Why should Mukasey call it torture when...

[Yonivore]

...Congress won't?

It looks like Judge Mukasey will be confirmed as Attorney General. Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Schumer have announced that they will support him -- Feinstein because she's somewhat sensible and Schumer because he's trapped by the glowing statements he previously made about Mukasey. Schumer may be fond of talking out of both sides of his mouth (after all, it's a form of talking), but even he isn't shameless enough to vote against a nominee he hyped merely because the nominee won't proclaim as categorically illegal an interrogation technique that Congress has declined to declare categorically illegal. He may also have felt locked in by his own past pro-torture statements, which went much farther than anything suggested by Judge Mukasey.

With the votes of Feinstein and Schumer, Mukasey has majority support in the Judiciary Committee. The Senate as a whole is less liberal than the Committee, and Democratic Senators from swing or Republican leaning states can't afford to vote to the left of Chuck Schumer on this one, nor is there any reason to believe they want to.

In the end Mukasey played the hand well. In his October, 30, 2007 letter to the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he gave three reasons for not being able to opine categorically about the legality of waterboarding. First, he was not briefed about the details of any interrogation program to the extent they are classified, and thus does not know what the precise techniques at issue are. Second, he did not want his uninformed statements to present our professional interrogators and those responsible for reviewing their conduct with the prospect that their actions, though previously approved by the Justice Department, might place them in legal jeopardy. Third, he did not want his statements to provide our enemies with a window into the limits or contours of any interrogation porgram we have in place because to do so might assist them in training to resist such techniques.

Collectively, these reasons gave Mukasey a respectable basis for not answering. Moreover, his letter provided a sound statement of the legal analysis he would use to determine whether coercive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, are lawful. And he expressed his personal view that waterboarding seems repugnant, thus suggesting that, at a minimum, this is not a technique that should be used except in special circumstances. At the same time, nothing in Mukasey's letter commits him to the view that effective waterboarding techniques are illegal in exigent circumstances.

In essence, Mukasey did a strip tease for the Democrats on the Committee, plus Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham, in which he showed them all the skin they could decently demand him to expose, but not all the skin they really wanted to see.

ABC News (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html) reported that 3 people have been waterboarded in the War on Terrorism by the CIA. The CIA has waterboarded no one since President Bush appointed Gen. Michael Hayden to head the CIA.

Hayden replaced George Tenet who originally was appointed by Bill Clinton.

ABC News named only one of the 3: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The man earned his waterboarding. He masterminded 9/11 on behalf of Osama bin Laden. He admits he beheaded Daniel Pearl.

ABC News reported: “A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.”

I don’t want to hear how it breaks the Geneva Conventions. KSM broke it by beheading Daniel Pearl whose only crime was being Jewish.

I don’t want to hear how it is unconstitutional. Foreigners who slaughter civilians randomly are not entitled to their Miranda rights. People like that are military targets.

I don’t want to hear about how we have to set an example for the world. We already do. We are the beacon of light of freedom for the world and have been for over 2 centuries. We have taken the huddled masses of the world and given them hope.

But we need to set another example for the terrorists: Mess with us and we will not treat you like a petty thief. You won’t get an ACLU lawyer. You will get a cold, dark cell in some place no one will find you.

This argument over waterboarding is actually one more battle over whether Congress will run the war or the president. That is the constitutional struggle. That is why Robert C. Byrd carries the Constitution in his pocket. He does not want to protect your rights; he wants to preserve his power.

Usually, Congress prevails. America usually has weak chief executives. Of the 43 presidents, most have been like Bill Clinton: easy-going pols who puts up a good fight but eventually signs the paper.

For all the talk about the Imperial Presidency, Dick Nixon did what the Democratic Congress told him to do and signed OSHA, the EPA and a bunch of other programs into law.

In times of crisis, you need a Lincoln. By not letting up on Iraq or on the rest of the War on Terror, Bush has proved himself to be a Lincoln.

By the way, Democrats treated Lincoln worse...and, look where that got him.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/images/20020815_d081502-515h.jpg

[boutons_]

Yoni drags Muckassy down to Congress' level as some kind of defense of Muckassy?

[ChumpDumper]

Why was he not briefed on waterboarding?

Is he going to know anything about waterboarding once he is appointed?

Will he have a legal opinion about it then?

And of course waterboarding is illegal. A US Tribunal prosecuted it as a war crime after World War II, a US soldier was court martialed for supervising the waterboarding a North Vietnamese POW and a Texas sheriff and his deputies were sentenced to four years in prison for doing it to prisoners to coerce confessions.

Pass a law to make it legal. Precedent says it isn't.


http://media.npr.org/news/waterboard/vietnam540.jpg
This isn't new.

[PixelPusher]

Good news! It turns out Buhddist monks in Myanmar aren't being "tortured" after all!

[Nbadan]

It is also crime under International law....On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5-3 decision which said that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention was violated by the US detention program. This court ruling prompted the Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

This court decision sent both the congress and Whitehouse scrambling to comply with the Geneva Convention. This called for an executive order by the President to clarify what is permissible and what is not a permissible interrogation techniques.

[Nbadan]

Mukasey can't say that waterboarding is torture because the job of Attorney-General in the Bush administration essentially requires one to sign off on torture. Conceding during nomination hearings that to do so would be a crime would doom any future criminal defense that Mukasey may need to mount.

[boutons_]

More Communist/hippy/liberal jerkoffs are against waterboarding torture:

Retired JAGs Send Letter To Leahy: “Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.”

By: Nicole Belle on Saturday, November 3rd, 2007 at 7:01 PM - PDT

The pending confirmation of Michael Mukasey to the position of Attorney General, now destined to go to the full Senate, thanks to Lieber-moves of Shumer and Feinstein, is troublesome to more than just we in the progressive community. Senator Patrick Leahy received this letter (.pdf) from four retired JAGs, who understand that the concept of “Rule of Law” must mean something, even with Bushies in charge.

Dear Chairman Leahy,

In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under United States and international law. We write Because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America’s history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well-established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules yhat can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - as long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.)
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88

===============

Throw these assholes in Gitmo.

