So what's your point?

[Gato_Solo]

Sen Sheldon Whitehouse seems to have a very large axe to grind.

Asked by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., whether waterboarding is constitutional, Mukasey responded: "I don't know what's involved in the technique. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional."

"'If waterboarding is constitutional' is a massive hedge," Whitehouse replied.

Mukasey answered: "No, I said, 'If it's torture.' I'm sorry, I said, 'if it's torture.' "

Whitehouse: "If it's torture? That's a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn't. Do you have an opinion on whether waterboarding, which is the practice of putting somebody in a reclining position, strapping them down, putting cloth over their faces and pouring water over the cloth to simulate the feeling of drowning — is that constitutional?"

Mukasey: "If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional."

If the guy doesn't know what it is, then how can he make a statement one way or the other?

You can't make this stuff up...

First, he misunderstands the answer, then he attacks, without explaining the action. Then he finally explains the action, and still decides that the answer is no good. Admittedly, it may actually be torture, but the order the questions were asked didn't allow for a correct answer, either way...

 

[unclehobart]

He won't vote for the nomination regardless. The inquisition is there to do all it can to embarass the applicant and the applicant is there to wax on about everything except the questions being asked. Same old dog and pony show methinks.

 

[Gonz]

...torture is not constitutional."

I must have that part missing from my version.

 

[freako104]

Sen Sheldon Whitehouse seems to have a very large axe to grind.



If the guy doesn't know what it is, then how can he make a statement one way or the other?

You can't make this stuff up...

First, he misunderstands the answer, then he attacks, without explaining the action. Then he finally explains the action, and still decides that the answer is no good. Admittedly, it may actually be torture, but the order the questions were asked didn't allow for a correct answer, either way...

He may just be going along with the crowd. While I am against the use of torture, I would say he should find out what waterboarding is before he makes that judgement.

 

[catocom]

I don't understand the way people want to "have their cake and eat it too".

Why is it the some people are against torture, but don't want to fight the
Main people that do it.
People want to apply Our constitution to the World when it suites their needs,
but don't condemn the non-citizens/terrorist to the same.

I know...some think and say, "Oh but we are supposed to be better than them"
I say if it makes the difference in Winning, or Dieing, so be it.

 

[2minkey]

i'm sure mukasey knows exactly what waterboarding is. anyone applying for the job he wants in the current political environment would anticipate questions about that kind of thing.

mukasey is simply not offering his opinion on whether or not waterboarding amounts to torture. it's a strategic deferral to a later legal opinion that would study the issue in technical depth.

the D-RI (dirty rotten imbecile?) is looking to pidgeonhole him into some moral corner prior to him becoming atty general. ("but you said earlier that waterboarding IS torture...")

each have obvious and appropriate - for their respective purposes - strategies here. it's just that one looks smart, and one looks like a weenie.

 

[freako104]

i'm sure mukasey knows exactly what waterboarding is. anyone applying for the job he wants in the current political environment would anticipate questions about that kind of thing.

mukasey is simply not offering his opinion on whether or not waterboarding amounts to torture. it's a strategic deferral to a later legal opinion that would study the issue in technical depth.

the D-RI (dirty rotten imbecile?) is looking to pidgeonhole him into some moral corner prior to him becoming atty general. ("but you said earlier that waterboarding IS torture...")

each have obvious and appropriate - for their respective purposes - strategies here. it's just that one looks smart, and one looks like a weenie.

Sorry but he did say right there that he did not know what it was. That to me says he is merely against it because others are against it and he wants to look good.

 

[freako104]

I don't understand the way people want to "have their cake and eat it too".

Why is it the some people are against torture, but don't want to fight the
Main people that do it.
People want to apply Our constitution to the World when it suites their needs,
but don't condemn the non-citizens/terrorist to the same.

I know...some think and say, "Oh but we are supposed to be better than them"
I say if it makes the difference in Winning, or Dieing, so be it.

I am not only against it because we are supposed to be above it, but it gives information that may actually (and often times) is not useful: They are saying only what the interrogaters WANT to hear. And they actually DO condemn the terrorism. Why should we torture when there are better methods of getting information (such as looking at patterns of attacks, where, when and what was involved as well as who was involved) If we are to fight the people that do it, we would be fighting who we are currently fighting, we would be fighting ourselves, and dictators around the world. Not exactly the best use of resources there now is it

 

[catocom]

freako, from what I understand that's only Partly true.
It depends on the person.
I have faith in our intel service members, that they know When to apply What.

