What About Mukasy's Position on Waterboarding?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely it is not only the residual damage, it is the pain inflicted and experienced that is the issue!

Sen. Edward Kennedy added: “Make no mistake about it: Waterboarding is already illegal under United States law. It is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit ‘outrages upon personal dignity,’ including cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment. It is illegal under the Torture Act, which prohibits acts ‘specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.’ It is illegal under the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.’ And it violates the Constitution.” He went on: “Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration—usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch, and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right, it is controlled death.”

Link

This is as bad as the inquisition> Of course under pain you will admit to anything including the fact that there are WMD's in Iraq. This is sheer barbarian behavior. The USA, in this way, does not belong to the civilized world. They are at the same level as terrorists! The very fact that it is even an object of discussions/arguments make the US a barbarians nation, nothing more!

C'mon people don't participate/tolerate these abysmal tactics. Stand up for what the US did and can stand for!

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Re: What About Mukasy's Position on Waterboarding?

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to see MidGe supports torture, just as long as it's happening to an American.

Also, this is dumb. Of course it's torture. It also causes a ridiculous amount of work for American operatives, who must now chase 5000 totally false leads, just to find the 1 true one which came through.

[Bedreviter]

[ 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 ]

Does whether we do it or not impact the probability of our enemies doing it to us? (I am being serious)

[/ QUOTE ]

Torture is already common and legal in Iranian prisons, and I doubt that the US´s stance on waterboarding has anything to do with that.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

This is as bad as the inquisition

[/ QUOTE ]

WTFLOL? You obviously never read Foxe's Book of Martyrs. The Inquisition generally dislocated almost every joint in your body on the rack, drove screws into your thumbs, and then burned you alive.

Waterboarding is a picnic compared to the Inquisition.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone else has pointed out, Americans detained by their local/state/federal law enforcement have the Constitutional right to request a lawyer at any time if they're experiencing extreme duress from a police interrogation method that's too aggressive.

So no, you really *can't* say the same thing about interrogations by the American law enforcement.

[DVaut1]

[ 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 ]

Again, I've never thankfully never been waterboarded, so I can't make a claim as to whether or not it causes extreme mental duress. That's why I quoted John McCain, as he's someone with first-hand knowledge about what kind of anguish those kinds of experiences can produce.

And again: if the CIA-approved waterboarding process really *isn't* causing extreme mental duress, I doubt they'd even do it, given the questionable legality of it all. If the expectation was that it wasn't causing extreme duress, then the CIA probably wouldn't see it as an "effective" means of obtaining information.

Let's hypothetically claim the CIA has approved "Waterboarding-Lite" -- a method that doesn't really cause that extreme pain and suffering. Even if they're internally comfortable that it isn't torturous in nature, why would the CIA use such a questionable practice, given that it would inevitably provoke a firestorm of criticism among those who don't share their comfort? Waterboarding probably violates a bunch of international treaties, to which we're signatories. So they're already engaging in a terribly risky behavior approving *any* form of waterboarding, even if they're confident it's not torture.

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really comparing McCain's record to the Mukasey confirmation; I introduced McCain's quote to defend the notion that waterboarding really is torture, since the typical right-wing talking point in this debate seems to be one of two things:

1) "it's not torture, it's Torture-Lite -- no worries, why all the debate?" (see adios). I think the McCain quote contradicts that, which is why I posted it.

2) "of course it's torture, we want those dirty Muslims to suffer, they might know someone who knows someone about a bomb that might go off and kill my sister in New York" (see various posters here). I think this is patently absurd and disgusting, but I don't have any pretense that my indignation and sarcasm is going to change anyone's mind who holds that position.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's overly cynical to claim that the concerns over Mukasey's position on waterboarding is mere political theater -- but okay, I understand that's a subjective assessment.

And while I don't think you're trying to do this, I do think the impetus to paint it as "political theater" is at least a somewhat purposeful attempt by some to hand-wave away the real and actual concerns people have (including some Senators, like McCain) over waterboarding. It's something along the lines of: "who cares about these Congressmen and their objections, they're just playing politics, nothing to see here, move along."

[ QUOTE ]
(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.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree that Mukasey's role as Attorney General isn't to inject his personal opinion about waterboarding, so I'll gladly concede he *shouldn't* do that.

But there's a larger point here: I responded to adios's OP because his first question, roughly stated along the lines of "is torture Constitutional" should be nothing more than a whimsical inquiry about some kind of arcane legal point; but as I said -- and this really has nothing to do with adios per se -- but the "is torture Constitutional" is apparently a serious legal question that will apparently dictate the conduct of our military and other intelligence gathering bodies -- and to that point, I think it's a sad commentary on the current state of the affairs.

And again -- the notion that opposition to waterboarding is some kind of unfathomable and esoteric position (the "a lot of Democrats seem really worried about waterboarding, not sure why" crowd) is another sad commentary on the current state of affairs.

[adios]

Does Mr. Dershowitz have legitimate credentials to weigh in on Mukasy's position regarding waterboarding? I'm amazed that so many people seem to have drawn an absolute conclusion about waterboarding and what interrogation tactics the U.S. is using. Apparently for many folks that responed in this thread, Mukasy's position is unreasonable. Alan Dershowitz wrote an Op Ed piece that appears in todays WSJ. The Opinion Journal is free site that posted his op ed piece.

Democrats and Waterboarding

From the op ed piece:

This brings us to waterboarding. Michael Mukasey, whose confirmation as attorney general now seems assured, is absolutely correct, as a matter of constitutional law, that the issue of "waterboarding" cannot be decided in the abstract. Under prevailing precedents--some of which I disagree with--the court must examine the nature of the governmental interest at stake, and the degree to which the government actions at issue shock the conscience, and then decide on a case-by-case basis. In several cases involving actions at least as severe as waterboarding, courts have found no violations of due process.

So Mr. Dershowitz believes that Mukasy's position is correct hmmm........

He writes further:

The members of the judiciary committee who voted against Judge Mukasey, because of his unwillingness to support an absolute prohibition on waterboarding and all other forms of torture, should be asked the direct question: Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans in a situation of the kind faced by Israeli authorities on the eve of Yom Kippur? Would you want your president to authorize extraordinary means of interrogation in such a situation? If so, what means? If not, would you be prepared to accept responsibility for the preventable deaths of hundreds of Americans?

Anyway I think it's fairly clear at this point that the likes of Senator Leahy are just undergoing an excercise in political posturing in the reasons for not supporting Mukasy's nomination. The Democrats opposition to Bush seems to influence some Democrats to take ridiculous positions at times. This is certainly one of them. Senator Schumer stated that he reluctantly voted to send the Mukasy nomination to the Senate. I guess he had no other option but to support Mukasy since he actually recommended Mukasy to Bush. Dershowitz discusses the stupidity of the Democrats in his op ed piece btw.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I've never thankfully never been waterboarded, so I can't make a claim as to whether or not it causes extreme mental duress. That's why I quoted John McCain, as he's someone with first-hand knowledge about what kind of anguish those kinds of experiences can produce.

And again: if the CIA-approved waterboarding process really *isn't* causing extreme mental duress, I doubt they'd even do it, given the questionable legality of it all. If the expectation was that it wasn't causing extreme duress, then the CIA probably wouldn't see it as an "effective" means of obtaining information.

Let's hypothetically claim the CIA has approved "Waterboarding-Lite" -- a method that doesn't really cause that extreme pain and suffering. Even if they're internally comfortable that it isn't torturous in nature, why would the CIA use such a questionable practice, given that it would inevitably provoke a firestorm of criticism among those who don't share their comfort? Waterboarding probably violates a bunch of international treaties, to which we're signatories. So they're already engaging in a terribly risky behavior approving *any* form of waterboarding, even if they're confident it's not torture.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, presumably they think it causes less-than-extreme mental duress, but more duress than other permissible tactics. From the limited information I've heard, waterboarding is viewed as the worst thing that it's permissible to do. It also seems to be the case that it's only used on the most important/resistant targets, which implies that they are sensitive to the PR/legal risks involved.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Again, I've never thankfully never been waterboarded, so I can't make a claim as to whether or not it causes extreme mental duress. That's why I quoted John McCain, as he's someone with first-hand knowledge about what kind of anguish those kinds of experiences can produce.