[xrayzebra]

Wonder, if it is illegal, why we do it to our own troops during
training? Guess they may have a case against the military.

[Yonivore]

It is also crime under International law....On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5-3 decision which said that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention was violated by the US detention program. This court ruling prompted the Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

This court decision sent both the congress and Whitehouse scrambling to comply with the Geneva Convention. This called for an executive order by the President to clarify what is permissible and what is not a permissible interrogation techniques.
There's no such thing as "international law." A country is bound by its international agreements, compacts, conventions, and protocols only in so far as they do not threaten national sovereignty and so long as you're wearing big enough pants to operate outside those agreements.

Fuck the rest of the world. Besides, the only places complaining are a bunch of anti-American retards -- who depend on our forces for their security -- anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

Wonder, if it is illegal, why we do it to our own troops during
training? Guess they may have a case against the military.Are they being interrogated?

No.

Dipshit.

[Yonivore]

Waterboarding (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/11/02/moos.waterboard.yourself.cnn); torture or not, you make the call.

[xrayzebra]

Are they being interrogated?

No.

Dipshit.

Gee, you are getting so upset. Hit a nerve?

[Yonivore]

Thanks for quoting SpunkMuncher, xray.


Are they being interrogated?

No.

Dipshit.
So, if the U. S. Military decides to use spoons to excavate our soldiers' eyes -- for training purposes -- it'd be okay so long as they weren't asking them questions?

Torture isn't dependent upon the context. If it's torture, it's torturous, no matter on whom it's practiced.

By the way, just as in the training scenario, terrorist suspects were informed that they were not going to be killed and that the procedure about to be inflicted on them was neither dangerous or harmful.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed still cracked, like a baby, in under 2 minutes. That fucking reporter lasted 24 minutes...

I think waterboarding should be the interrogation technique of choice with the pansy allahu ahkbar idiots.

[ChumpDumper]

Soldiers submit to the waterboarding as part of their training you stupid idiots.

Let me know if they submit to eye removal and let me see a video of that.


That fucking reporter lasted 24 minutes...That reporter used to be special ops and had already been waterboarded as part of the training he had agreed to.

And have somebody else quote the existing US legal precedents that deem waterboarding illegal so Yoni can waterboard himself with those.

Waterboarding is illegal because we have already determined it to be illegal.

If you want to legalize it, pass a law.

[clambake]

i would submit to vodkaboarding.

[ChumpDumper]

A senior Justice Department official, charged with reworking the administration's legal position on torture in 2004 became so concerned about the controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding that he decided to experience it firsthand, sources told ABC News.

Daniel Levin, then acting assistant attorney general, went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure to inform his analysis of different interrogation techniques.

After the experience, Levin told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn't die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning.

Levin, who refused to comment for this story, concluded waterboarding could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision. And, sources told ABC News, he believed the Bush Administration had failed to offer clear guidelines for its use.

Bush Administration Blocked Critic

The administration at the time was reeling from an August 2002 memo by Jay Bybee, then the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, which laid out possible justifications for torture. In June 2004, Levin's predecessor at the office, Jack Goldsmith, officially withdrew the Bybee memo, finding it deeply flawed.

When Levin took over from Goldsmith, he went to work on a memo that would effectively replace the Bybee memo as the administration's legal position on torture. It was during this time that he underwent waterboarding.

In December 2004, Levin released the new memo. He said, "Torture is abhorrent" but he went on to say in a footnote that the memo was not declaring the administration's previous opinions illegal. The White House, with Alberto Gonzales as the White House counsel, insisted that this footnote be included in the memo.

But Levin never finished a second memo imposing tighter controls on the specific interrogation techniques. Sources said he was forced out of the Justice Department when Gonzales became attorney general.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/DOJ/story?id=3814076&page=1

I'll take that Republican's word for it.

[boutons_]

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime
By Evan Wallach
Sunday, November 4, 2007; B01


As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Iraq?tid=informline)'s Abu Ghraib (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Abu+Ghraib?tid=informline) prison.

Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding."

That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123046197), one of the 1942 Army Air Forces (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Army+Air+Forces?tid=informline) officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Japan?tid=informline) surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Far+East?tid=informline), generally called the Tokyo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Tokyo?tid=informline) War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.

The United States (like Britain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/United+Kingdom?tid=informline), Australia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Australia?tid=informline) and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:

Q: Was it painful?

A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.

Q: Like you were drowning?

A: Drowning -- you could hardly breathe.

Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:

They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.

And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Philippines?tid=informline) after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ferdinand+Marcos?tid=informline). The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Texas?tid=informline) sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Armed+Forces?tid=informline) tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.

Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/New+York?tid=informline), teaches the law

of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.

==================

As a shit-stain on American civlization, you're perfect, dubya.

[PixelPusher]

I wonder what vital national security information those Buddhist monks in Myanmar have that they would be waterboarded? I mean, Bush says waterboarding is not torture, so the military junta in Myanmar must have a noble legitimate purpose for waterboarding those monks, right?

[Nbadan]

4 out of 4 Generals agree - Water-boarding is torture....

Retired Judge Advocates General Write To Leahy Condemning Waterboarding
November 2, 2007

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Leahy,


In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under United States and international law. We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

(and something Yoni knows nothing about if I may add)

We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America’s history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well- established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88

Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/jag-letter-waterboarding/)

[Nbadan]

In case you missed it, last night's Countdown with KO was must see TV....


No matter how thorough you might try to brand disagreement as disloyalty, Mr Bush, there are still people like Daniel Levin who believe in the United States of America as true freedom, where we are better not because of schemes and wars, but because of dreams and morals. And ultimately, sir, these men, these patriots will defeat you and they will return this country to its righteous standards, and to its rightful owners: The People.

.........

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on the meaning of the story of former U.S. Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin.

It is a fact startling in its cynical simplicity and it requires cynical and simple words to be properly expressed:

The presidency of George W. Bush has now devolved into a criminal conspiracy to cover the ass of George W. Bush.

All the petulancy, all the childish threats, all the blank-stare stupidity;

All the invocations of World War Three, all the sophistic questions about which terrorist attacks we wanted him not to stop, all the phony secrets; all the claims of executive privilege, all the stumbling tap-dancing of his nominees, all the verbal flatulence of his apologists…

All of it is now — after one revelation last week — transparently clear for what it is: the pathetic and desperate manipulation of the government, the re-focusing of our entire nation, towards keeping this mock president, and this unstable vice president, and this departed wildly self-over-rating Attorney General — and the others — from potential prosecution for having approved or ordered the illegal torture of prisoners being held in the name of this country.

Here is the Video: LINK (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/05/special-comment-george-bushs-criminal-conspiracy-of-torture)

[Nbadan]

When will you say....enough is enough....

...when it's you getting tortured?

Not in my name, Mr President! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ1NYizv2sw)

[FromWayDowntown]

And of course waterboarding is illegal. A US Tribunal prosecuted it as a war crime after World War II, a US soldier was court martialed for supervising the waterboarding a North Vietnamese POW and a Texas sheriff and his deputies were sentenced to four years in prison for doing it to prisoners to coerce confessions.

Pass a law to make it legal. Precedent says it isn't.

Precedent is relevant so long as it supports Yonivore's argument; if it doesn't support his argument, it's a trifling thing that is readily-disregarded.

[Yonivore]

Precedent is relevant so long as it supports Yonivore's argument; if it doesn't support his argument, it's a trifling thing that is readily-disregarded.
Well, if SpunkDump listed references, you didn't carry them over but, I'll respond anyway.

1) In the WWII incident -- where Japanese interrogators were prosecuted for war crimes -- the waterboarding technique involved forced ingestion of water and beatings (including jumping up and down on the victim's distended stomach).

2) There is little on the court martial case that I can find. I'd like to know more about the exact charges under which the soldier was court-martialed and possible read a synopsis of the trial. Any links will be appreciated.

3) The Texas Sheriff violated the prisoner's constitutional rights by coercing a confession. The method of coersion had less to do with the punishment than the mere fact that coerced confessions, in criminal law, are illegal, unconstitutional, and just plain stupid.

The U. S. Government cops to 3 instances of waterboarding and, on the one case they name publicly -- Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- they claim it led to actionable, valuable, and accurate intelligence that resulted in saving many lives.

So, I say, fuck you.

[Yonivore]

http://media.npr.org/news/waterboard/vietnam540.jpg
A U.S. soldier in Vietnam supervises the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier.
So, what's his name? Anybody know?


On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.
NPR was pretty vague on his identity. Seems to me information on a criminal prosecution, resulting from an investigative report by the Washington Post, would be fairly easy to come by.

I'm beginning to think they're only including the facts that fit the "waterboarding-is-torture" narrative.

[Yonivore]

I'll tell you what I am finding out about waterboarding and the 1968 incident.

1) There are a wide range of waterboarding techniques, most of which are life-threatening; except for the version used in military training and on Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

2) What I posted below on the 1968 incident is all that I can find when googling it several different ways. In fact, most of the google responses end with the sentence, "The picture reportedly led to an investigation and the court martial of the soldier," or something to that effect.

So, when you find his name, let me know and I'll read up on the case.

[Nbadan]

...and now we come to learn that many of Dubya's accusations about an Iraq-Al Queda link we extracted from prisoners who were buried alive...


<snip>

In a CIA sub-station close to al Libi's jail cell, the CIA's "debriefers," who had been talking to al Libi for days after his return from Cairo, were typing out a series of operational cables to be sent Feb. 4 and Feb. 5 to the CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va. In the view of some insiders, these cables provide the "smoking gun" on the whole rendition program -- a convincing account of how the rendition program was, they say, illegally sending prisoners into the hands of torturers.

Under torture after his rendition to Egypt, al Libi had provided a confession of how Saddam Hussein had been training al Qaeda in chemical weapons. This evidence was used by Colin Powell at the United Nations a year earlier (February 2003) to justify the war in Iraq. ("I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al Qaeda," Powell said. "Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story.")

But now, hearing how the information was obtained, the CIA was soon to retract all this intelligence. A Feb. 5 cable records that al Libi was told by a "foreign government service" (Egypt) that: "the next topic was al-Qa'ida's connections with Iraq...This was a subject about which he said he knew nothing and had difficulty even coming up with a story."

...

Here was a cable then that informed Washington that one of the key pieces of evidence for the Iraq war -- the al Qaeda/Iraq link -- was not only false but extracted by effectively burying a prisoner alive.

...

Last September, these red-hot CIA cables were declassified and published by the Senate Intelligence Committee, but in, a welter of other news, one of the most important documents in the history of rendition had passed almost without notice by the media. As far as I can tell, not a single newspaper reported details of the cable. (Senate Intelligence Committee, page 81, paragraph 2)

A spokesman of the intelligence committee told me last month: "We were not able to establish definitively who was told about the cable or its contents or who read it." Other members of Congress may soon be taking up this story to find out just who at the White House was told about the cable.

ABC News (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/cia-rendition-t.html)

Torturing people until they tell you what you want to hear always works!

:rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

Slate gives a little more information about the Vietnem waterboarding:

Which brings us to the most notorious torture: waterboarding, or choking someone in water. In 1968, a soldier in the 1st Cavalry Division was court-martialed for waterboarding a prisoner in Vietnam. In fact, the practice was identified as a crime as early as 1901, when the Army judge advocate general court-martialed Maj. Edwin Glenn of the 5th U.S. Infantry for waterboarding, a technique he did not hesitate to call torture.

Glenn's case is very real. There are even quotes from his testimony specifically about waterboarding in the archives of the New York Times from 1902.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A05E6DB113DEE32A25755C2A9619C946397D6CF

It's precedent. A US Army officer was court-martialed and convicted for waterboarding.

If you need a lesson on how precedent influences and determines court decisions that follow, ask FWD.

[Nbadan]

Mukasey Is (Much) Worse Than Gonzales
by John Nichols


George Bush’s nominee to replace disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, retired Federal Judge Michael B. Mukasey, must be rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee for the same reason that Gonzales should have been rejected in 2005.

Like Gonzales, Mukasey refuses to accept that the president of the United States must abide by the laws of the land, beginning with the Constitution. In fact, the nominee to replace the worst Attorney General since Calvin Coolidge forced Harry Micajah Daugherty to quit rather than face impeachment is actually takes a more extreme position in defense of an imperial presidency than did Gonzales.

When questioned by Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont and Constitution sub-committee chair Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, during the key hearing on his nomination, Mukasey embraces an interpretation of presidential authority so radical that it virtually guarantees more serious abuses of power by the executive branch.

There is no question that one of the ugliest manifestations of that expansion of authority involves the Bush-Cheney administration’s embrace of extraordinary rendition and torture as tools for achieving its ends. But those who focus too intensely on Mukasey’s troubling dance around the waterboarding question make a mistake. Even if the nominee were to embrace the Geneva Conventions — not to mention the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — and condemn all forms of torture as the cruel and unusual punishment that they are, he would still be an entirely unacceptable choice to serve as the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer.

And while some Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have made their peace with Mukasey — shame on New York’s Chuck Schumer and California’s Dianne Feinstein — the fight to block this nomination cannot be abandoned. Mukasey’s critics on the committee, led by Leahy and Feingold, should do everything in their power to re-frame the debate to focus on the broader question of whether a president can break the law — and on the nominee’s entirely unacceptable answers to it. They should pressure Schumer and Feinstein to reconsider, and they should reach out, aggressively, to “Republicans who know better” such as Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter.

Mukasey has made the case against his confirmation more convincingly than any of his critics.

The former judge has defended the administration’s attempts to dramatically expand the definition of executive privilege, telling the Judiciary Committee that it would be inappropriate for a U.S. attorney to press for contempt charges against a White House official who claimed to be protected by a grant of executive privilege. Under this reading of the law, U.S. attorneys would cease to be independent defenders of the rule of law and become mere extensions of the White House.

As such, Mukasey accepts a politicization of U.S. Attorneys far more extreme than that attempted by Gonzales and former White House political czar Karl Rove when they sought to remove U.S. Attorneys who failed to fully embrace the administration’s electoral and ideological goals.

But Mukasey does not stop there.

Under questioning from Feingold, Mukasey endorsed the administration’s argument that congressional attempts to define appropriate surveillance strategies and techniques could infringe inappropriately on presidential authority.

When pressed by Feingold, Mukasey refused to say whether he thought the president could order a violation of federal wiretapping rules. Feingold’s response was measured. “I find your equivocation here somewhat troubling,” said the senator.

In fact, everything about Mukasey’s testimony suggested that he would as Attorney General be more of a threat to Constitutional governance than the inept and frequently inarticulate Gonzales. Mukasey gives every indication that he is as enthusiastic as was Gonzales about helping the president to bend and break they law. The scary thing is that Mukasey appears to be a good deal abler when it comes to cloaking lawlessness in a veneer of legal uncertainty.

Consider the nominee’s suggestion that the president can ignore any law, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, if he and his lawyers determine that the law impinges on his authority as commander in chief during wartime.

“The president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law,” Mukasey explained, with a response that employed legalese at levels not heard in Washington since Richard Nixon boarded that last plane for San Clemente. “The president doesn’t stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution.”

Leahy said after that “troubling” statement by the man who would be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer: “I see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.”

The Judiciary Committee chair is right. It’s the truck carrying the trappings of an imperial presidency. And Mukasey should not be handed the keys.

Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/05/5034)

[Yonivore]

Mukasey Is (Much) Worse Than Gonzales
by John Nichols

Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/05/5034)
Too late, Dan. He's gonna be confirmed.

[FromWayDowntown]

The U. S. Government cops to 3 instances of waterboarding and, on the one case they name publicly -- Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- they claim it led to actionable, valuable, and accurate intelligence that resulted in saving many lives.

Well, as long as it works, it's all good, I guess. Maybe the administration should encourage troops to simulate beheadings or resurrect some of Saddam's interrogation techniques. I mean, this isn't about being better than the terrorists we fight -- if they do it, there's no reason that we shouldn't; it's all about undertaking whatever measures are necessary to allow a claim that the technique led to actionable, valuable, and accurate intelligence.

I will say this: we began this thread with you wondering why Mukasey should call it torture when Congress won't. ChumpDumper has provided precedent to show that there have been at least two court-martials for waterboarding that resulted in convictions; he's also shown that precedent identifying waterboarding as torture has existed since as early as 1901. It would seem that neither Mukasey nor Congress is particularly justified in suggesting that waterboarding isn't torture, since documents that bind United States servicemen and servicewomen -- likely, the only persons who might be engaging in waterboarding -- have been construed to make waterboarding torture. It's not just some willy-nilly construction of those documents; it's a construction that supported convictions in multiple courts martial.


So, I say, fuck you.

I'm quite sure you're not my type.

[Yonivore]

Well, as long as it works, it's all good, I guess. Maybe the administration should encourage troops to simulate beheadings or resurrect some of Saddam's interrogation techniques. I mean, this isn't about being better than the terrorists we fight -- if they do it, there's no reason that we shouldn't; it's all about undertaking whatever measures are necessary to allow a claim that the technique led to actionable, valuable, and accurate intelligence.
Both the military and the CIA claim to have stopped the use of waterboarding. If this is true, I expect (and certainly hope) it’s because (1) we haven’t captured any high value terrorists recently from whom we’ve been unable to obtain vital information through conventional interrogation methods or (2) we’ve found other unconventional coercive methods that are as effective as waterboarding.

If the U.S. really is done with waterboarding, then it’s appropriate to bid it farewell with this tribure by Deroy Murdock (http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071106/COMMENTARY/111060010/1012/COMMENTARY) called “Hooray for Waterboardng.” (I would have used a different title, though – it’s not waterboarding that should be praised; it’s our willingness to resort to the technique in exigent circumstances when all else has failed).

Murdock recounts -- as I've already mentioned -- how Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM), the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, stayed mum for months after he was captured, typically answering questions with Koranic chants. Finally, his interrogators waterboarded him. According to a CIA veteran quoted in the New Yorker, KSM sang right away. In doing so, he enabled the government to arrest at least six major terrorists. Keep that in mind the next time someone mindlessly asserts that waterboarding doesn’t work.