There is no one size fits all, but it is indeed useful in Some cases.

 

[2minkey]

Sorry but he did say right there that he did not know what it was. That to me says he is merely against it because others are against it and he wants to look good.

yup i know what he said but i think he's mildly downplaying his familiarity with waterboarding. And choosing his words very carefully.

"I don't know what's involved in the technique." That doesn't seem to mean, exactly, that "i'm totally unfamiliar with the idea" but more that "I don't know all the technical details."

and he's not really against it, i don't think. the other guy wants him to be against it. but mukasy is making what amounts to a technical deferral.

 

[freako104]

freako, from what I understand that's only Partly true.
It depends on the person.
I have faith in our intel service members, that they know When to apply What.

There is no one size fits all, but it is indeed useful in Some cases.

It can depend upon the person but generally, the information has been wrong or been what the people wanted to hear and was inaccurate or totally wrong. It can also help the terrorists gain some credibility and thus make it easier for them to recruit (and especially for those who were tortured) I tend to oppose it again for those reasons.

 

[freako104]

yup i know what he said but i think he's mildly downplaying his familiarity with waterboarding. And choosing his words very carefully.

"I don't know what's involved in the technique." That doesn't seem to mean, exactly, that "i'm totally unfamiliar with the idea" but more that "I don't know all the technical details."

and he's not really against it, i don't think. the other guy wants him to be against it. but mukasy is making what amounts to a technical deferral.

I'd say though he should be totally familiar with it and what goes in before he opposes it. It seems again like he is doing it because it is the in thing. Like him, I oppose it but I said why. He only said he does not know the technicalities of it and opposes it (seemingly because his party is doing it)

 

[2minkey]

but i still don't think he said he opposes it. he said torture is not constitutional.

he's a republican, right? i'm sure the party line is that "we don't support torture" but that they'd prefer to keep waterboarding as, um, not yet classified so it is technically not torture, just, um, not classified. as long as they can keep it from being formally classified as torture, it remains an option for interrogating mofos.

mukasey's language seems perfectly consistent with that position.

i don't mean to argue semantics but it seems to me that that's exaclty what this is about.

it's analogous, i think, to the sort of grey area "enemy combatant" classification of those folks at gitmo. just keep 'em from being classified as POWs, and you can ignore the rules that apply to POWs.

 

[catocom]

It can depend upon the person but generally, the information has been wrong or been what the people wanted to hear and was inaccurate or totally wrong. It can also help the terrorists gain some credibility and thus make it easier for them to recruit (and especially for those who were tortured) I tend to oppose it again for those reasons.

first they get bad intel anyway, that's why they check it out before Acting on it.

second....Nobody has to know, and they don't in some cases.
I don't hear a great deal about how our enemies have tortured Our soldiers.

Why not?

 

[Gonz]

And choosing his words very carefully.

Politics 101. Chapter 1 Paragraph 1 Verse 1

 

[Gato_Solo]

but i still don't think he said he opposes it. he said torture is not constitutional.

If he's going to be in a high-ranking position in the Justice department, he's supposed to support the Constitution.

he's a republican, right? i'm sure the party line is that "we don't support torture" but that they'd prefer to keep waterboarding as, um, not yet classified so it is technically not torture, just, um, not classified. as long as they can keep it from being formally classified as torture, it remains an option for interrogating mofos.

mukasey's language seems perfectly consistent with that position.

i don't mean to argue semantics but it seems to me that that's exaclty what this is about.

Most of what goes on in Washington is semantics. Hell...you and I go through it in this forum from time to time. If he said "Yes, I believe that waterboarding is torture" and, later, someone under his watch does the deed, then he will be held responsible, whether he had knowledge of the deed, and punished the offenders, or had no knowledge of the deed. Its a common practice in Washington in order to get rid of somebody you don't like...

it's analogous, i think, to the sort of grey area "enemy combatant" classification of those folks at gitmo. just keep 'em from being classified as POWs, and you can ignore the rules that apply to POWs.

That grey area is in the Geneva Convention as well. Bet you didn't know that enemy combatants who don't wear a uniform can be summarily executed, didya?

