Reply With Quote
Yoni drags Muckassy down to Congress' level as some kind of defense of Muckassy?
...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 cir stances. At the same time, nothing in Mukasey's letter commits him to the view that effective waterboarding techniques are illegal in exigent cir stances.
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 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 uncons utional. Foreigners who slaughter civilians randomly are not en led 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 cons utional struggle. That is why Robert C. Byrd carries the Cons ution 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, 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.
Yoni drags Muckassy down to Congress' level as some kind of defense of Muckassy?
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.
This isn't new.
Good news! It turns out Buhddist monks in Myanmar aren't being "tortured" after all!
Last edited by PixelPusher; 11-07-2007 at 03:21 AM.
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.
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.
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 le 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 cons ute 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 cir stance. 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 cir stances. 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.
Wonder, if it is illegal, why we do it to our own troops during
training? Guess they may have a case against the military.
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.
the rest of the world. Besides, the only places complaining are a bunch of anti-American re s -- who depend on our forces for their security -- anyway.
Are they being interrogated?
No.
Dip .
Waterboarding; torture or not, you make the call.
Gee, you are getting so upset. Hit a nerve?
Thanks for quoting SpunkMuncher, xray.
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 ing reporter lasted 24 minutes...
I think waterboarding should be the interrogation technique of choice with the pansy allahu ahkbar idiots.
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 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.
i would submit to vodkaboarding.
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.
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's Abu Ghraib 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, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces 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 surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo 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, Australia 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 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. 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 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 tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they cons uted 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, teaches the law
of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.
==================
As a -stain on American civlization, you're perfect, dubya.
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?
Last edited by PixelPusher; 11-07-2007 at 03:21 AM.
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,
Sincerely,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 le 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 cons ute 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 cir stance. 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 cir stances. 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.
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
In case you missed it, last night's Countdown with KO was must see TV....
Here is the Video: LINKNo 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.
When will you say....enough is enough....
...when it's you getting tortured?
Not in my name, Mr President!
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 cons utional 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, uncons utional, 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, you.
So, what's his name? Anybody know?
A U.S. soldier in Vietnam supervises the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier.
NPR was pretty vague on his iden y. Seems to me information on a criminal prosecution, resulting from an investigative report by the Washington Post, would be fairly easy to come by.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.
I'm beginning to think they're only including the facts that fit the "waterboarding-is-torture" narrative.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