As Murdock explains, waterboarding loosens lips without causing physical injury. Its critics claim that the technique results in severe emotional distress, including nightmares. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case among U.S. personnel on whom the technique has been used during training. The distress terrorists experience is probably related to the guilt they feel over having spilled their guts. That distress isn’t something we should feel badly about.

I question the common sense of those who become hysterical over treatment of terrorists that is not much more severe -- if any more severe -- than that to which we subject our own young soldiers and pilots.


I will say this: we began this thread with you wondering why Mukasey should call it torture when Congress won't.This Democratic Congress had a chance to pass a law that would specifically make the practice illegal. They didn't.


ChumpDumper has provided precedent to show that there have been at least two court-martials for waterboarding that resulted in convictions;
I only recall the mention of one, maybe he was on ignore when he listed two. Could you please provide the two cases again?


he's also shown that precedent identifying waterboarding as torture has existed since as early as 1901.
What he failed to show is there are multiple techniques for waterboarding, most of which even I would consider torture. But, in fact, the current technique only bears resemblance because it shares a name and the fact water is involved.


It would seem that neither Mukasey nor Congress is particularly justified in suggesting that waterboarding isn't torture, since documents that bind United States servicemen and servicewomen -- likely, the only persons who might be engaging in waterboarding -- have been construed to make waterboarding torture.
Actually, it's our intelligence services that are more likely to be engaged in the practice and, certainly, if I were this president, I would make damn sure the practice was confined to non-military spook agencies.


It's not just some willy-nilly construction of those documents; it's a construction that supported convictions in multiple courts martial.
Again, please give cite the courts martial cases. I'd like to read up on them and determine, for myself, how much the actual technique had to do with the court martial.

And, while I'm not accusing the construction of being "willy-nilly," I do believe it basically mischaracterized the nature of the technique being employed -- and does so knowing the method of waterboarding used on Khalid Sheik Mohammed is very much different than the method used by the Japanese that got them a war crimes charge.


I'm quite sure you're not my type.
Fine, go fuck yourself.

[Yonivore]

Code Pink "Waterboards" (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d8c_1194307197&p=1)

Notice in the video, at the 46 second mark, that when the towel is removed it keeps a shape. If you pour a gallon of water on a towel, it does not keep shape like this. There is a shield of some type under the towel keeping the water from getting into the participant’s nose and mouth. Watch closely. Nothing but propaganda.

Of course, if they really were to do this to one another for political propaganda, how would that justify that it is wrong to do it to a dangerous terrorist that has information that could save thousands of lives? They would kinda be defeating their own purpose wouldn’t they? So, since it is obviously fake, why is the moonbat whining and sniffling so much?

What better way to prove that waterboarding is torture than to perform it on one another in front of the Capitol? It is now official. More liberals have been waterboarded than terrorists. According to the left, this is one of America’s worst forms of “torture”. What a bunch of B.S! If the terrorists whine as much as this moonbat after going through this, and give up the answers we need to save lives…I don’t see the problem.

[clambake]

Notice in the video, at the 46 second mark, that when the towel is removed it keeps a shape. If you pour a gallon of water on a towel, it does not keep shape like this. There is a shield of some type under the towel keeping the water from getting into the participant’s nose and mouth. Watch closely. Nothing but propaganda.

mouse?

[Yonivore]

mouse?
Kind of looks like him, eh?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

Notice how Yoni is flailing around now -- claiming he knows exactly how KSM was waterboarded when US officials only ever give the line theat they don't discuss techniques.

All he and any waterboarding fan is saying is they have no problem with our servicemen and women being waterboarded by our enemies, and our enemies should never face any consequences for doing so.

I value the people of our armed forces more than that.

[Nbadan]

All he and any waterboarding fan is saying is they have no problem with our servicemen and women being waterboarded by our enemies, and our enemies should never face any consequences for doing so.


Why should they, after all, its not torture....neither are stress positions, depriving food and water...cold rooms....

[Yonivore]

Why should they, after all, its not torture....neither are stress positions, depriving food and water...cold rooms....
As if our enemies are merely waterboarding our troops.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0524072torture1.jpg

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0524072torture2.jpg

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0524072torture3.jpg

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0524072torture4.jpg

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0524072torture5.jpg

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0524072torture6.jpg

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0524072torture7.jpg

After which, our soldiers are usually beheaded, mutilated, drug through the streets, set on fire, photographed, videotaped, and left for the dogs to eat.

[ChumpDumper]

Notice how Yoni tries to distract form the fact that he is fine with anyone waterboarding our troops now, in the past and in the future.

[Nbadan]

Well, at least we're not lowering ourselves to Al-Queda's levels (the secretarian violence and torture in Iraq sparked by the U.S. invasion aside)...our torture is humane...

[FromWayDowntown]

Ah, yes -- the old, "our forms of torture are so much less egregious than their forms of torture" justification.

[Yonivore]

Ah, yes -- the old, "our forms of torture are so much less egregious than their forms of torture" justification.
I was merely responding to the idiotic premise that if we waterboarded terrorists then they'd waterboard us. They have no interest in waterboarding...it doesn't kill people.

I know of no known instance of al Qaeda waterboarding a U. S. Soldier. So, right there, the premise dies...as do our soldiers in their custody. However, there are plenty of instances of them doing exactly what is described in my post.

And, I've yet to concede waterboarding -- as practices by the U.S. -- is a form of torture.

[ChumpDumper]

Who said anything about terrorists waterboarding US soldiers specifically?

That's the thing about putting people on ignore. It makes you even more ignorant.

[xrayzebra]

Who said anything about terrorists waterboarding US soldiers specifically?



That's the thing about putting people on ignore. It makes you even more ignorant.

What a joke you are Chump. Your such a twerp!
Terrorist do much more than water boarding. Like chop
heads off, drag dead people through streets and hang
burned bodies from bridges. And you, the small, silly
person you are make fun of any remarks anyone makes
against them. Bush and the United States is not your
enemy. Unfortunately, you don't realize that, like your
supporters who chime in at every opportunity. God
help you.

[ChumpDumper]

Why can't you guys stay on point?

