Mukasey confirmation in jeopardy over torture

Anybody, in the U.S. Government, who thinks waterboarding is not torture, should be required to undergo the procedure. If they still feel that way, I may listen to them.
That includes President Bush, who, coincidentally, selected this guy, to enforce the law.
Write your congressmen and senators now. We cannot let this man take this post.
We must not accept torture as an American policy, no matter what.

I say Bush gives him a recess appointment come Thanksgiving.

As usual, the Demoncrats side with the terrorists against the American people.

It's time Leaky Leahy and Trickie Dick Durbin get waterboarded. Throw Kennedy in there too, then he can have an inkling as to how Mary Jo Kopechne felt.

Pat and Arlen question Mukasey;

Is this torture??

The issue is elegantly simple. If it is legal for the U.S. to waterboard someone, then it is legal for that to be done to U.S. personnel. If that's what GWB, Mukasey and John D. advocate, they should at least have the integrity to admit it. This is nothing to do with "siding with the terrorists" and everything to do with respect for (post-partum) humanity.

John D,

You are missing the point. If we torture then the rest of the world would say they can torture too because
America tortures their prisoners.

Not that the other countries aren't doing it. Egypt, Thailand, Saudi, and many other countries have absolutely no problem with using torture.

It just kinda feeds the lion. . .u know what I mean?

Would Johnny D cry foul if his nephew was waterboarded by Iran, North Korea, or China? Or would he shrug his shoulders and tell the American people these rogue nations have a right to waterboard?

a blinkin,

These techniques, once legitimized by 'precedent' will migrate into our civil law enforcement agencies, as sure as the sun rises.

Going to traffic court will take on a whole new meaning.

I find it extremely fascinating that the conservative Republicans purport to be the standard bearers of "Christian" values. If the issue of torture isn't one of the MOST basic tenets demonstrating how we treat our fellow human beings, I'd like to know what is.

This entire issue should have been resolved a LONG time ago. Either the President and his administration have authorized torture, or they haven't. We shouldn't be parsing words with an AG nominee. Torture and waterboarding are not only breaking American laws, they are breaking International laws. Everyone involved, including the President, should be exonerated, or should be facing long prison sentences.

If it wasn't waterboarding, the Dummycrats would have found some other thing to block the nomination. They will not allow any nominee Bush puts out there. They'll play their games and grandstand to feed their egos all day, but they will not nominate anyone. They would rather the country not have an AG, in order to stick it to the President. They have shown they will not work with anyone in the White House or the Republicans. Great leaders they are.

Posted by: John D | November 1, 2007 9:30 AM

Once again, Geographically Challenged Dumb Dumb Little Johnnie D, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", shows his true lack of intelligence. By constantly posting that anyone who disagrees with Dubya's administration or their political hacks means that they're siding with terrorists, hate America, want America to lose in "the war on terror", proves that he has the IQ of a turnip.

Geographically Challenged Dumb Dumb Little Johnnie D, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", I sincerely hope that someday YOU get waterboarded, then come back here and tell us how its NOT torture. John McCain says that it IS torture, and I think that he knows more about torture than you ever will.

This is a typical do nothing congress PR move...

Congress - whose job it is to legislate - can't pass a law that specifically outlaws waterboarding- they had at least two chances to do this and couldn't get it passed. NOW they want to get the guy who would be the enforcer of a law (again- which they cannot pass) to define a law that doesn't exist...

Congress does not really wants to take the option of waterboarding away from the folks in the field that use it- while at the same time wants the PR opportunity of being against it..

I agree with B--the Dummycrats would have used another issue.
The problem is we are fighting animals who hide behind children in schools or hospitals to kill by Jihad or cut heads off. These people have no religion they hide behind it to accomplish their goals.
The usual Jackasses our own Dickie Durbin is shocked so is Senator Depends Leahy and don't forget the prize schemer Chuckie Schemer. These Senators are torturing Republicans daily but, they are compassionate liberals who want to treat Jihadists well in the mistaken belief they will treat our soldiers well no they just use IED's or machetes to cut their heads off.
This clueless bunch of Democrats haven't figured out a way to respond to terrorists. Obviously, they think it's a bumper sticker war as John Trial Lawyer guy says.
I hope W makes a recess appointment and just shoves Mukasey at Dickie, Chuckie and Senator Depends. Meanwhile thank you W for keeping America safe despite these unpatriotic Senators. Yes, you heard me all the above are unpatriotic. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Ignorant-for-Life BC, can you please tell me how I am geographically challenged. And I notice you keep ignoring or conventiently missing the facts I keep putting forth in regard to our little debate as to whether Cuba and the Gulf of Mexico have a relationship. So, once again, King of the Ignorants, here is the information I put forth yesterday afternoon. What say you, BC??

You say Cuba is engulfed (pun intended) in the Caribbean Sea. I keep saying Cuba is the dividing point, the Gulf of Mexico lines the northwest coast of Cuba (about 1/3 of the island), the Atlantic Ocean along the other two-thirds northern coast, and the Caribbean Ocean lines the southern shores of Cuba.

Here, from Encyclapedia Britannica is the link and what it says:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109733/Gulf-of-Mexico

"Spanish Golfo de México partially landlocked body of water on the southeastern periphery of the North American continent. It is connected to the Atlantic Ocean by the Straits of Florida, running between the peninsula of Florida and the island of Cuba, and to the Caribbean Sea by the Yucatán Channel, which runs between the Yucatán Peninsula and Cuba. Both of these channels are about 100 miles…"

And more for you too, in case the Encylapedia Britannica isn't good enough.
Here is another link and key words from that link:
http://www.gulfbase.org/facts.php

"The Gulf of Mexico is a Mediterranean-type sea located at the southeastern corner of North America. The Gulf is bordered by the United States to the north (Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas), five Mexican states to the west (Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatan), and the island of Cuba to the southeast."

Now Idiot-for-Life BC, who is geographically challenged? Any idiot who even looks at a map can see the Gulf of Mexico lines the northwestern third of Cuba.

Now, BC, give me a call so we can set up a time and place for me to waterboard you. Might help jog loose any brain cells you may have.

Another time you said the Dominican Republic was in Central America. Sorry, dear, but in this instance, the Domincan Republic is in the Caribbean. It is hundreds of miles from Central America, which constitutes such countries as Costa Rica, Guatamala, Nicaraugua, etc.

Learn anything yet, Idiot-of-the-World BC???

heartburn

Question for you.

What do you think happened when Congress passed the McCain bill banning torture? Didn't they define torture?

Of course the President then issued a signing statement AFTER he signed the bill into law.

There are a lot of things that are wrong with this issue, but Congress has tried to limit the President's actions. His flagrant use of signing statements to circumvent laws is the issue.

heartburn,
Does waterboarding work?

...What do you think happened when Congress passed the McCain bill banning torture? Didn't they define torture?...

Posted by: dogjudge | November 1, 2007 11:31 AM

No- that is the issue here- the Mccain bill was not specific in defining waterboarding as a banned or illegal technique- the two subsequent bills that were not passed did- these bills would have put supporters of making waterboarding illegal on record as voting against it's use-
Which is why it wasn't passed..

I bet if you waterboarded him you could get an answer!!! Speaking of someone who needs waterboarding, John is there no limit to which you won't stoop to.

As usual, the Demoncrats side with the terrorists against the American people.

Posted by: John D | November 1, 2007 9:30 AM

The fact that there are even people debating this just shows how fear has turned some people in this country into pants-wetting surrender-monkeys.

I don't remember us needing to debate waterboarding in order to defeat communism.. I don't think we lowered ourselves to the level of torture to defeat the axis powers (in fact, in 1947 we CONVICTED A JAPANESE OFFICER OF TORTURE FOR WATERBOARDING AND SENT HIM TO PRISON FOR 15 YEARS!). We didn't need waterboarding to defeat the British or fight the Civil War or any other conflict/enemy that the US has faced that was much, much more dangerous to the US than terrorism is now.

I, for one, will not surrender our country's morality that Americans over the last 230 years have fought so hard to maintain and preserve with dignity, despite the fact that they were sometimes scared by the enemy and could have just as easily justified meekly turning on our principles. I certainly won't do it because a few middle-eastern guys with boxcutters hit a home run on 9/11. Gawd, how pathetic. If we could defeat Communism and the British and the Axis powers without this, then we certainly can do so with these pansy terrorists.

I know that John D and Jerry White and others are first in line to hand over the ideals that make America great at "Boo!", but I, for one, think maybe we should be a little bit stronger. A little PRINCIPLED, maybe (a foreign concept to these guys, I know).

The question should be put to Mucasey this way:
Yes, or no, do you personally believe that waterboarding constitutes torture? You can answer, "No, in my opinion, waterboarding does not constitute torture." Or you can answer any other way you want. If you do not answer that, in your opinion, waterboarding does not constitute torture, this government body shall put it into the official record that, in your opinion, waterboarding does constitute torture.
This way we get a yes or no answer. It's his choice.

* * * * *

Posted by: dogjudge | November 1, 2007 11:31 AM

First, signing statements have no legal significance. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution gives the President only two choices when presented with a bill passed by both houses. He can either: 1) veto it and return it to the house in which it originated, or 2) approve it by signing it into law. The Constitution does not give him the third option of approving it in part and vetoing it in part. The Supreme Court has said so twice. Thus, he cannot accomplish a partial passage, or an amendment, by means of a signing statement. Nor do those signing statements become part of the law, because the President has no power to make laws.

So, if the President chooses not to enforce a law as completely as it is written, he is simply acting unlawfully, in violation of his duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . .” To be sure, a signing statement cannot make conduct legal if the law he signed make it illegal.

Second, the trouble with Mukasey’s answer concerning torture arises from the wording of the torture law itself. 18 U.S.C. § 2340, subsection (1) defines torture as an act “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering on another person.” The statute further defines “severe mental pain or suffering” as “prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from –

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; . . .”

(See 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2), subs. (A)-(D) .)

Thus, merely inflicting pain of any kind is not torture. It is torture only when it is intended to inflict “severe” pain or suffering which, in the case of mental pain or suffering, must be likely to cause prolonged mental harm. In a legal setting, one rarely has direct access to the would-be torturer’s state of mind concerning intent. Thus, application of the law requires an evaluation of the duration, frequency, and specific methodology employed to determine the putative torturer’s intent from circumstantial evidence.

This doesn’t change simply because water-boarding is the method under discussion. Water-boarding clearly can be torture, especially if it is employed to a degree that it creates an apprehension of immediate death. It is also theoretically possible, however, to use water-boarding a minimum number of times in a manner that does not cause severe physical pain or even severe mental pain from the threat of imminent death. If one employed water-boarding in a limited manner, and in a calculated attempt to avoid the severe physical or mental pain associated with torture, then it would not be torture. The law says so.

This is Mukasey’s quandary. He is right in saying that the law demands an examination of the circumstances to determine whether water-boarding constitutes torture. The law does not, on its face, declare water-boarding to be torture or unlawful under all circumstances. The answer to the questions posed to him do indeed depend on the circumstances.

If Congress wanted to get less than uncertainty from Mukasey, they should do one of two things. Number one, they should ask him to answer hypothetical questions concerning certain factual scenarios, especially scenarios clearly involving the torturous use of water-boarding. That way they can figure out whether and to what degree he would approve or disapprove of the torturous use of water-boarding. Number two, they can simply pass a law that says water-boarding is, per se, unlawful under all circumstances. They have the power to do this, and they really ought to do so.

Looks like those kids in kindergarten have something over on John Doughnut.

http://www.henry.k12.ga.us/pges/instruction/kid-pages/islands/cuba/locationmap.html

heartburn,
Does waterboarding work?

Posted by: Jerry Black | November 1, 2007 11:40 AM

It apparently does at some level- if it didnh't it would seem hard to believe that the intelligence gathering community would so aggressively pursue its use..

It apparently does at some level- if it didnh't it would seem hard to believe that the intelligence gathering community would so aggressively pursue its use..

Posted by: heartburn | November 2, 2007 10:13 AM

C'mon Heartburn. you're usually so much better than that. I can't believe your using the faith-based reasoning approach of "it must work, or else they wouldn't be using it". That's so weak.

So I guess if the government regulates everything and socializes our medical system and puts 90% of the populace on Welfare, you'll say "it must all be for the best, or else they wouldn't be doing it", right?

C'mon Heartburn. you're usually so much better than that. I can't believe your using the faith-based reasoning approach of "it must work, or else they wouldn't be using it". That's so weak.

So I guess if the government regulates everything and socializes our medical system and puts 90% of the populace on Welfare, you'll say "it must all be for the best, or else they wouldn't be doing it", right?

Posted by: crafty b | November 2, 2007 11:52 AM

Fair enough, either I wasn't clear enough or you missed the point-

I was asked if waterboarding works..how would I know this? I have never been waterboarded or have never waterboarded or seen someone waterboarded.

SO..all anyone, including myself, posting here can do is draw conclusion on what is known.

What is known here is that the intelligence community
1. Uses, or has used the technique- in fact it has been in use for centuries.

2. The intelligence community plans on continuing to use the technique- unles there is some specific law outlawing it.

Wouldn't you assume that it works, if they continue to use it- or won't confirm that they won't use it ?
I believe it is a reasonable assumption that folks that are in charge of getting information from people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed are interested in using what works...

If it doesn't work wouldn't it be a No Brainer for Bush to publicly say we don't/won't use the technique-?

Posted by: John D | November 1, 2007 11:28 AM

[quote]
Learn anything yet, Idiot-of-the-World BC???
[/quote]

-- Yes, I learned that you're an incredibly arrogant windbag who refuses to take responsibility for his own words and admit it in public when he's caught LYING!

The very beginning of this debate was when you said that the island of Cuba was IN THE GULF OF MEXICO. Remember that, Dumb Dumb Little Johnnie D? Of course you do, which is why you're now trying to DENY saying it and instead claim that you always said that "1/3 of Cuba is in the Gulf". I've called you on this BS numerous times and you still refuse to be a man about admitting your original statement was WRONG. A good editor would have nailed you on it before allowing it to be published. Instead, I did, so why not BE A MAN and own up to making a mistake? Simple - because you DON'T HAVE THE BACKBONE TO DO SO.

