• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

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.
Click to expand...

If I believed that, I would expect the Bush admin to pick someone who knew little about the specifics of torture methods. They'd want someone they could use imo, not someone who knew the subject too well.
 
DaChew said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do they have to pass a law making each and every possible torture method illegal? You're being a bit ridiculous.
 
DaChew said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please defend your view that deliberately making someone believe they are drowning doesn't constitute torture.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So you think it is wrong to ask someone who is up for AG their legal opinion on what laws actualy mean?
Click to expand...

I think it is weasely to ask an AG nominee his legal opinion on something that you could very easily make completely irrelevant if you actually did think it was wrong. Any of these Congresspeople could bring a bill to make the practice illegal. Right now. If they wanted. They haven't. They sure as heck don't mind demagoguing the issue though do they?
 
I'll jump on the bandwagon saying waterboarding is torture. I'd still vote for Mukasy as AG. He seems reasonable and it is only a year or so. He can only be better than Gonzalez and the Dems are not gonna get some liberal anti-Bush person in as AG so quit dreaming.

The way some Bush apologists defend waterboarding as if it is nothing much and quite reasonable interrogation technique I ask them:

1. If your kid did something bad would I even consider waterboarding him to get the truth out of him?

Or

2. If an American soldier were captured by the Soviets and they proceeded to waterboard him would I protest or just shrug my shoulders and say they have that right?

My answers:
1. No
2. Protest

ergo - torture
 
steverino said:
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.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Certainly not what I was claiming. To be clear...if we as a country are known to employ torture...not of our "political" opponents, but those who are in our custody and control for whatever reason...than it becomes difficult to condemn the use of torture by other regimes. It rings hollow and hypocritical. It leads you into the slipper slope of saying why the torture we use isn't torture, or isn't being misused though otherwise useful, as opposed to setting a standard for the rule of law, abidding by our constitution and, hopefully, sletting some sort of basic societal contract about human rights that people -- even scum of the earth -- should not be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.

And, btw, non of this gets to the lesser point -- and lesser because we shouldn't even have to discuss it -- that the vast majority of experts agree that torture is a pretty unrelieable way to get information...you get exactly the information you are looking for whether it is right or wrong.

So, it is against our law and Constitution. It leaves us open to charges of hypocracy of the worst sort by the worst sort. And it doesn't work all that well.

Pretty good reasons, it seems to me, to call a spade a spade and be done with it.

Finally, Alberto Gonzales, under the steering of Cheney and David Addington, should not be allowed to be the final word on what is and what is not torutre. The law says torture is illegal. If the practice is legal, than it should be admitted to openly...use, we use waterboarding, no we have determined it isn't torture. That is not what is going on here.

"we don't torture...but we don't comment on what we do do..." is the response. And, there is no reason to trust the veracity, little less the judgement of those making the statement. We know that at home here....the world knows it as well.
 
Cleon said:
Talk about a low bar...
Click to expand...

Sure, but what the hell are you smoking if you think Bush will name any AG that will definitively come out against waterboarding? Bush nominates, my friend. there is no way on God's green earth he will nominate an AG that will be opposed to his viewpoint. I think Mukasy is the best we can expect to get. Surely you don't expect to get an AG who will rewrite all of Bush's torture rules and indict Bush, Cheney and Gonzalez? Do you? That Mukasy says he does not know if waterboarding is torture or not and indicates he will look into it sounds good to me. Low bar? Yes. But I am dealing with reality and circumstances.

Again, it is for a mere year. I say approve Mukasy and move on. Dems will only look like obstructionists if they persist too long.
 
Last edited:
Lurker said:
I'll jump on the bandwagon saying waterboarding is torture. I'd still vote for Mukasy as AG. He seems reasonable and it is only a year or so. He can only be better than Gonzalez and the Dems are not gonna get some liberal anti-Bush person in as AG so quit dreaming.

The way some Bush apologists defend waterboarding as if it is nothing much and quite reasonable interrogation technique I ask them:

1. If your kid did something bad would I even consider waterboarding him to get the truth out of him?

Or

2. If an American soldier were captured by the Soviets and they proceeded to waterboard him would I protest or just shrug my shoulders and say they have that right?

My answers:
1. No
2. Protest

ergo - torture
Click to expand...

I'd actually use a slightly different standard. Take it out of the realm of a "bad" regime like the old Soviet Union or even North Korea. If waterboarding is legal and not tourture, shouldn't it be available to local law enforcement, say in the instance of a on-going kidnapping?

If another country used water-boarded a US citizen accused of a non-political crime, say drug running, would we protest?

I guess my point is the slippery slope. If it isn't torture, and its is useful for suspected terrorists -- regardless of the fact that it produced unusable evidence -- why shouldn't it be employed on U.S. citizens at home or abroad?
 
DaChew said:
Prove a negative?
Click to expand...

There is nothing incorrect about asking you to show how a specific act fails to meet the legal definition of torture. You're confusing that with asking you to disprove a universal negative.
 
headscratcher4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Umm... torture as an interrogation technique for enemy combatants isn't a constitutional issue. There are no constitutional prohibitions on the conduct of war in regards to the enemy, only legal ones.
 
Surely anyone who truly doesn't believe that it is torture would volunteer to have the procedure performed on them self to prove it!
 
The Kilted Yaksman said:
Surely anyone who truly doesn't believe that it is torture would volunteer to have the procedure performed on them self to prove it!
Click to expand...

Or, more accurately, they would agree that it was something that they would accept should happen to our troops and/or citizens, as part of normal interrogation procedures, if they are captured by the military of another country and suspected of being a terrorist("Terrorist" defined the way the Bush administration uses it, meaning "anyone who we designate, by no discernible standard whatsoever.)
 
The Kilted Yaksman said:
Surely anyone who truly doesn't believe that it is torture would volunteer to have the procedure performed on them self to prove it!
Click to expand...

A better way to look at it is whether this country would consider it illegal for another nation to engage in that practice. The US has called for action against those who used waterboarding in the past, calling it war crimes.

ETA: beaten by JoeEllison, though I'd also say ask if we'd allow such treatment against our own enemies by foreign nations to be considered legal.
 
Last edited:
DaChew said:
I think it is weasely to ask an AG nominee his legal opinion on something that you could very easily make completely irrelevant if you actually did think it was wrong. Any of these Congresspeople could bring a bill to make the practice illegal. Right now. If they wanted. They haven't. They sure as heck don't mind demagoguing the issue though do they?
Click to expand...

If you ban a specific torture tactic, like water boarding, they'll only come up with some other torture tactic - and pretend it's not torture. That's why the law defines what constitutes torture, listing specific torture tactics doesn't work because new torture tactics can be easily created.

Asking for Water Boarding to be specifically illegalized by congress is a Red Herring from the Bush Administration. It's already illegal by the legal definition of torture.
 
headscratcher4 said:
I'd actually use a slightly different standard. Take it out of the realm of a "bad" regime like the old Soviet Union or even North Korea. If waterboarding is legal and not tourture, shouldn't it be available to local law enforcement, say in the instance of a on-going kidnapping?
Click to expand...

I'll amend my statement then as yours is a more intriguing question. If waterboarding is not torture than our police officers should use it for questioning.

Why do I feel like I am entering an Arthur Koestler novel here?
 
Lurker said:
I'll amend my statement then as yours is a more intriguing question. If waterboarding is not torture than our police officers should use it for questioning.

Why do I feel like I am entering an Arthur Koestler novel here?
Click to expand...

Indeed...that we in this country should even be having this discussion...and trying to figure out if we can torture non-citizens because they aren't protected by the Constitution is sick-making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom