Hillary "Troubled" By Mukasey On Torture, But Won't Rule Out Supporting Him

Comments (88)

Michael wrote on October 30, 2007 11:02 AM:

Her majesty has spoken. Can't wait to see how the staffers spin this one. Uh, how do you spell waffle? Can she take a stand on ANYTHING? Wow, what a leader. When's the cooronation?

destor23 wrote on October 30, 2007 11:06 AM:

Come on, Hillary. This is an easy one. Just say you won't vote for him. What possible reason do you have to support this nomination?

If you're worried about Republicans using it as an excuse to hold up your nominees when you're President... you're thinking too far ahead. You need to take stands now if you want to have those fights later.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 11:09 AM:

GO HILLARY!!!

wes2 wrote on October 30, 2007 11:10 AM:

Wow. I'm eager to hear what DCS, jan and colon have to say, because I can't even imagine spinning this one. Access to extra-super-duper-top-secret Senate info that other Senators lack? Condemning waterboarding depends on what your definition of "water" is? We need to re-establish prosecutorial responsibility first, before we worry about the nation's top prosecutor? Inquiring minds are agog.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 11:12 AM:

wes2:

10 seconds under cellophane, with no water going into your mouth or nose, is not torture -- at least ONE Democrat realizes what it takes to protect America -- too bad you don't.

destor23 wrote on October 30, 2007 11:16 AM:

Jake... an act that uses pain and fear to convince the victim that THEY WILL DIE is torture.

And it's not making us any safer.

P J Evans wrote on October 30, 2007 11:17 AM:

Well, scratch *her* off my list. No guts, no glory.

(Jake D, are you volunteering to demonstrate waterboarding, as the victim? because you surely have no clue.)

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 11:18 AM:

How do you know it's not making us safer? Do you even know who Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is?

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 11:20 AM:

P J Evans:

You will vote for her November 2008, and you know it.

(Do you support abortion on demand? If so, I will demonstrate waterboarding just as soon as you get aborted.)

MarcNYC wrote on October 30, 2007 11:21 AM:

Jake D.

Glad to see you're still here. Interesting how TPM doesn't censor folks like they do at places like redstate.

Let's try this one more time, since you don't seem capable of putting up anything more than (what you seem to think are) pithy one liners.

1. Look up "verschaerfte vernehmung". Please explain the difference between this as practiced between 1942 and 1945 following a directive issued by Heinrich Mueller (you might want to look up who he was as well).

2. Stop confusing 24 with reality.

3. Blackstone, 250 years ago wrote: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Over 330 years ago, Fortescue wrote: "one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally".

4. Otto von Bismarck once stated "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape". Pol Pot made a similar statement.

I'll take Blackstone and Fortescue. You can have Pol Pot and von Bismark. And, don't forget to look up "verschaerfte vernehmung" and Heinrich Mueller.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin, 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor) Tue, Nov 11, 1755.

Diverik wrote on October 30, 2007 11:22 AM:

"Senator Clinton is deeply troubled ..."

Well, that's a good place to start and I'm happy to hear that. We all have good reason to be deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey's testimony.

The question now is what is she going to DO about it?

Senators Dodd, Obama and Sanders have made their intentions very clear. Will she do the same?

Mike M. wrote on October 30, 2007 11:24 AM:

Waterboarding was a tactic used by the Kmher Rouge in Cambodia and was used on American POWs in Japan during World War II. After the second World War a Japanese officer was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for waterboarding POWs. So, it's torture, Jake.

By the way, you can find all of that on page 167 of John Gray's new book "Black Mass." Buy it, read it, learn from it.

wes2 wrote on October 30, 2007 11:24 AM:

Do Not Feed the Troll.

The Troll is on a strict diet of medically-necessary lies, distortions and half-truths (with a soupcon of alarmist hypotheticals to provide flavor.)

Feeding the troll may interfere with its ability to survive in the wild once it is released from (mental) captivity.

iVoted4Nader wrote on October 30, 2007 11:24 AM:

Suprise, suprise...NOT; Clinton should be ashamed of herself. Like Bush, POWER CORRUPTS those with it in their reach.

OBAMA has my vote in the primary.

To: Gay Community
Fr: Barack Obama

Dear voters,
I have an obvious homophobe in my camp that I continue to allow to express himself(both in song and opinion). DUH! However let it be known that, if elected president, I will continue my consistency of conceding the stage/soapbox to all forms of expression/free speech WITHOUT THE FEAR OF BEING TORTURED OR HAVING THE EXECUTIVE(PRESIDENT) BELIEVE HE IS ABOVE THE RULE OF LAW that protects all opinions and their airing.

Any GAY Hillary supporters want to touch that one, 'cos I think this is the tipping point.

Troubled by Jake wrote on October 30, 2007 11:27 AM:

No quibbling here!