You allege that I "keep ignoring or conventiently missing the facts you keep putting forth". First off, you misspelled "conveniently", something a COMPETENT journalist would never do, but in your case, you were TOO LAZY to even use a spell checker before posting. Not that that surprises anyone here (your laziness, that is). Secondly, ALL of your sources say that the Gulf of Mexico is BORDERED by Cuba - NONE SAY THAT ANY PART OF CUBA IS IN THE GULF!

[quote]
Cuba and the Gulf of Mexico have a relationship
[/quote]

-- How do these two geographical entities have a "relationship"? From Merriam Webster's online dictionary:

"relationship

Main Entry:
re·la·tion·ship Listen to the pronunciation of relationship
Pronunciation:
\-shən-ˌship\
Function: noun
Date: 1741

1: the state of being related or interrelated
2: the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship: as
a: kinship
b: a specific instance or type of kinship
3 a: a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings
b: a romantic or passionate attachment"

Which part of this definition for the word "relationship" is its proper usage regarding Cuba & the Gulf of Mexico? C'mon, you're the "journalist" here, pretend you know what you're talking about and answer the question.

[quote]
You say Cuba is engulfed (pun intended) in the Caribbean Sea.
[/quote]

-- And my link to the online Encyclopaedia Britannica PROVED that Cuba IS NOT in the Gulf. To repeat from here

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109730/Caribbean-Sea

"suboceanic basin of the western Atlantic Ocean, lying between latitudes 9° and 22° N and longitudes 89° and 60° W." Click on the map to enlarge it, then look real closely to the upper left corner, where it shows that longitude 88° is a good 200 miles WEST of the westernmost tip of Cuba - and they say that the eastern border of the Gulf is at 89°. By purposely overlooking that FACT, you PROVE that you're "Geographically Challenged".

[quote]
Any idiot who even looks at a map can see the Gulf of Mexico lines the northwestern third of Cuba.
[/quote]

-- That makes you quite an idiot to miss the obvious "relationship" between Encyclopaedia Britannica's text and their map which says otherwise. See above.

-- From YOUR E.B. link

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109733/Gulf-of-Mexico

you copy and pasted some of their text, NONE OF WHICH STATES THAT CUBA IS IN THE GULF! It's so obvious that only an idiot like you could only overlook it ON PURPOSE.

-- From your link

http://www.gulfbase.org/facts.php

it says that "The Gulf is BORDERED ... the island of Cuba to the southeast." IT DOES NOT STATE THAT CUBA IS IN THE GULF! By your logic, part of the continental USA is IN Canada because the USA is BORDERED by Canada to the north. That's how ridiculous your logic is, but typical from a right wingnut dingbat like yourself.

[quote]
Another time you said the Dominican Republic was in Central America.
[/quote]

-- Got a link to this allegation? OF COURSE NOT - because I NEVER said that! What I said was that Rush Limprod took a trip to the Dominican Republic, taking along his bottle of Viagra and leaving his third (or is it his fourth) wife home alone. Never let the FACTS get in the way of your stupidity, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood".

Do the world a favor and check yourself into the mental hospital in Elgin so you can get treatment for your personality disorders; you need IMMEDIATE help.

I was asked if waterboarding works..how would I know this? I have never been waterboarded or have never waterboarded or seen someone waterboarded.

SO..all anyone, including myself, posting here can do is draw conclusion on what is known.

What is known here is that the intelligence community
1. Uses, or has used the technique- in fact it has been in use for centuries.

2. The intelligence community plans on continuing to use the technique- unles there is some specific law outlawing it.

Wouldn't you assume that it works, if they continue to use it- or won't confirm that they won't use it ?
I believe it is a reasonable assumption that folks that are in charge of getting information from people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed are interested in using what works...

If it doesn't work wouldn't it be a No Brainer for Bush to publicly say we don't/won't use the technique-?

Posted by: heartburn | November 2, 2007 12:42 PM

Heartburn... you just used the same tortured reasoning (no pun intended)... this time just wordier.

It's crappy logic to say

1) Torture would only be used if it works

2) We use torture

ergo.

3) Torture works

That's crap and you know it.

AND that's assuming "works" means the same thing to everybody. You're right... waterboarding has been used for a long, long time. So has all forms of torture. Doesn't necessarily mean it works at getting FACTUAL, actionable information out of someone. It might work at getting people to confess to crimes they didn't commit. It might work in getting people to tell you something they think you just wanna hear, regardless of whether it's true or not. Just because it's been USED, doesn't mean it "works" at getting what our government says its using it for. Maybe it's used for getting exactly what they want, propaganda fuel (i.e. "curveball"-esque info to help sell their predetermined plans).