He doesn't know if it is torture...

[headscratcher4]

The AG nomine responded to Congress today that he will study waterboarding to determine if it is torture, thus un-Constitutional, and if it is torture, un-Constitutional and therefore illegal, he will reverse any DOJ directives/memos that allow it.

Wow. Such grand waffling, it seems to me.

Maybe it isn't torture. I don't know. But the fact that it has long been in the interrogation bag of tricks for such rule-by law regimes as the Khemer Rouge, the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Nazi Germany and the Military Junta in Argentina -- among others -- would seem to predispose one to think that there is a good chance that it can be considered torture.

We have sold our political souls to the Devil. We are surrendering our idealism and our ideals for the chimera of safety ... and we will reap the whirlwind as a result.

Just think how much weight our condemnation of Burma, for example, carries when we have recently, and under the order of the President, employed techniques that they commonly use against their political enemies. Do as we say not as we do is not a sustainable forign or human rights policy, IMO.

 

[Garrette]

Maybe it isn't torture. I don't know. But the fact that it has long been in the interrogation bag of tricks for such rule-by law regimes as the Khemer Rouge, the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Nazi Germany and the Military Junta in Argentina -- among others -- would seem to predispose one to think that there is a good chance that it can be considered torture.

I'm not defending waterboarding, but this is hardly grounds to attack it. Those regimes also used simple questioning.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm not defending waterboarding, but this is hardly grounds to attack it. Those regimes also used simple questioning.

They also write the answers they get onto pieces of paper with pencils or pens, but that isn't the reason we condemn them - it's the torture.

 

[LTC8K6]

Maybe it isn't torture. I don't know.

Such waffling. Why don't you study up on it and get back to us?

 

[headscratcher4]

Touche. I do know its torture. I've no problem stating it. I was attempting to be reasonable by giving someone who seem intelligent the benefit of the doubt. However, I'm truly shocked that he doesn't know it is torture. I'm shocked that this Administration doesn't know it is torture, or would like to redefine the word. Orwell would appreciate the symantical game being played here. War is peace.

 

[Garrette]

They also write the answers they get onto pieces of paper with pencils or pens, but that isn't the reason we condemn them - it's the torture.

Condemning something as torture because it's torture is fine by me. Condemning something as torture because someone who uses torture uses it is a fallacy.

I'm sure you're capable of seeing the distinction.

 

[headscratcher4]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2007/10/29/waterboard3small.jpg

A picture of someone using a technique falsly from one of the few survivors of the Khemer Rouge's prison in PhnomPenn. Yes, one can see how this could be used, in a non-torture way, to get at truth. Surely, someone would never feel compelled to admit to something they didn't do if this were done properly by thoughtful, humane people ruled by the rule of law.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm not sure I'd expect the AG to know anything about specific torture methods.

 

[Cleon]

I'm not sure I'd expect the AG to know anything about specific torture methods.

Given that the Bush administration has tried every tactic in the book to try and legitimize the use of torture, and the AG would be responsible for carrying out such a policy--yes, yes, I would expect an AG nominee to know something about the issue.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Maybe he is confused and thinks "water boarding" is the same as surf boarding.

 

[headscratcher4]

I'm not sure I'd expect the AG to know anything about specific torture methods.

Especially because in this Administration knowldge of current events and controversies...such as the debate over the use of torture...would be a positive hinderence to getting a position.

 

[Upchurch]

Maybe he is confused and thinks "water boarding" is the same as surf boarding.

Maybe, but would you want such a confused person to be the AG?

 

[DaChew]

I think it's weasley for a congressperson to ask the AG nominee if he believes waterboarding is torture or unconstitutional or against the law. IF it is torture then why doesn't Mr. or Mrs. congressperson MAKE IT ILLEGAL????????? They are the ones that make the laws the AG must follow. If it's wrong, PASS A LAW!!!

In fact, Congress had a chance to specifically outlaw waterboarding and didn't.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I think it's weasley for a congressperson to ask the AG nominee if he believes waterboarding is torture or unconstitutional or against the law. IF it is torture then why doesn't Mr. or Mrs. congressperson MAKE IT ILLEGAL????????? They are the ones that make the laws the AG must follow. If it's wrong, PASS A LAW!!!

In fact, Congress had a chance to specifically outlaw waterboarding and didn't.

Torture's already illegal. The AG's job is in prosecution of crimes as outlines in the law. Therefore, asking him if waterboarding constitutes a crime puts him in the position of either having to defend it if he says "no," or having to explain where he would prosecute anyone for it if he says, "yes."

 

[crackers]

Maybe, but would you want such a confused person to be the AG?

We're talking about the Bush administration here...your choices are "incompetent" or "corrupt." Take your pick.

 

[steverino]

Just think how much weight our condemnation of Burma, for example, carries when we have recently, and under the order of the President, employed techniques that they commonly use against their political enemies.

Oh, right. Bush is torturing his political opponents in America, and as a result his cabinet members have been invulnerable of being removed from office.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think it's weasley for a congressperson to ask the AG nominee if he believes waterboarding is torture or unconstitutional or against the law. IF it is torture then why doesn't Mr. or Mrs. congressperson MAKE IT ILLEGAL????????? They are the ones that make the laws the AG must follow. If it's wrong, PASS A LAW!!!

In fact, Congress had a chance to specifically outlaw waterboarding and didn't.

So you think it is wrong to ask someone who is up for AG their legal opinion on what laws actualy mean?

 

[Cleon]

Oh, right. Bush is torturing his political opponents in America, and as a result his cabinet members have been invulnerable of being removed from office.

Nobody has claimed this.

Stuff the straw.

 

[DaChew]

Torture's already illegal.

but waterboarding isn't. It could be made illegal - specifically any old time Congress would like to make it so. They haven't. Despite all of their rhetoric. They've done nothing. Obviously it's a big enough issue to ask an AG nominee, it must be pretty important. Important enough to pass a law? Guess not.

 

[JoeEllison]

We're talking about the Bush administration here...your choices are "incompetent" or "corrupt." Take your pick.

Usually both, isn't it?