Oh yeah -- you're trying to distract from the fact that you are fine with Americans being waterboarded by our enemies and would have no consequences attached to it.

[Yonivore]

Who said anything about terrorists waterboarding US soldiers specifically?

That's the thing about putting people on ignore. It makes you even more ignorant.

Nbadan posted this quote...


All he and any waterboarding fan is saying is they have no problem with our servicemen and women being waterboarded by our enemies, and our enemies should never face any consequences for doing so.
...which, until now, I suspected was from your ignored post between mine and his. Either that or you have yourself on ignore; or, a very bad memory.

Mad Cow?

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks for pointing out that I said nothing about terrorists specifically, dumbass.

It's such a big help when you prove my point for me.

[Nbadan]

Waterboardin', USA (http://mydamnchannel.com/channel.aspx?episode=163)

[xrayzebra]

Why can't you guys stay on point?

Oh yeah -- you're trying to distract from the fact that you are fine with Americans being waterboarded by our enemies and would have no consequences attached to it.

How about you staying on point. Who is your enemy. I
get sick and tired of your junk. You enjoy putting people
down who only do one thing and support their country.
You silly person, they attack us, they want to kill YOU and
me and you want to make dumb statements about how we
mistreat them by pouring some water on their face.
You want torture, how about some real torture. Or as
the Mexicans say, take them to 110. 110=volts.
You damn people make me sick.

[xrayzebra]

Waterboardin', USA (http://mydamnchannel.com/channel.aspx?episode=163)


Yeah dan, you are another one. Put your silly tinfoil
hat back on and crawl back under your rock. You spend
more time trolling the web than making a living or doing
something worthwhile. Like Chump I would remind you
that your country is not your worst enemy. Google
Terrorist.

[Yonivore]

Waterboardin', USA (http://mydamnchannel.com/channel.aspx?episode=163)
Frickin' hilarious. Thanks.

[ChumpDumper]

How about you staying on point. Who is your enemy. I
get sick and tired of your junk. You enjoy putting people
down who only do one thing and support their country.
You silly person, they attack us, they want to kill YOU and
me and you want to make dumb statements about how we
mistreat them by pouring some water on their face.
You want torture, how about some real torture. Or as
the Mexicans say, take them to 110. 110=volts.
You damn people make me sick.This just proves how small minded the pro-torture crowd is -- they don't realize the consequences of these policies going forward. Our treatment of prisoners implies the treatment we will expect and accept for our own servicemen and women if they are taken prisoner.

So if some North Koreans sieze a US ship in waters they claim to be their own, the pro-torture crowd is completely fine with our men and women being waterboarded by the North Koreans. After all, we would do the same to them, right?

There is no guarantee that our current enemy will always be our enemy -- but we will have enemies. You just gave our future enemies carte blanche to waterboard our troops with no consequences.

Congratulations.

[Yonivore]

Here's an Associated Press report from Monday (http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?S=7315477) that ought to settle the question once and for all:


Anti-war protesters are hoping a demonstration of waterboarding will convince a Senate committee to reject Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey (myoo-KAY'-zee).

Mukasey has repeatedly refused to say whether he considers the interrogation technique that simulates drowning a form of torture.

About 25 protesters set up the demonstration outside the Justice Department's headquarters. They poured water over the face of a volunteer as he lay on his back; he was reduced to retching coughs and tears in less than four minutes.
By the time of this demonstration, Sens. Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein had already announced their support for Mukasey, which means his confirmation was assured. It is preposterous to call this procedure "torture" when people are willing to undergo it merely in order to make a futile political gesture.

Now, had they driven bamboo shoots under each others fingernails, that might have been different.

[xrayzebra]

This just proves how small minded the pro-torture crowd is -- they don't realize the consequences of these policies going forward. Our treatment of prisoners implies the treatment we will expect and accept for our own servicemen and women if they are taken prisoner.

So if some North Koreans sieze a US ship in waters they claim to be their own, the pro-torture crowd is completely fine with our men and women being waterboarded by the North Koreans. After all, we would do the same to them, right?

There is no guarantee that our current enemy will always be our enemy -- but we will have enemies. You just gave our future enemies carte blanche to waterboard our troops with no consequences.

Congratulations.

We aren't talking Koreans.

I started to attempt answer your post. But why? Your
post once again only shows your ignorance of world affairs.

You have no idea of much of nothing. You are what you
are silly and uninformed.

[ChumpDumper]

We aren't talking Koreans. We're talking about enemies, present and potential future enemies. You are too small-minded to realize it.

[Yonivore]

We aren't talking Koreans.

I started to attempt answer your post. But why? Your
post once again only shows your ignorance of world affairs.

You have no idea of much of nothing. You are what you
are silly and uninformed.
I'll take a stab at it.

First of all, Korea -- land of the "Aquariums of Pyongyang" -- isn't likely to be guided by -- or much care -- how we treat terrorist detainees before implementing whatever interrogation regimen they wish. Hell, we're still negotiating with China over getting assistance in determining the fates of U. S. Servicemen still missing from the Korean war.

Second, anyone who would bother to be guided by our interrogation practices probably aren't going to end up on the opposing side of the U.S. Military. In fact, the only people whining about it are those that claim to be our allies.

Finally, waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed led to the capture of six high value terrorists. Worth the price of admission.

[ChumpDumper]

First of all, Korea -- land of the "Aquariums of Pyongyang" -- isn't likely to be guided by -- or much care -- how we treat terrorist detainees before implementing whatever interrogation regimen they wish.And we will have no way to punish them if they do waterboard our troops, since you said it's fine and dandy.


Second, anyone who would bother to be guided by our interrogation practices probably aren't going to end up on the opposing side of the U.S. Military.That's rich. Not that it matters because you're saying anyone can waterboard our troops with no consequences.


Finally, waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed led to the capture of six high value terrorists. Worth the price of admission.Yes, the price being the waterboarding of our troops from this day forward by anyone with no consequences whatsoever. You've already said you love the idea.