And again: if the CIA-approved waterboarding process really *isn't* causing extreme mental duress, I doubt they'd even do it, given the questionable legality of it all. If the expectation was that it wasn't causing extreme duress, then the CIA probably wouldn't see it as an "effective" means of obtaining information.

Let's hypothetically claim the CIA has approved "Waterboarding-Lite" -- a method that doesn't really cause that extreme pain and suffering. Even if they're internally comfortable that it isn't torturous in nature, why would the CIA use such a questionable practice, given that it would inevitably provoke a firestorm of criticism among those who don't share their comfort? Waterboarding probably violates a bunch of international treaties, to which we're signatories. So they're already engaging in a terribly risky behavior approving *any* form of waterboarding, even if they're confident it's not torture.

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really comparing McCain's record to the Mukasey confirmation; I introduced McCain's quote to defend the notion that waterboarding really is torture, since the typical right-wing talking point in this debate seems to be one of two things:

1) "it's not torture, it's Torture-Lite -- no worries, why all the debate?" (see adios). I think the McCain quote contradicts that, which is why I posted it.

2) "of course it's torture, we want those dirty Muslims to suffer, they might know someone who knows someone about a bomb that might go off and kill my sister in New York" (see various posters here). I think this is patently absurd and disgusting, but I don't have any pretense that my indignation and sarcasm is going to change anyone's mind who holds that position.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's overly cynical to claim that the concerns over Mukasey's position on waterboarding is mere political theater -- but okay, I understand that's a subjective assessment.

And while I don't think you're trying to do this, I do think the impetus to paint it as "political theater" is at least a somewhat purposeful attempt by some to hand-wave away the real and actual concerns people have (including some Senators, like McCain) over waterboarding. It's something along the lines of: "who cares about these Congressmen and their objections, they're just playing politics, nothing to see here, move along."

[ QUOTE ]
(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.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree that Mukasey's role as Attorney General isn't to inject his personal opinion about waterboarding, so I'll gladly concede he *shouldn't* do that.

But there's a larger point here: I responded to adios's OP because his first question, roughly stated along the lines of "is torture Constitutional" should be nothing more than a whimsical inquiry about some kind of arcane legal point; but as I said -- and this really has nothing to do with adios per se -- but the "is torture Constitutional" is apparently a serious legal question that will apparently dictate the conduct of our military and other intelligence gathering bodies -- and to that point, I think it's a sad commentary on the current state of the affairs.

And again -- the notion that opposition to waterboarding is some kind of unfathomable and esoteric position (the "a lot of Democrats seem really worried about waterboarding, not sure why" crowd) is another sad commentary on the current state of affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

What philosophical structure leads you to conclude "torture is bad"? This isn't a gotcha question, since I assume you don't endorse the concept of natural rights. Doesn't torture like water-boarding fit neatly in the framework of individuals relinquishing personal liberty for the collective good? Or do you rather reject "natural rights" only for property? Or is it ad-hoc? In all seriousness, water-boarding strikes me as superficially reasonable.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
What philosophical structure leads you to conclude "torture is bad"? This isn't a gotcha question

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if it's a gotcha question or not, but sure sounds like a thinly veiled AC hijack.

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 ]
since I assume you don't endorse the concept of natural rights.

[/ 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 ]
Doesn't torture like water-boarding fit neatly in the framework of individuals relinquishing personal liberty for the collective good? Or do you rather reject "natural rights" only for property? Or is it ad-hoc?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. 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".

But again, this is thinly veiled ACist hijacking, IMO. You've managed to word it more articulately and only dance around it via subtle questions, but it's essentially the "lolz but you want to steal all my moniez with your jackbooted thuggery, why don't you approve of torture too" argument. You should take it to another thread, IMO.