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 11:27 AM:

MarcNYC (and Mark M. now too):

In fact, Josh Marshall personally commented about banning me from the TPMMuckraker site (I'm sure it's just a matter of time over here too). Too bad your side can't handle the truth -- I'm not going to waste what little time I have left here on you wild goose chases -- if there's something in particular you want to ask from any book, please provide the context and a specific question.

Diverik:

Isn't it obvious by now that she's going to vote for Mukasey?

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 11:28 AM:

Who's quibbling?

Obsessive Compusive Disorder wrote on October 30, 2007 11:28 AM:

That would be Jake. Pushes send like others wash hands!

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 11:29 AM:

Sorry, "Mark" should be to "Mike" : )

colonpowwow wrote on October 30, 2007 11:32 AM:

Some Senators, Russ Feingold for one, have a policy of generally letting the President pick the cabinet members of their choice to fill their administration. As mentioned, if Hillary does win election next fall, she will likely not have a "fillibuster-proof" majority in the Senate and wouldn't relish an inevtable "payback."

That is a legitamate political consideration under our checks and balances, as is also the fact that if Mukasey is knocked out, Bush will likely come back with Ted Olson or the like, and they may be even more coy (or might even lie) about what constitutes torture.

Most lawyers worth their appointment would never get pinned down on a specific like this, especially if you're a Republican seeking employment by the Bush torture network.

Sorry that she hasn't made up her mind on how she'll vote yet. She'll undoubtably be called on this to either make up her mind right away or to explain her hesitancy tonight. We'll wait with baited breath to see if she answers this galvanizing question to voters everywhere to the satisfaction of the progressiver-than-thous on this board.

MarcNYC wrote on October 30, 2007 11:33 AM:

Jake D

Thanks for the thoughtful response. It's precisely what I expected.

Diverik wrote on October 30, 2007 11:33 AM:

MarkNYC @ 11:21 AM - Good quotes there. I'll throw in a couple more more for the old Jakester:

"To do evil that good may come of it is for bunglers in politics as well as morals." – William Penn, author of Frame of Government, Pennsylvania’s first constitution (circa 1693)

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner] ... I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country," - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775.

And since he makes himself up to be a good Christian, here' one from a prominent Christian author:

"'Useful,' and 'necessity' was always 'the tyrant's plea'" – C. S. Lewis

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 11:34 AM:

OCD:

For the record, there are only eight posts by me on this thread, and 14 posts by everyone else -- I can only type so fast to keep up, fighting you all single-handed -- don't worry, though, I'm sure Josh will ban my opposing viewpoint soon enough and you can all go back to your echo chamber.

MarcNYC:

Since it's the truth, you are welcome.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 11:35 AM:

Diverik:

Do you have a specific question, hopefully related to the thread topic of HILLARY NOT VOTING AGAINST MUKASEY, or are you and MarcNYC compiling a new book of quotations?

elrapierwit wrote on October 30, 2007 11:39 AM:

"Deeply troubled"

is code for I will vote to affirm Mukasey, after providing numerous caveats, disclaimers and lots of verbage to obscure my deeds JUST LIKE I did prior to casting my vote to take this country to war.

Hillary is a firm believer in words being more powerful than deeds. She believes as long as she is on record on both sides of an issue she can distort, mislead and spin any actions on her part.

Pay attention to her deeds not her words. It is her VOTE that counts not all the disclaimers that proceed her acts against our civil liberties.

anyone who votes for this women in the primaries is an idiot,.

'deeply troubled' is what the American people should be.

iVoted4Nader wrote on October 30, 2007 11:40 AM:

"...I can only type so fast to keep up, fighting you all single-handed -"

JAKE, this shouldn't be a fight, it's a chat. Take of the blinders and approach it in a way that we can all learn from each other; I'll do the same.

Peace,
We're all on this ride together.

anonymouse wrote on October 30, 2007 11:42 AM:

"Come on, Hillary. This is an easy one. Just say you won't vote for him. What possible reason do you have to support this nomination?"

The reason is simple... getting elected as president is more important than little things like torture. Fundraising and name recognition is more important than actually studying the facts before sending other peoples sons and daughters off to war to die. Going on vacation is more important than worrying aboout constitutional issues.

The sad fact, which is blatently displayed almost weekly, is that she, as well as almost the entire Senate and Congress, believe that THEIR goals and jobs and power supercede the needs of us common folk and the nation as a whole.

Their ghola is to gain more power. If supporting torture will get them power they will support torture. If they believe they will lose points from supporting torture they will condemn torture.

the nations goals, needs, and directions are but hurdles to go over while reaching their goals... they are definitely NOT their goals...

And "We the People" once again will not be able to overcome our inherent "need" to put them back into office... fully knowing what they have done in the past, realizing that they will continue to demean our way of life... but unable to stop ourselves... IMHO

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 11:46 AM:

Anyone who votes for this woman in the general election is an idiot too.

Michael wrote on October 30, 2007 11:48 AM:

Come on colon, you can do better than that. Let me see if I understand your position, its ok for someone to ratify war crimes or heinous criminal acts in general and still be considered qualified for a cabinet position. We are not talking about failing to pay social security for an illegal immigrant nanny. We are talking about war crimes. We hung japanese and german soldiers after WWII for waterboarding. This really is a no-brainer. Maybe your boss might take a position on this one. It would make things interesting. What is she trying to accomplish, get Jake D's vote and people like him. It wouldn't happen in a million years anyway, so take a gd position. Be a leader, not a waffler.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 30, 2007 11:49 AM:

My Hillary-speak dictionary translates 'Troubled by . . . ' as:

I couldn't give a rodent's behind about this subject . . . BUT what the polls say is folk want me to say is that torture is bad . . . BUT IF I don't support Mukasey the opposition party, you know the DEM . . . Sorry the Republicans might make it hard for me to get who I want once I become Queen . . . No that's not the word I'm looking for . . . That's it pResident . . . On the other hand, torture and unchecked executive power sounds really good for once I'm Quee . . . Oh darn it all. Is there a choice just right of center that sounds good . . .

JR wrote on October 30, 2007 11:50 AM:

Come on, folks, Hillary needs to STUDY everything first! As far as she's concerned, her paper isn't due until 11/5/08. Her strategy is to evade as many questions as possible and give little-to-no information.

The woman can't even be on the record with friendly Iowans. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3718393

Her true campaign slogan is: TRUST ME. Otherwise, why does she insist on keeping her First Lady archives sealed? The Clintons will do everything possible to make sure that we've no idea of what she did in the Clinton White House. She's laying her case - most prepared, most experienced - while refusing to reveal any solid evidence, forcing us to rely on pure hearsay.

iVoted4Nader wrote on October 30, 2007 11:51 AM:

"Anyone who votes for this woman in the general election is an idiot too." -Jake

See JAKE, we can agree on some things.

Friends Forever,
xx

Barry wrote on October 30, 2007 12:06 PM:

How does Jake "the end justifies the means" make it on all these sites where this issue comes up?

It really isn't that difficult: if someone is dehumanized than we all are dehumanized.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 12:11 PM:

Fine, Barry -- I will trade you torture for abortion on demand.

biff diggerence wrote on October 30, 2007 12:13 PM:

I'll attack Iran.

I'll waterboard anything that moves.

Just like a man.

Just vote for me.

On the Clock wrote on October 30, 2007 12:13 PM:

Jake, have you counted the number of comments you've left on this thread alone? You account for almost 50 percent of the entries.

If you had any confidence in your ideas, your ability to express them, indeed if you had a some self-respect, you would allow the rest of the participants to engage in a discussion.

As it is, you're not even passing muster as a useful idiot. Your expulsion from here -- which I would support -- would be the functional equivalent of disengaging a car alarm.

oleeb wrote on October 30, 2007 12:13 PM:

Hillary has every right to be troubled by Mukasey's unwillingness to clearly state his views on torture and unchecked executive power. I can relate to how she feels because this is precisely how I feel about Hillary's reluctance to clearly state her views on both these subjects and many others come to think of it.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 12:17 PM:

I have now counted the number of comments (twice). 12 out of 38 comments is less than 50% but, even then, you guys are still complaining?! Wouldn't a FAIR discussion actually mean 50-50? Echo-chamber, here we come.

jhm wrote on October 30, 2007 12:25 PM:

The part that troubles me is the "he refused to say ...whether she has made a final decision..." Why would he acknowledge that she might have made a 'final' decision, but would not reveal what that was (before the debate)?

linda wrote on October 30, 2007 12:26 PM:

well, hillary, i am greatly troubled by your inability to understand what torture is and how it reverberates through the consciences of most humane beings. your vision of america is not one i will support. we've had enough of the depravity. you can be certain this new yorker will never cast another vote for you.

dcshungu wrote on October 30, 2007 12:26 PM:

I do not have to read too many of the comments above to know what the "natives" are agitating about, but here's an example:

Her majesty has spoken. Can't wait to see how the staffers spin this one. Uh, how do you spell waffle? Can she take a stand on ANYTHING? Wow, what a leader. When's the cooronation?

Now, I wonder whether the "natives" have already detected a distinct pattern here, a pattern that goes to the heart of why HRC is the candidate that is best qualified to be our "Chief Executive", and would have a governing style that would be totally different from that of the current administration: A deliberate pace in arriving at important decisions; but once she makes a decision she is comfortable with it and prepared to the take heat for it. Under Clinton, decisions not made a priori and just go to the Congress rubber-stamp them. That is the GWB model. The Hillary model is to listen to the facts and to the evidence at hand, and to look at the larger picture before drawing a conclusion. As one whose daily job is to conduct complex neuroscience research in a variety of intractable diseases of the brain, her deliberative deductive approach to policy appeals to me a great deal. On the other hand, what we have with her opponents are people walking around with their fingers in the wind, ready to jump in front of the gust to prove that they are where they people are, to the sound "amens" and "cheers" from "natives" and "collective unconscious." That is not leadership. That is reflexive and opportunistic politicking.

Hillary will vote "yea" or "nay" on the AG confirmation but she will state why and would take the heat if her vote turns out to be against the wish of the "natives"... That, you can take to the bank.

Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 12:27 PM:

Jake,

Why on earth do you think you're entitled to 50% of the comments? Or even 30%?

TPM,

Someone, please, get this poster off the site, not for his views but for his delusions of entitlement.

Diverik wrote on October 30, 2007 12:27 PM:

colonpowwow @ 11:32 AM:

"Most lawyers worth their appointment would never get pinned down on a specific like this..."

True enough. This is why, for me, the waterboarding question, while significant, is not the main issue.

The main reason that I see for him being totally unacceptable is the fact that, when asked if the president was required to obey federal laws, he answered "it depends". The correct answer is "Yes, the president has to obey all the laws of the U. S." It does NOT depend.

We are a nation governed by laws. No person is above the law, not even the president. We cannot accept any AG nominee that believes that there is any circumstance under which anyone is above the law.

If Hillary Clinton cannot see that then I cannot support her. If she votes to confirm Mukasey, then I will not vote for her in any election, primary or general.

Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 12:30 PM:

"Hillary will vote "yea" or "nay" on the AG confirmation but she will state why . . . "

(after she checks with polling)

loki wrote on October 30, 2007 12:31 PM:

People...

Jake D and all his "truth" can be effectively banished if you just stop engaging him. Let him continue his incoherent rambling, let him continue to simply expose himself as the naive and ignorant little boob that he is. In fact, if you sit back and let it wash over you it can be rather entertaining. (In a really dirty sort of way!)

;^}

Michael wrote on October 30, 2007 12:33 PM:

dc, you must have missed my follow up to your compatriot. Here it is:

Come on [insert staffer name here], you can do better than that. Let me see if I understand your position, its ok for someone to ratify war crimes or heinous criminal acts in general and still be considered qualified for a cabinet position. We are not talking about failing to pay social security for an illegal immigrant nanny. We are talking about war crimes. We hung japanese and german soldiers after WWII for waterboarding. This really is a no-brainer. Maybe your boss might take a position on this one. It would make things interesting. What is she trying to accomplish, get Jake D's vote and people like him. It wouldn't happen in a million years anyway, so take a gd position. Be a leader, not a waffler.

bob wrote on October 30, 2007 12:35 PM:

If Hillary thinks the GOP is going to go easier on her nominees if she wins the presidency if she votes for Mukasey, well then she has not learned a single thing from her years in the White House and Senate.

The GOP is going to go after every single one of the next Dem president's nominees, just like they filibuster every Dem bill in the Senate, regardless of what she and the rest of the Senate Dems do. They understand one thing: strength. Hillary pretends to be a strong Dem, but her voting record is weak.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 12:35 PM:

Anonymous:

I never said that I was entitled to 50% - someone above wanted a "discussion" and that is the definition of "discussion" to me, even though I would be very happy if anyone else would help me out just a bit, so I wouldn't have to do everything single-handed -- they've probably been banned, though, too (at least I use my real name to post : )

po wrote on October 30, 2007 12:37 PM:

Yes, and we're all deeply troubled by her apparent unwillingness to clearly state her views on a wide variety of subjects, including this one (which should be a no-brainer). Which way the wind blows only gets you so far. Heart, passion and beliefs count for something, especially when all we get these days is, well it depends . . .

Mukasey should not be confirmed. Plain and simple. The President is never above the law. Torture is exactly what you think it is and waterboarding always qualifies. Official policy should recognize existing law, whether it is Congressional or long-standing international treaties approved by the Senate (which, in case Bush forgot from civics class, equal US law).

charlie kennedy wrote on October 30, 2007 12:37 PM:

No matter what you think of torture, this guy is a liar.

Mukasey claimes he doesn't know what much about waterboarding? Yeah right.

This should be easy for Hillary, but for some reason, such as (fill in the blank), she won't show some backbone and actually say what I'm sure she believes.

Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 12:38 PM:

loki:

Please don't include me in any perverted fantasies of yours.

dcshungu wrote on October 30, 2007 12:38 PM:

I wish we had the old "comments editor"! Writing comments on the fly, while engaging in something else out here (i.e., multi-tasking) is leading to many grammatical (as opposed to "factual") errors in my posts. At least the old "comments editor" allowed one to preview the comments before posting.

My apologies!

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 12:39 PM:

po:

10 seconds under cellophane, with no water going into your mouth or nose, is not torture. Can't you hold your breath for at least 10 seconds?

wes2 wrote on October 30, 2007 12:40 PM:

dcshungu,

I'm still curious about your notion of "leadership." Even in the sciences, afaik, there's still a premium on being the first to publish your conclusions. No one gets the Nobel for being the 35th researcher to verify someone else's article.

I can understand waiting for more evidence, but I don't see how that applies here. Mukasey made highly questionable assertions in his testimony, he was asked to clarify, and apparently he's refused to change his positions. What other evidence is HRC waiting for?

I do have to congratulate you, though, on your adoption of the "native" metaphor for those who disagree with Clinton. It nicely captures the air of imperial prerogative (and lack of accountability) that characterizes much of the Clinton campaign to date. Nicely done.

biff diggerence wrote on October 30, 2007 12:41 PM:

Jake D. (a name from a 12 Step Program) is as acquainted with torture as he with Obstetrics.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 12:42 PM:

O.K., charlie kennedy, which version of waterboarding was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, if you know so much? I've seen at least three different accounts -- depending on whom you read and believe -- but if you have access to classified information and think it's O.K. to reveal said information in public, be my guest.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 12:44 PM:

Oh, good, wes2 is back. Do you really think that 10 seconds under cellophane, with no water going into your mouth or nose, is torture?

dcshungu wrote on October 30, 2007 12:45 PM: "Hillary will vote "yea" or "nay" on the AG confirmation but she will state why . . . "

(after she checks with polling)

Nonsense. If there is anyone who has voted without regards to the polls or even against the polls it is Hillary. What are you smoking over there?

The following is so good and to the point that it is worth posting as often as necessary to keep minds like yours focused:

You may not agree with Clinton all the time, because I sure don't. But when she's asked to put her name on the line she shows up and does so, then is willing to take the heat. That's character. I'm not sure what ducking a critical vote then slamming your opponent much later on it says about Obama.

- A HuffPo Blogger, Oct. 2007

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 12:49 PM:

dcshungu:

Are you "A HuffPo Blogger"?

JR wrote on October 30, 2007 12:49 PM:

"The Hillary model is to listen to the facts and to the evidence at hand, and to look at the larger picture before drawing a conclusion."

Are you kidding me??? The HRC model is to take as much time as possible to calculate what position will play to her greatest political advantage.

Seriously, folks, can anybody out there name a moment where HRC took a politically dangerous - but ethically sound - stance on ANYTHING???

If the woman had the country's best interest at heart - rather than that of her and her husband - she would never have cast that fateful vote on Iraq. Instead, she would have stood up on the floor of the Senate, holding President Bush to his promise at Ground Zero to bring those behind the 9/11 attacks to justice before he ventured into Iraq. (For the record, I hold Giuliani and Schumer to the same standard.) Let's also remember that the woman didn't bother to read the NIE. Like Bush, she was merely briefed on it.

Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 12:49 PM:

JakeTroll,
are you confusing me with someone else? My post is about Mukasey being a liar, not torture or KSM.

I think you've got so many troll fights going you're forgetting who to argue with.

good luck with it, my lunch break is over.

biff diggerence wrote on October 30, 2007 12:50 PM:

dcshungu October 30, 2007 12:45 PM

Deflate yourself.

Hillary's staff is still crunching numbers on whether X number of angry white males who like torture will vote for her if she confirms an AG who likes torture.

It's all science, you see.

dcshungu wrote on October 30, 2007 12:50 PM:

I'm still curious about your notion of "leadership." Even in the sciences, afaik, there's still a premium on being the first to publish your conclusions.

This is a very simple-minded view about how the "sciences" work. For what did Albert Einstein win his Nobel? Something he'd discovered to taken the "lead" on?

Inquiring minds wanna.

charlie kennedy wrote on October 30, 2007 12:52 PM:

(sorry, forgot to put my name in)

JakeTroll,
are you confusing me with someone else? My post is about Mukasey being a liar, not torture or KSM.

I think you've got so many troll fights going you're forgetting who to argue with.

good luck with it, my lunch break is over.

dcs wrote on October 30, 2007 12:52 PM:

That's:

For what did Albert Einstein win his Nobel? Something he'd discovered OR taken the "lead" on?

Not So Big Dog wrote on October 30, 2007 1:00 PM:

Woo Hoo! You go, Hitlery! Not only does she expect the AG to wink at 'torture', she likes to wear her thigh high leather boots and whip when she does it.

jim wrote on October 30, 2007 1:09 PM:

>> is not torture -- at least ONE Democrat realizes what it takes to protect America -- too bad you don't.

Notice how the wingnuts tend to cheer Hillary when it comes to issues like this? That is the best endorsement of Obama I've seen yet.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 1:12 PM:

Anonymous:

The definition of "discussion" also includes answering civil questions -- that's just common courtesy, actually.

charlie kennedy:

That's right -- YOU claimed Mukasey "lied" about not knowing what waterboarding is -- ergo, I asked you if you knew. Hopefully, you can find the answer before lunch tomorrow.

Jim:

You noticed I said anyone who votes for Hillary is an idiot, right?

dcshungu wrote on October 30, 2007 1:47 PM:

If the woman had the country's best interest at heart - rather than that of her and her husband - she would never have cast that fateful vote on Iraq.

This is really getting tiresome, but you are a far lefty so I know that you cannot help it. I would repeat my thesis about why this is really a stupid line to be repeating in a public forum if you wish, but allow me to prove this to you by a simple
Reductio ad Absurbum reasoning:
You just called the AUMF vote, that Hillary had cast while more than 50% of the so-called country were itching to strike back at someone, anyone for 9/11 (HRC: Junior Senator from NY, one the hardest hit sites), "that fateful vote on Iraq."

Do you know that that vote is considered "fateful" (with a negative connotation) ex post facto ONLY because Bush went to war and made a mess of things? Sure. That is only reason. Suppose that Bush had gone to war and had waged it brilliantly, turning the middle east into a model for peaceful co-existence, would you be characterizing Hillary's vote as "fateful" (negative connotation)? I think not. Bush would be taking the credit for everything, and Hillary's "yea" vote on the AUMF bill would be just a footnote in the voluminous pages of history...some "fateful" vote, ey?... In fact, you would not even be banging on the White House door demanding that Hillary be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her "fateful" (positive connotation) "yea" vote on the AUMF bill that changed the world for the better.

Do you see? One changes just a small element and your rabid animosity toward HRC has no legs to stand on. But, if you wish to show some moral and intellectual integrity, you would be putting the blame where the blame for the Iraq fiasco belongs: squarely at the feet of GWB, the Village Idiot. He would have claimed all the credit if his war of choice had gone well, so why not blame him when it proves disastrous.

Hillary is but one of many Senators who had voted for the AUMF bill. She could have voted the other way and the AUMF would still have passed overwhelmingly: that is hardly a definition of "fateful", is it?

Susan in Iowa wrote on October 30, 2007 2:10 PM:

Joe Biden called on all the Senators today to support his legislation, the National Security with Justice Act (S. 1876), which among other things prohibits all United States personnel from engaging in waterboarding or any other form of torture.

He has also said he will not vote for Mukasey unless he gives a satisfactory answer on waterboarding being torture.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 2:13 PM:

Susan:

Do you really think that 10 seconds under cellophane, with no water going into your mouth or nose, is torture?

Greggie wrote on October 30, 2007 4:31 PM:

Jake D-

It is torture if it causes pain or severe physical discomfort. It is also torture if death, physical pain or severe physical discomfort is threatened.

Now, either:

A) The prisoner is being tortured, OR:

B) The prisoner is not going to give up any information.

So, to answer your specific question specifically: "Is 10 seconds under celophane, with no water goin in the nose or mouth, torture?"

The answer is, probably not IF the prisonser is told, in advance, that it will only be 10 seconds, no water will enter his nose or mouth, and he can "tap out" if he is subjected to severe physical discomfort.

However, this will not yield any information, of course.

If he is NOT told it will be for only 10 seconds, and water will NOT enter his nose or mouth, then quite naturally the prisoner will believe that his captors are about to drown or suffocate him. In this case it is OBVIOUSLY torture, as he will fear he is about to be murdered (whcih is one of the very DEFINITIONS of torture). Of course, this fear of immediate death (which makes the act torture) is exactly the feature of this mthod which might yield information. So waterboarding is only a useful interrogation technique if it performed as a form of torture.

Q.E.D.

Greggie wrote on October 30, 2007 4:32 PM:

Jake D-

It is torture if it causes pain or severe physical discomfort. It is also torture if death, physical pain or severe physical discomfort is threatened.

Now, either:

A) The prisoner is being tortured, OR:

B) The prisoner is not going to give up any information.

So, to answer your specific question specifically: "Is 10 seconds under celophane, with no water goin in the nose or mouth, torture?"

The answer is, probably not IF the prisonser is told, in advance, that it will only be 10 seconds, no water will enter his nose or mouth, and he can "tap out" if he is subjected to severe physical discomfort.

However, this will not yield any information, of course.

If he is NOT told it will be for only 10 seconds, and water will NOT enter his nose or mouth, then quite naturally the prisoner will believe that his captors are about to drown or suffocate him. In this case it is OBVIOUSLY torture, as he will fear he is about to be murdered (whcih is one of the very DEFINITIONS of torture). Of course, this fear of immediate death (which makes the act torture) is exactly the feature of this mthod which might yield information. So waterboarding is only a useful interrogation technique if it performed as a form of torture.

Q.E.D.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 4:47 PM:

Is it Q.E.D. if you repeat it yet again? I (and no less than LIBERAL Jewish law professor Alan Dershowitz) disagree with your learned legal opinion.

Greggie wrote on October 30, 2007 5:15 PM:

Alan D is:

A) Not a liberal

B) In an overwhelmingly small minority of the legal community. Just as you can find a few smart, honest scientists who don't believe Global Climate Change is a big problem, and you can find a few brilliant legal scholars who don't agree with Brown vs. Board, there are some who disagree about torture. It doesn't make them right. In fact, their outlying opinions on such core issues is a strike against their overall credibility.

C) Not really in agreement with you. He has posed the entirely academic question as to what we should ACTUALLY do in a REAL LIFE ticking bomb situation. That is to say, if we know FOR SURE that there is a bomb out there ready to kill many, many innocent people soon, and we have in custody a man we KNOW FOR SURE to be behind the plot, should we torture the information out of him? And I would say yes to that once-a-millineum question. The President should be able to torture that person if, in his or her opinion, it is neccesary to do so. And you know what? The President already HAS THAT POWER. It's called a Presidential Pardon. The President can, in such an extreme circumstance, issue a blanket Pardon to those who will be involved in the tortue. All he or she has to do is have the Cajones to put his or her NAME (and implicitly his or her reputation) on the act. Thus, Alan D's hypothetical question is really a Canard. A Red Herring.

The REAL question is this: Should Torture be Codified in US Law? The answer to this is a clear, absolute, unequivical NO NO NO.

Also, Jake D, I notice that I actually ANSWERED your specific question, and instead of addressing my specific answer, you make a silly personal attack on the basis of my computer freaking out and submitting my post twice. Real grown up, that there.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 5:42 PM:

Greggie:

I think "torture" (especially since 10 seconds under cellophane is objectively NOT "torture") should be codified exactly for the reasons you pointed out that Professor Dershowitz has offered -- not sure what you think he and I disagree about -- if you have any specific questions, though, please let me know. Thank you for answering my question -- I stated that I disagree -- not sure how else you want me to "address" your opinion either.

Here, I'll try one: I do think Dershowitz and the ACLU would be quite surprised to hear you call him "Not a liberal".

charlie kennedy wrote on October 30, 2007 5:50 PM:

Jake DTroll,

I'm sure you've moved on to another post to troll, however just to get back to your 2nd moronic reply:

it doesn't matter if I know what torture is - the point I'm making is that Mukasey knows what torture is. And him claiming to not know is bullsh*t.

Clearly, you already know everything, including what is and is not torture, as evidenced by your "no water in the nose or mouth for 10 seconds" definition of waterboarding - that you felt the need to post 5 times - demonstrates your in-depth knowledge of torture. And what you think must be the truth, so I am covinced now! thank you.

However, if you can somehow respond to Mukasey is a liar part of my original comment that got you all flamed up, I'd love to hear that instead of your broken record.

Troll on donkey kong.

(I should have listened to the "don't feed the troll" advice above.)

Greggie wrote on October 30, 2007 5:54 PM:

It's absolutely unhinged for you to say that an act is "objectively" not torture when the person is made to feel an immediate threat of being murdered and such a threat is one of the DEFINITIONS of torture. Now, it might not be "subjectively" torture in your opinion, but you do not get to be the arbiter of "objective" truth.

And, as I said, torture is something the President can authorize (actually, anything is something he can authorize) by using his plenery Pardon Power. But if you codify it, before you ever get to an ACTUAL Ticking Bomb scenario, you will certainly be torturing people merely HOPING they know something, or at best, GUESSING they know something.

An Alan D disagrees with you in this sense: You clearly want to ACTUALLY Waterboard lots and lots of people who are "the bad guys" becasue, in your mind, they have no human right and so who cares about them even if they turn out not to have any useful information. Alan D has ALWAYS posed this as a hypothetical question about a hypothetical situation. He has not neccesarily come out for or against the use of Waterboarding as a general interrogation tool.

Alan D, by the way, is not a liberal. He is a socially liberal Neoconservative.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 6:37 PM:

charlie kennedy:

My "response" to your charge that Mukasey is lying was to point out that MANY people (yourself included) don't know what torture is, much less what exactly is being used or not used by the CIA -- you don't think that it would be fair for me to call "bullsh*t" on your claim to not know what torture is, do you?

I am not saying that I know everything -- my "no water in the nose or mouth for 10 seconds" definition of waterboarding has illicited only ONE response that it is not torture -- so, we can even agree about that. Let me know if you still don't understand, but honestly I don't know how else I can explain it in the limited forum of a comment box.

Greggie:

I will have to let Professor Dershowitz know about your opinion next time I see him -- also, I think he would agree with me that the President cannot authorize violations or state or international law with his Pardon Power either -- I don't want to ACTUALLY Waterboard lots and lots of people who are "the bad guys" who have no human rights. I want it codified to the same extent Dershowitz does. Next canard?

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 6:44 PM:

"violations OF state or international law" (darn spell-checker ; )

MarcNYC wrote on October 30, 2007 6:47 PM:

Jake D

Let's try it this way.

Do you know the meaning of "verschaerfte vernehmung"? If not, look it up.

Then, please explain how it is different from enhanced interrogation techniques such as water boarding.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 6:55 PM:

I don't speak German -- I'm certainly not going to do your homework for you -- so if you could translate and then ask your question, I would be happy to answer.

Greggie wrote on October 30, 2007 7:35 PM:

The Pardon Power is plenery. It is entirely discretionary. He can Pardon anyone for anything. He can, therefore, immunize anyone against prosecution for anything. So how is it that he CANNOT authorize torture or any other violation of Federal, State, or International Law? Certainly, he cannot immunize people from, say, a War Crimes prosecution by the Court in The Hague. Or in, for instance, the French Courts. But he can certainly immunize anyone from any legal consequence in either State or Federal Court for doing ANYTHING. If this is not the power to authorize torture, then I don't know what words mean. If you want to torture not just prisoner but also the language, perhaps you might say The President can authorize the circumvention of the Law in any case he wants, although he cannot actually authorize the violation of the Law.

Speaking of meanings, "verschaerfte vernehmung" is German for "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques." Literally. And the techniques described by that phrase in German, which were used by the Gestapo and for which many of them were later prosecuted for War Crimes, were basically the same list of techniques the Moron-In-Chief and Vice President Mr. Burns (Simpsons reference) have illegally authorized. Stress Positions for extended periods. Extreme exposure to heat or cold. Being kept awake for unnatural extended periods of time. Blaring unpleasant music to drive the prisoner (literally) crazy. And (I believe, but I'm not certain) waterboarding.

Finally, Alan D, as much as I disagree with him, wants torture codified for THE MOST EXTREME CASES ONLY. Clearly, your passion for this issue does not arise from your desire to see the President authorized to do this only in cases that would more or less never occur. You want us to waterboard the guys at Gitmo and any Iraqi detainee SUSPECTED of being involved with a group killing American soldiers. For instance, in Prof D's argument, he always states that we know FOR SURE that this person knows the location of the ticking bomb. But of course the interrogator would never know FOR SURE whether the person had such information. It would merely be speculation. Let's not pretend that Dershowitz is really saying what you're saying. You're a grownup. You know what Cheney would do with this. EVERY detainee would miraculously become a "ticking bomb" case. Which is why we have a Constitutional Pardon Power for various exigencies, butwe don't codify that which we find almost universally repugnant.

charlie kennedy wrote on October 30, 2007 8:08 PM:

Jake,
whether I or any of the other commenters here know what constitutes torture is irrelevant. I am not Bush's nominee to be A.G. Who cares if I know (or what my opinion is) about torture.

Someone nominated to be A.G. should know what waterboarding is and and have an opinion about whether or not it is torture. This debate about US-sponsored torture didn't begin yesterday.

Evading and giving non-commital answers to simple questions during his confirmation undermines Mukasey's credibility as an outsider who will be a watchdog of the Bush administration.

You and the rest of the neo-con hacks who believe that torture is in the best interest on the U.S and can give us reliable intelligence are, to say the least, misguided.

MarcNYC wrote on October 30, 2007 8:28 PM:

Jake D - Too bad you're too lazy to do a little bit of research, but that fits the profile.

Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 8:45 PM:

Greggie:

I believe you are, to say the least, "misguided" in thinking the President of the United States can pardon STATE crimes or any violation of international law (which I think you grasp at least partially re: The Hague or French Courts). Thanks for the meaning of "verschaerfte vernehmung" finally -- I'm sure you'll let me know if Nazis were ever convicted of waterboarding and nothing else.

charlie kennedy:

If 99.9% of Americans do not know what constitutes torture, I think that is indeed relevant to whether we can call Bush's nominee to be A.G. a "liar" outright. Is there some magical "standard of care" you are applying to A.G. nominees (keep in mind that Bush has discounted the ABA rating system too) and will the same stand apply to Democratic Administrations?

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 8:45 PM:

Sorry, that 8:45 p.m. post was mine.

Greggie wrote on October 31, 2007 10:26 AM:

Jake D:

The President can absolutely pardon people for State crimes. Obviously not International crimes, but then again, the US cannot change International Law legislatively anyway, so what are we really talking about here? Violations of International Torture treaties are going to remain violations regardless of what WE decide.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)