[Nbadan]

This topic is so simple to understand even my dog gets it

My Dog Talks About Mukasey and Torture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUWaffZCjhI)

[Yonivore]

This topic is so simple to understand even my dog gets it

My Dog Talks About Mukasey and Torture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUWaffZCjhI)
Well, if it's so simple your dog understands maybe it's just that you're so simple you agree with a dog.

Cute video. Keep 'em comin'.

[xrayzebra]

Hey we don't need Mukasey to define torture. We have the
real expert talking about drowning. Teddy Kennedy. Now if
there is anyone who should know, he should. I know one of
his dates does.

[Yonivore]

Hey we don't need Mukasey to define torture. We have the
real expert talking about drowning. Teddy Kennedy. Now if
there is anyone who should know, he should. I know one of
his dates does.
:lmao The man is a disgrace.

[xrayzebra]

:lmao The man is a disgrace.


I'm sure Chump or GGA will have one of their little
remarks about, you always bring up Teddy. I didn't this
time, he did it all by himself.

[ChumpDumper]

You support the waterboarding of US troops by our future enemies without consequence.

[Nbadan]

Welcome to 2004....

November 9, 2007
Democrats Surrender on Torture (Brent Budowsky)
@ 11:26 am
Mr. Smith has left Washington and Mr. Orwell has arrived.


First, let’s be crystal-clear about how the Democrats threw a vote they would have won on Michael Mukasey and torture and let’s be clear about why this happened.

Others and I were privately advocating a filibuster against Mukasey’s attorney general confirmation bid, and would have needed 41 votes to prevail. At a minimum the filibuster could have forced Bush to accept a waterboarding and torture ban as a condition of confirmation.

Democrats had 40 votes against confirmation last night plus the four presidential candidates who did not vote. Democrats had 43 or 44 “no” votes adding the presidential candidates and, had these senators had the conviction to filibuster, would have won.

As of Thursday morning the vote would have been taken next week with some talk of delay until December. Once it became apparent that there were 43 to 44 “no” votes if the presidential candidates were present, with the weekend coming to increase pressure, the vote was jammed through late at night, a week ahead of schedule.

...............................

Mr. Smith has left Washington, George Orwell has arrived, and 70 percent of the nation must now consider what to do, with Washington in such overwhelming disrepute directed at both sides of the aisle.

The Hill (http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/11/09/democrats-surrender-on-torture-joe-lieberman-attacks-democrats-for/)

[Nbadan]

What Happened to the Senate’s ‘60-Vote Requirement’?
by Glenn Greenwald


Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they “tried”), the excuse they gave was that they “need 60 votes in the Senate” in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general “60-vote requirement” for everything.

How, then, can this be explained?


The Senate confirmed Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night, approving him despite Democratic criticism that he had failed to take an unequivocal stance against the torture of terrorism detainees.

The 53-to-40 vote made Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, the third person to head the Justice Department during the tenure of President Bush . . . Thirty-nine Democrats and one independent opposed him.

Beyond that, four Senate Democrats running for President missed the vote, and all four had announced they oppose Mukasey’s confirmation. Thus, at least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey’s confirmation — more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn’t they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?

Numerous Senate Democrats delivered dramatic speeches from the floor as to why Mukasey’s confirmation would be so devastating to the country. The Washington Post said the “vote came after more than four hours of impassioned floor debate.”

“Torture should not be what America stands for . . . I do not vote to allow torture,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy. Russ Feingold said: “we need an attorney general who will tell the president that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. And on that fundamental qualification for this office Judge Mukasey falls short.” Feingold added: “If Judge Mukasey won’t say the simple truth — that this barbaric practice is torture — how can we count on him to stand up to the White House on other issues?”

Wow — it sounds as though there was really a lot at stake in this vote. So why would 44 Democratic Senators make a flamboyant showing of opposing confirmation without actually doing what they could to prevent it? Is it that a filibuster was not possible because a large number of these Democratic Senators were willing to symbolically oppose confirmation so they could say they did — by casting meaningless votes in opposition knowing that confirmation was guaranteed — but were unwilling to demonstrate the sincerity of their claimed beliefs by acting on them?

Common dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/09/5112/)

[Mr. Peabody]

I think this opinion should carry some weight....


Waterboarding is not simulated drowning -- it is drowning

A former instructor at the school designed to teach U.S. soldiers how to resist torture speaks out against the "terrifying, painful" technique.

By Malcolm W. Nance

Nov. 09, 2007 |

Chairman Conyers and members of the committee.

My name is Malcolm Wrightson Nance. I am a former member of the U.S. military intelligence community, a retired U.S. Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer. I have served honorably for 20 years.

While serving my nation, I had the honor to be accepted for duty as an instructor at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school in North Island Naval Air Station, California. I served in that capacity as an instructor and Master Training Specialist in the Wartime Prisoner-of-War, Peacetime Hostile Government Detainee and Terrorist Hostage survival programs.

At SERE, one of my most serious responsibilities was to employ, supervise or witness dramatic and highly kinetic coercive interrogation methods, through hands-on, live demonstrations in a simulated captive environment which inoculated our student to the experience of high intensity stress and duress.

Some of these coercive physical techniques have been identified in the media as Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. The most severe of those employed by SERE was waterboarding.

Within the four SERE schools and Joint Personnel Recovery community, the waterboard was rightly used as a demonstration tool that revealed to our students the techniques of brutal authoritarian enemies.

SERE trained tens of thousands of service members of its historical use by the Nazis, the Japanese, North Korea, Iraq, the Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge and the North Vietnamese.

SERE emphasized that enemies of democracy and rule of law often ignore human rights, defy the Geneva Convention and have subjected our men and women to grievous physical and psychological harm. We stress that enduring these calumnies will allow our soldiers to return home with honor.

The SERE community was designed over 50 years ago to show that, as a torture instrument, waterboarding is a terrifying, painful and humiliating tool that leaves no physical scars and which can be repeatedly used as an intimidation tool.

Waterboarding has the ability to make the subject answer any question with the truth, a half-truth or outright lie in order to stop the procedure. Subjects usually resort to all three, often in rapid sequence. Most media representations or recreations of the waterboarding are inaccurate, amateurish and dangerous improvisations, which do not capture the true intensity of the act. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not a simulation of drowning -- it is drowning.

