. Maybe the legal scholars will weigh in. Seems like a question that Mukasy should answer and elaborate on, not sure if he was asked in the hearings.

In fact here's a story sort of illustrating my point:

Canadian to face Guantanamo tribunal for 3rd time

New charges were filed after the U.S. Congress enacted a law establishing the current version of the tribunals. But a military judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, threw out those charges in June on grounds that Khadr had not been designated an "unlawful enemy combatant" as the new law required.

Brownback said the distinction was vital because international law required other types of trial for lawful combatants.

A newly convened military appeals court reinstated the charges and said that Brownback himself had authority to decide whether Khadr was an "unlawful combatant." Brownback will hear evidence on that issue at Thursday's court session.

But he said he would not consider defense arguments that the tribunal system violates U.S. and international law and should not apply to acts allegedly committed by a minor. A U.S. appeals court in Washington declined on Tuesday to intervene.

"The practical effect of (the) decision is that Omar, as an alleged former child soldier, will be found to be an unlawful enemy combatant without even having the opportunity to contest whether the designation violates international law, which it clearly does," Khadr's lead military lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, said in a statement.