 

[jimpeel]

Sen Sheldon Whitehouse seems to have a very large axe to grind.



If the guy doesn't know what it is, then how can he make a statement one way or the other?

You can't make this stuff up...

First, he misunderstands the answer, then he attacks, without explaining the action. Then he finally explains the action, and still decides that the answer is no good. Admittedly, it may actually be torture, but the order the questions were asked didn't allow for a correct answer, either way...

The key word in both answers was "if":

If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional."

If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional."

 

[jimpeel]

i'm sure mukasey knows exactly what waterboarding is. anyone applying for the job he wants in the current political environment would anticipate questions about that kind of thing.

mukasey is simply not offering his opinion on whether or not waterboarding amounts to torture. it's a strategic deferral to a later legal opinion that would study the issue in technical depth.

the D-RI (dirty rotten imbecile?) is looking to pidgeonhole him into some moral corner prior to him becoming atty general. ("but you said earlier that waterboarding IS torture...")

each have obvious and appropriate - for their respective purposes - strategies here. it's just that one looks smart, and one looks like a weenie.

He clearly stated that he did not know what was involved in the procedure but if it were torture then it would be unconstitutional.

Mukasey responded: "I don't know what's involved in the technique. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional."

He then went on to state:

"If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional."

Waterboarding has been deemed not to be torture but Biden has submitted a bill to make it so. If it passes, which it most assuredly will, it will cause us to lose a valuable method of extracting information from those who would not hesitate to use that same method on Americans.

The problem with this nation is this "lead by example" mentality that those who run this country have decided will set us apart from the bad guys. Their problem is that they do not understand the mentality of these people. The only example they need is how best to kill anyone they deem to be an infidel.

 

[jimpeel]

I am not only against it because we are supposed to be above it, but it gives information that may actually (and often times) is not useful:

There is that "lead by example" mentality again.

They are saying only what the interrogaters WANT to hear. And they actually DO condemn the terrorism.

We have gotten valuable intel from techniques such as this. How do you think we found Zarqawi and bombed the shit out of him?

HERE is the video of Zarqawi receiving two 500 pound bombs courtesy of Air Force F-16s.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002483.html

As for that part about condemning terrorism, where did you get that from? What source is telling you that the people being waterboarded are screaming "I condemn terrorism!"

Why should we torture when there are better methods of getting information (such as looking at patterns of attacks, where, when and what was involved as well as who was involved)

So you want the attacks to occur and have people, Americans and Iraqis, killed and then analyze the aftermath and try to clairvoyantly surmise where the next attack will take place and try to stop it. We have stopped several attacks through good intel. Some of that intel was gleaned through waterboarding techniques. Should we have let the attacks occur and then study them?

If we are to fight the people that do it, we would be fighting who we are currently fighting, we would be fighting ourselves, and dictators around the world. Not exactly the best use of resources there now is it

WTF?????

I think maybe you need to re-read that post and then edit it for clarity.

 

[freako104]

There is that "lead by example" mentality again.



We have gotten valuable intel from techniques such as this. How do you think we found Zarqawi and bombed the shit out of him?

HERE is the video of Zarqawi receiving two 500 pound bombs courtesy of Air Force F-16s.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002483.html

As for that part about condemning terrorism, where did you get that from? What source is telling you that the people being waterboarded are screaming "I condemn terrorism!"



So you want the attacks to occur and have people, Americans and Iraqis, killed and then analyze the aftermath and try to clairvoyantly surmise where the next attack will take place and try to stop it. We have stopped several attacks through good intel. Some of that intel was gleaned through waterboarding techniques. Should we have let the attacks occur and then study them?



WTF?????

I think maybe you need to re-read that post and then edit it for clarity.

The last part, he mentions fighting all those who have used torture. I did not say I wanted the attacks to occur, but to look at previous attacks and to use what we know about those patters, use what we know about the groups. I did not say to let them attack and use the aftermath. Know thine enemy. And in all actuality i have my doubts the waterboarding did a whole lot as compared to being able to try to predict, be sure of what the environment is and who is in and who is acting strangely. Many of the people who have been taken in had no ties to any terrorist organisations, and many people as a whole have been condemning the attacks though that had pretty much nothing to do with what I said.