In my case, the technique was so fast and professional that I didn’t know what was happening until the water entered my nose and throat. It then pushes down into the trachea and starts the process of respiratory degradation.

It is an overwhelming experience that induces horror and triggers frantic survival instincts. As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening -- I was being tortured.

Proponents claim that American waterboarding is acceptable because it is done rarely, professionally and only on truly deserving terrorists like 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Media reporting revealed that tough interrogations were designed to show we had "taken the gloves off."

It also may have led directly to prisoner abuse and murder in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The debate surrounding waterboarding has been lessened to a question of he-said, she-said politics. But I believe that, as some view it as now acceptable, it is symptomatic of a greater problem.

We must ask ourselves, has America unwittingly relinquished its place as the guardian of human rights and the beacon of justice? Do we now agree that our unique form of justice, based on the concepts of fairness, honor and the unwavering conviction that America is better than its enemies, should no longer govern our intelligence agencies?

This has now been clearly called into question.

On the morning of September 11, at the green field next to a burning Pentagon, I was a witness to one of the greatest displays of heroism in our history. American men and women, both military and civilian, repeatedly and selflessly risked their lives to save those around them. At the same time, hundreds of American citizens gave their lives to save thousands in both Washington DC and New York City. It was a painful day for all of us.

But, does the ultimate goal of protecting America require us to adopt policies that shift our mindset from righteousness and self-defense to covert cruelty?

Does protecting America "at all costs" mean sacrificing the Constitution, our laws and the Bill of Rights in order to save it? I do not believe that.

The attacks of September 11 were horrific, but they did not give us the right to destroy our moral fabric as a nation or to reverse a course that for two hundred years led the world towards democracy, prosperity and guaranteed the rights of billions to live in peace.

We must return to using our moral compass in the fight against al-Qaida. Had we done so initially we would have had greater success to stanch out terrorist activity and perhaps would have captured Osama bin Laden long ago. Shocking the world by bragging about how professional our brutality was was counter-productive to the fight. There are ways to get the information we need. Perhaps less-kinetic interrogation and indoctrination techniques could have brought more al-Qaida members and active supporters to our side. That edge may be lost forever.

More importantly, our citizens once believed in the justness of our cause. Now, we are divided. Many have abandoned their belief in the fight because they question the commitment to our own core values. Allied countries, critical to the war against al-Qaida, may not supply us with the assistance we need to bring terrorists to justice. I believe that we must reject the use of the waterboard for prisoners and captives and cleanse this stain from our national honor.

-- By Malcolm W. Nance

[Wild Cobra]

Dan, have you ever assessed the integrity of articles posted on Common Dreams? I have seen so many in other forums, and can probably count on one hand the number that were not flat out lies.

Anything from Common Dreams should be thoroughly verified. It’s very seldom worth posting.

Mr. Peabody, I don't have any firm opinions of water boarding, but I'd like to point out that you can always find someone who will disagree with it and say something worthy of being used for someone’s agenda. I tend to agree it is not torture, but just almost. I'm on the fence on this issue however. It causes no lasting physical effects, but it does seriously play havoc on a persons sanity.

[Mr. Peabody]

Mr. Peabody, I don't have any firm opinions of water boarding, but I'd like to point out that you can always find someone who will disagree with it and say something worthy of being used for someone’s agenda. I tend to agree it is not torture, but just almost. I'm on the fence on this issue however. It causes no lasting physical effects, but it does seriously play havoc on a persons sanity.

WC, I agree that you can always find people to give the opinion that you want. I just found this opinion from a source that actually has knowledge about the techniques involved, which is more than I can say for many of the other opinions that I have seen.

[Ya Vez]

Well all Clinton could do during his 8 years in office was change the name of one of the most notorious clinics on torture training during his administration.. learn a little history will you ... about the school of the america's and it's training of some of south america's bloodiest dictators...

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/12/15/school.americas/index.html

[boutons_]

It looks like dubya/dickhead got the under-liar and poltical stooge they wanted.


http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/?hp


November 15, 2007, 3:55 pm

Whew! Those National Security Briefings Sure Happen Fast!

By The Editorial Board

At his Senate confirmation hearings, Attorney General Michael Mukasey repeatedly refused to answer some of the most important questions because he said he had not yet received top-secret briefings.

Fast forward to less than one day after he was formally sworn in, and Mr. Mukasey suddenly has a fully formed view of one of the most complex issues before Congress and the American people — the legal issues surrounding government spying on Americans.

Congress is debating amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That law governs spying on telephone calls, cell phone calls, FAXes, and emails between Americans and people in other countries. After 9/11, President Bush decided he was above the law and authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without first obtaining the warrant that is very clearly required by the statute.

Congress is now considering amending FISA to deal with a genuine, technological loophole in the statute. And the administration is trying to use that discussion to give retroactive legal cover to Mr. Bush’s illegal wiretapping, to allow the president to order pretty much whatever spying he wants, and to absolve the telephone companies of legal responsibility for participating in illegal eavesdropping.

It’s an issue that has absorbed some of the most adept legal minds on Capitol Hill for over a year, requiring many super-secret intelligence briefings and long, arduous committee sessions. But Mr. Mukasey is obviously a much quicker study.

On his second official day on the job (he had been working for a few days unofficially), he cosigned a letter with Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell warning that a bill sponsored by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, is a dire threat to national security. Mr. Mukasey said he would recommend that the president veto it if it reaches his desk.

The Attorney General’s letter listed some dozen provisions that were objectionable, including, of course, the fact that it does not give amnesty to the telephone companies that may have broken the law by turning over data to the government without a warrant.

Since Mr. Mukasey works at such lightning speed on matters as knotty as FISA modernization, we presume he will act just as swiftly on other, less difficult issues — like finding out whether nine United States attorneys were fired for improper political reasons. And whether his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, and other top Justice Department officials lied to Congress, or otherwise broke the law, in connection with the scandal.

Memo to the Democratic Senators who voted for Mr. Mukasey because they believed he was a good and decent man who appreciated the rule of law and would not rush to judgment on important issues: What part of “hoodwinked” don’t you understand? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif