Hillary: I Will Oppose Mukasey Confirmation Over Torture Comments
It's official: Hillary says she will oppose the confirmation of Michael Mukasey. Here's the key quote from her statement, which was just sent over moments ago:
"When we leave any doubt about our nation’s policy on torture, we send a terrible message to the rest of the world. Judge Mukasey has been given ample opportunity – both at his confirmation hearings and in his subsequent submission to the Judiciary Committee – to clarify his answers and categorically oppose the unacceptable interrogation techniques employed by this Administration. His failure to do so leaves me no choice but to oppose his nomination."
Hillary's statement of opposition to Mukasey comes after Chris Dodd and Barack Obama announced their opposition yesterday and John Edwards announced his today. Her full statement after the jump.
We need an Attorney General who has the strength to challenge this Administration when it is wrong, who is committed to reestablishing the independence of the Department of Justice and to restoring respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. I am deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey’s continued unwillingness to clearly state his views on torture and unchecked Executive power.The Attorney General is the chief defender of the rule of law in our country. After Alberto Gonzales's troubled tenure, we cannot send a signal that the next Attorney General in any way condones torture or believes that the President is unconstrained by law. When we leave any doubt about our nation’s policy on torture, we send a terrible message to the rest of the world. Judge Mukasey has been given ample opportunity – both at his confirmation hearings and in his subsequent submission to the Judiciary Committee – to clarify his answers and categorically oppose the unacceptable interrogation techniques employed by this Administration. His failure to do so leaves me no choice but to oppose his nomination.
We need to restore the nation’s confidence in the Department of Justice. The Department must once again defend our Constitution and the rule of law without regard to ideology and partisanship. And we need to protect the country from terrorism while also respecting Americans’ civil liberties.
Comments (66)
biff diggerence wrote on October 30, 2007 1:32 PM:I want to thank my polling staff for their quick analysis, which confirmed that a larger share of the angry white male torture demographic will not be forthcoming as a result of my vote to confirm the nominee.
Diverik wrote on October 30, 2007 1:33 PM:"The Attorney General is the chief defender of the rule of law in our country. After Alberto Gonzales's troubled tenure, we cannot send a signal that the next Attorney General in any way condones torture or believes that the President is unconstrained by law."
Amen. Thank you Senator Clinton.
Michael wrote on October 30, 2007 1:33 PM:Her majesty just jumped on the band wagon. Lucky for her it hadn't left already. What leadership!! What insight!! Wow, I am sooo impressed. I guess colon and dc didn't get the memo before they started posting their reasons why she shouldn't take a position until she actually votes. All hail, the queen. She is the decider.
wes2 wrote on October 30, 2007 1:40 PM:Umm, wouldn't a "flawless" campaign have held off on the equivocating statement by Reines and simply issued her actual decision?
Just askin'
TheraP wrote on October 30, 2007 1:43 PM:If this were behavior therapy, the technique that worked would be called "shaping."
Helter Skelter wrote on October 30, 2007 1:44 PM:Wes2, the campaign is so flawless that they sometimes have to put in unintentional errors to avoid a lopsided victory. As every big time democratic blogger can tell you, Hillary is The One. Like Keanu Reeves.
Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 1:45 PM:Where's the "Day Late and...?" headline?
Jan wrote on October 30, 2007 1:50 PM:I applaud this statement of opposition to Mukasey from Senator Clinton.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 30, 2007 1:50 PM:Translated from Hillary-speak:
Trianglization leads me to believe that I can do the right thing here while not pissing off my corporate overlords and still claim the same executive powers that Bush43 claims once I become Queen.
biff diggerence wrote on October 30, 2007 1:53 PM:"Hillary is The One. Like Keanu Reeves."
As in Hill and Bill's Excellent Adventure.
dcshungu wrote on October 30, 2007 1:54 PM:I want to thank my polling staff for their quick analysis, which confirmed that a larger share of the angry white male torture demographic will not be forthcoming as a result of my vote to confirm the nominee.
LOL. I guess she should have fired that pollster for suggesting that she vote "yea" on K-L.
That loud hissing sound that you hear out there is the deflation of the "Natives" because Hillary's deliberate pace in assessing the suitability of AG "Muk" has led to oppose him, depriving them on issue to bitch about...
Next.
Leon723 wrote on October 30, 2007 1:55 PM:POLITICS BY TRIAL BALLOON.
Clever. Hillary puts out an equivocal statement to see if she'll get slammed by the liberal blogs. She gets slammed, and decides to oppose Mukasey, just in time to kill another policy difference at tonight's debate. She will not be a progressive leader. I recommend everyone dig up Stephanopoulos' 1997 Memoir "All Too Human," which is still in print in paperback. He recounts the chilling story of how Hillary encouraged Bill to bring Dick Morris into the White House to manage a lurch to the right, and he details Morris' "60% philosophy," which is that you can take a position that more than 60% of the voters disagree with. This is the character of the woman many deluded but well meaning progressives are breathlessly hoping to usher into the White House.
Outside the beltway wrote on October 30, 2007 1:58 PM:why is the most insightful commentary in the comments section?
does greg sargent just parrot hillary hub or does he not see how calculated Hillary's release was?
biff diggerence wrote on October 30, 2007 2:00 PM:" . . . Hillary's deliberate pace in assessing . . . "
Someone, quick.
Cue up Thomas Dolby.
kjoe wrote on October 30, 2007 2:04 PM:She made the right decision. She is learning.
She has come a long way from the night on 60 minutes when she and Bill were explaining about Gennifer, while back in Arkansas a black convict with one third of his brain missing was executed--Bill was tough--and so is Hillary. But not tough enough to countenance making torture legal.
Good call, don't care if it is late.
dcshungu wrote on October 30, 2007 2:07 PM:Clever. Hillary puts out an equivocal statement to see if she'll get slammed by the liberal blogs.
Please use your brain for a change: (1) She did not need to put anything out to know that the "natives" were agitating, and (2) if you were right about this, then could you explain why she'd voted for K-L? (the "natives" position of that bill was clear and TPM was on it for days denouncing it).
A brain does get atrophied from limited usage, y'know....
Michael wrote on October 30, 2007 2:09 PM:Too funny, dc, too funny. Deliberate pace? I hope when she's queen, she doesn't have to make a quick decision not based on polling analysis or we will all be doomed, doomed I tell you.
When's the cooronation? Will peasants be invited or is it only for a select few of the corporate elite donors, like the health care industry, big pharma, telecom industry, etc.?
Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 2:09 PM:The natives had no idea what was going on with KLA. The revised bill was announced, debated and voted on in less than 30 minutes.
Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 2:10 PM:". . . we cannot send a signal that the next Attorney General in any way condones torture or believes that the President is unconstrained by law."
That one will come back to haunt her -- maybe we will get to witness yet another impeachment of a President Clinton!!!
JR wrote on October 30, 2007 2:11 PM:"She made the right decision. She is learning."
Wait a minute!!! She's STILL learning??? I thought she was the most prepared, most experienced candidate? What's left to learn?
Leon723 got it right. Trial balloon... When it didn't fly, she decided to follow Dodd and Obama.
Yes, Ma'am, that's leadership!!!
DTM wrote on October 30, 2007 2:15 PM:A nice statement on an important issue.
And yes, this presents another clear example of the different standards that TPM has adopted for Senator Clinton as opposed to her rivals. But in this case, I think TPM happens to be right insofar as they are not criticizing her for not following some arbitrary schedule. I just wish TPM followed that approach with all the other candidates as well.
Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 2:16 PM:JR:
Don't forget that Biden had also announced he would vote against Mukasey unless he revised his answer to include waterboarding as torture -- there are enough Democratic Senators who will vote to confirm Mukasey -- it doesn't matter if the few running for President won't.
kjoe wrote on October 30, 2007 2:16 PM:"She made the right decision. She is learning."
""""""""Wait a minute!!! She's STILL learning??? I thought she was the most prepared, most experienced candidate? What's left to learn? """"""""""""""""""""""""""
So, you are saying Romney is wrong when he refers to her as an "intern"?
Was that better, Anonymous, only two posts of mine compared to 22 total?
workaday joe wrote on October 30, 2007 2:21 PM:staying on the "she is learning" meme...
I suspect that what she is learning is that her political instincts are not automatically wrong or politically costly. I'm not a big Hillary fan, but if she is learning to follow her liberal instincts, it puts her in the top 10% of Democrats in Congress. They all apparently think it is still 9/12/01.
The natives had no idea what was going on with KLA. The revised bill was announced, debated and voted on in less than 30 minutes.Legalize wrote on October 30, 2007 2:33 PM:The "natives" were opposed to K-L. Period. That you now say that they had no idea what was going on until 30 min before the vote is even more troublesome because it means that they were opposing a bill that they knew nothing about... Simply mindless.
It's not that she's "learning" how to play politics or "learning" the details associated with complex issues. She's "learning" what the vast majority of this country already knows on a level of basic national identity - we want a president who will adhere to the rule of law and not take us further down the road of secret prisons, renditions, torture, and unchecked executive power. Beltway politicians have been trained for 6 years to cower at the very notion of challenging the authoritarians. Hillary is now "learning" that the public would rather hang the Bush Crime Family than worship them.
As far as *let me get back to you* answers go, she came back with the right one relatively quickly on this issue. She's "learning" that Americans have rejected the GOP, its policies, and its rhetoric. She just has to act like it without consulting her handlers every few minutes.
dcshungu wrote on October 30, 2007 2:35 PM:Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 2:10 PM:". . . we cannot send a signal that the next Attorney General in any way condones torture or believes that the President is unconstrained by law."
That one will come back to haunt her -- maybe we will get to witness yet another impeachment of a President Clinton!!!
You lost me...Actually, you did not lose me. It is just that it is so mindless that I cannot put my own mind around it, because there is nothing to put one's mind around!
Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 2:43 PM:Sorry, 30 minutes of debate and then voting, does not make the public informed. If you recalled, the revised bill was posted on TPM and Think Progress AFTER the vote was over.
Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 2:43 PM:dcshungu:
Did I do a fly-by?
Let me ex-plain it to you in very s m a l l words. Hillary rules out torture and says the President should be constrained by law. When she has to do something as President arguably against the law, we will use this to impeach her. When she's tossed out of office, her statement above will have "come back to haunt her."
Now you can continue with your Trick-or-Treat plans.
Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 2:47 PM:"When she has to do something as President arguably against the law, we will use this to impeach her."
who's 'we'? you're in congress now?
Jan wrote on October 30, 2007 2:48 PM:Legalize (and, btw, I'm down with that),
You said: "Hillary is now "learning" that the public would rather hang the Bush Crime Family than worship them."
Hillary is now learning to take on the Bush Crime Family?????
I beg to differ. Clinton is the only candidate who has taken on George W. Bush!
That's one of the reasons I do NOT support Obama or Edwards -- they feel some need to take on fellow Democrat team member Hillary Clinton instead of George W. Bush.
The question is...
When are OBAMA and EDWARDS going to learn that the public would rather hang the Bush Crime Family than either one of the Clintons?
She will not be a progressive leader. I recommend everyone dig up Stephanopoulos' 1997 Memoir "All Too Human," which is still in print in paperback. He recounts the chilling story of how Hillary encouraged Bill to bring Dick Morris into the White House to manage a lurch to the right, and he details Morris' "60% philosophy," which is that you can take a position that more than 60% of the voters disagree with.
Actually, if you read Stephanopolous' book, you will learn that he viewed Hillary as one of his strongest allies in pushing for a progressive agenda in the Clinton White House. They communicated routinely.
dcshungu wrote on October 30, 2007 2:55 PM:When she has to do something as President arguably against the law, we will use this to impeach her.
That statement summarizes your problem. You are a rabid wingnut who already presumes that Hillary is seeking the office of POTUS so that she can engage into illegal acts. You are already sure that she is going to break the law, and we would use her own statement to impeach her with. I have no time for folks like you because you are too rabid to reason with. It is precisely why I could not get my mind around your earlier statement. It was just too...well, empty of logic or common sense.
Do you feel feverish just thinking about Hillary?
Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 3:05 PM:"You are already sure that she is going to break the law, and we would use her own statement to impeach her with."
'they' don't even need her to break the law [see Arkansas Project].
dcshungu wrote on October 30, 2007 3:11 PM:While we were hyperventilation in here from being "waterboarded", HRC has been quietly consolidating her lead in the 3 early states and trouncing -- make that murdering -- the GOP in NY, including leading Rudy by 34%, and garnering ~70% against all the other GOP candidates.
If nominated, Hillary would take NY, NJ, CT, and CA off the table, even if Rudy is the GOP nominee; she would win all the states that went for Kerry in 2004, and then take AR to have enough electoral votes to be the next POTUS. How hard would this be to accomplish? Not very...
With any other Dem candidate running against Rudy, election night would be very, very long, as Rudy would make it hard for them to declare victory in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast...a possible GOP landslide even comes to mind.
Hillary is the Dems strongest candidate for the GE and you know it...
Keith wrote on October 30, 2007 3:16 PM:dcshungu
I think you forgot the most important qualifier: if they vote was held the day of the poll. What happens more than a year from now is, well, unknowable at this point.
Helter Skelter wrote on October 30, 2007 3:23 PM:"If nominated, Hillary would take NY, NJ, CT, and CA off the table, even if Rudy is the GOP nominee"
Why do you assume CT automatically goes for Hillary? We have a republican governor and a senator who is an independent. Gore and Kerry both won, but that doesn't mean the state automatically embraces Hillary as a candidate over, say, Romney, who is from New England (Hillary is not) and will probably be moving back to his moderate Mass republican position by the time the election rolls around.
kjoe wrote on October 30, 2007 3:34 PM:Keith wrote on October 30, 2007 3:16 PM:
dcshungu
I think you forgot the most important qualifier: if they vote was held the day of the poll. What happens more than a year from now is, well, unknowable at this point.
Keith---I think you know---they can read this story, and instead of recognizing the point you made---they will say "Hillary is doing way better than Bill did in 1992---she is a shoo in!"
Poll finds Perot tops Bush, Clinton
From: Chicago Sun-Times Date: May 17, 1992
WASHINGTON A national poll released Saturday showed undeclared independent presidential candidate Ross Perot leading President Bush and Democratic front-runner Bill Clinton.
It is the first opinion poll to put Perot in the lead, but the margin of error was put at 3.2 percent, indicating a nip-and-tuck battle in a three-way race.
The poll for Time Magazine and CNN showed 33 percent of registered voters favoring Texas billionare Perot, compared with 28 percent for Bush and 24 percent for Clinton.
dc, maybe she's the most devisive, most repuke like, most calculating, most waffling, most untrustworthy, etc. I wouldn't call her the "strongest" candidate, I would call her the weakest dem/repuke running.
I cannot believe that there is even any serious consideration for the queen as the nominee. The repukes love her and she is their strongest weapon against the dems. She will rally the repuke base like there is no tomorrow and conceivably we could be looking at a repuke landslide in the general if she's the nominee and she completely demoralizes her democratic base with her pro-corporate and pro-war agenda.
Just because your machine is trying to manipulate everything from her faux experience to her faux leadership skills through polling, doesn't make it so. It's kind of funny that only staffers generally on this site are the only ones touting how unbeatable she is. All hail the queen.
Me_again wrote on October 30, 2007 3:37 PM:Hillary "changes" her mind and TMP, whose was snide that Obama was waiting for Mukasey on waterboard but then treats Hillary all nice when she flip-flops.
At least Obama was saying NO, Hillary was saying maybe - that is until nobody else in Dem Party wanted to vote for Mukasey.
Can you really trust Hillary?
NO, you can't. She just another Bush in dress. Bill Clinton was in lock-step with Cheney's war and he still is, so is Hillary.
There should have be NO doubt, but for Hillary, there was doubt and this is NOT a appeal to conservatives - so who is getting waterboarded? Mideasterners who bomb pipelines. I mean, what would Marc Rich say?
Bill is in lockstep with Bush, in lockstep with BUSH. Hillary is NOT going to end the war in Iraq.
Helter Skelter,
How many registered voters in CT are:
I?
D?
R?
What were the vote totals for Kerry's win?
How popluar is your Gov? Leiberman?
Helter Skelter wrote on October 30, 2007 4:20 PM:
Loki, Rell is doing okay, so far as I know. I don't hear a lot of people complaining about her.
According to 10/06 state statistics, among registered voters there are 400k republicans, 700k democrats, and 900k "unaffiliated." Democrats are about 35% of the electorate, and all those independents are well within reach of a moderate republican. Lieberman was able to win re-election despite widespread anger over his running against Lamont in democratic cirles. Independent voters have a very powerful voice here come the general election.
Clinton could well win the state, but it's too early to consider the state a lock.
LJ wrote on October 30, 2007 4:29 PM:Hillary Clinton has been given ample opportunity to clarify her answers and categorically admit her vote for the Iraq War was a mistake. Her failure to do so leaves me no choice but to oppose her nomination.
Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 4:43 PM:dcshungu (and Anonymous)
"We" as in the GOP, Blue Dog Democrats, and Independents -- we won't forget Hillary's pledge to roll back the Executive's powers either -- we can do all that while not feeling feverish just thinking about Hillary ; )
LJ:
But, you will vote for her on November 4, 2008 anyways, right? That's exactly why she's playing you guys like this.
Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 4:49 PM:kjoe:
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 4:57 PM:LJ wrote on October 30, 2007 4:29 PM:Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 5:06 PM:Hillary Clinton has been given ample opportunity to clarify her answers and categorically admit her vote for the Iraq War was a mistake. Her failure to do so leaves me no choice but to oppose her nomination.
You are free to pick your candidate based upon whichever issue that you deem is important or moves you. This just ain't one of them and it really getting tiresome to keep making this point simple point. You are a far lefty so I know that you cannot help it, however you should know that it is really not too bright to keep repeating line in a public forum. Allow me to prove this to you by a simple
Reductio ad Absurbum reasoning:You are frustrated because it obvious to you that her vote for the Iraq War was a mistake. It was a mistake, but you can say that now because the perfect 20/20 vision of hindsight! Remember that when Hillary had cast that vote in 2002, more than 50% of the country was just itching to strike back at someone, anyone, for 9/11 (HRC: Junior Senator from NY, one the hardest hit sites).
Now the anti-thesis: The only reason Hillary's AUMF vote is considered a "mistake" ex post facto is because Bush used to take the country and made a mess of things. That is only reason why that vote is considered a "mistake". Here's why: Suppose 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 a "mistake"? 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 "mistake", 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 mistaken "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 bill would still have passed overwhelmingly: so, why does this single vote that would have passed the senate regardless of how Hillary voted, disqualify her from being POTUS? Do you think that this is a smart way to choose the next leader of the free world?
dc:
You are correct that Hillary was only one of many Senators who voted for the AUMF bill -- being from NEW YORK, however, would have carried extra weight had she (and perhaps her husband) used everything at their disposal to publically denounce Bush as not finishing the job in Afghanistan first -- just like a certain state Senator named Barack Obama did. Had they done that, maybe the AUMF bill would NOT have passed at all, let alone overwhelmingly.
DTM wrote on October 30, 2007 5:14 PM:It may be worth remembering that the 2004 vote was quite close in a lot of states that ultimately went for Kerry, including PA, MI, MN, and WI. I don't think it is at all a given that anyone the Democrats nominate will manage to hold those states against someone like Rudy, Romney (whose father was Governor of Michigan, by the way), or McCain.
LJ wrote on October 30, 2007 5:20 PM:Jake D. wrote:
But, you will vote for her on November 4, 2008 anyways, right? That's exactly why she's playing you guys like this.
No, of course not. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. I'll donate time, money, and support to down ticket Democrats who deserve them, but not a dime or a minute for Hillary. I don't vote for candidates just because they put a "D" next to their names. I have these annoying things called "principles" and "integrity."
Her vote in favor of letting George Bush start a blood bath in Iraq and her inability to be honest about her vote makes it impossible for me to vote for her. As she herself pointed out in New Hampshire if her war vote is a problem for me, there are other candidates to support. And so I will.
DTM wrote on October 30, 2007 5:21 PM:Jake D.,
Waterboarding is a very old and common torture technique. I've never gone through it myself, so I can't say from personal experience what it feels like. But according to reports from people who have gone through it, it is absolutely awful.
And of course the logic of torture requires that it be awful, because if it was not awful, it would not be able to coerce the person being tortured into doing what the interrogator wants. That is the underlying problem with the argument of people who want to say just a little torture (or "coercive interrogation") should be OK. Just a little torture is pointless: it has to be enough to break the person's will, and that is a tough thing to do.
dcshungu wrote on October 30, 2007 5:21 PM:Horror! Never attempt a long post from a hand-held device!!!
Please decipher the preceding post if you can!
fred seamon wrote on October 30, 2007 5:25 PM:Jake D. asks "Do you really think that 10 seconds under cellophane, with no water going into your mouth or nose, is torture?"
No, but that isn't how it works. It is repeated until you are ready to pass out and your senses tell you that you are drowning. Perfected by the Inquisition, it is considered torture by international law and by people who have undergone it, such as John McCain and lawyers such as Lindsay Graham.
It is illegal, immoral and doesn't work. If you believe in torture, move to a country that condones it. I like to think that in spite of the Bush Administration promotion of torture, the people of the United States find it repugnant.
/s/Retired Intelligence Officer
Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 5:30 PM:DTM:
10 seconds is NOT even a "little bit" of torture!
fred:
I'll stay right here, thank you very much.
DTM wrote on October 30, 2007 5:49 PM:Jake D.,
Again, I don't know how waterboarding feels, so I am in no position to assess how quickly it gets to the point of being awful. But I do know that anyone serious about using the technique during a "coercive interrogation" (AKA torture session) will keep doing it until it does get awful, whether that takes only ten seconds or longer. Again, if you didn't keep it up until it was awful, the whole exercise would be pointless.
In general, once again you seem to be focusing on your contrived hypotheticals, and not dealing with how these techniques are used in the real world. But we need laws to deal with the real world, not your hypothetical version of the world.
Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 6:16 PM:We need an OBJECTIVE standard for "torture" -- if someone wimps out after holding their breath for 10 seconds, that SUBJECTIVE standard cannot be the basis for terrorist interrogation people!!!
Desider wrote on October 30, 2007 6:16 PM:
Okay, to all you fun-loving "progressives" who want Hillary to rush out comments to the press to make Republican sound bites: sure, go vote for Nader, enjoy life under Giuliani. (No, Obama won't cut it - he self-destructed this week even without Republican pressure. Happy for Chris Dodd's move last week, but will he win the the Presidency?)
Here's the scenario: Hillary says she will never ever ever do waterboarding. 2008 debates, Tim Russert asks Hillary, "You said you're against waterboarding, but assume Al Qaeda will blow up a pre-school full of disabled orphans in New York, and you have a terrorist in cell #9 who knows the secret - would you waterboard?"
Republicans are still making hay over Cubs-Yankees ambiguity - hopefully somebody in the progress-o-sphere is worried about something more important than whether Hillary released her press comments first. Certainly she is - it's called avoiding the sand traps and snake pits. 12 months to go, losers - you want to be out of power another 4 years? Get real.
kjoe wrote on October 30, 2007 6:29 PM:Jake D---you might have a point where I am concerned. I host karaoke in bars almost every night. Listening to some of Toby Keith's "patriotic" music designed to inspire teenagers to (thoughts deleted)qualifies as torture to me, so with my overly liberal definition of what torture is, (I really hate that kid rock sheryl crow picture song too) I will defer answering that to the above mentioned authorities.
DTM wrote on October 30, 2007 7:21 PM:Jake D.,
I am not sure why you are refusing to acknowledge this pretty basic concept: people will use whatever torture technique we are talking about until it gets really awful. They have to, because otherwise it stands no chance of breaking the person's will. Indeed, I am really not sure what you are imagining. Do you think "interrogators" (aka torturers) in the real world are waterboarding people only to some point before it gets awful? What exactly would be the point?
By the way, as you requested, many torturers have indeed made something of an objective science out of torture, trying to figure out what works best, how long it takes, and so on. Again, among such professional torturers, waterboarding is a highly favored technique, in part because apparently it does get awful pretty darn fast. The standard psychological explanation is that humans have a very deep-seated and powerful fear of drowning, and when that fear is triggered by waterboarding, it causes immediate and extreme distress.
But I cannot emphasize enough that is all besides the point. However long it takes for waterboarding to work is how long they will use it, or they won't use it at all. That should be pretty darn obvious, and I don't get why you are denying it.
Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 7:26 PM:Because, from what's out in the public domain, the "average" time to withstand waterboarding was 14 seconds -- I am interested in drawing the line where ever the concensus is -- I simply picked something less than that and want to see if anyone thinks that is still "torture".
DTM wrote on October 30, 2007 7:54 PM:Jake D.,
If true, all that tells you is that waterboarding is a very effective torture technique. But the torture starts when then waterboarding starts, and continues until it works, however long that takes.
Consider an analogy: I have no idea how long people typically have withstood having hot needles shoved under their fingernails. But the torture starts when the needle goes in. It doesn't start when the person finally breaks. So, imagine if you were asking whether 10 seconds of hot needles under the fingernails is torture. Of course it is. The same analysis applies to waterboarding.
More broadly, the fundamental point is that once you have decided you are going to "coerce" a person into telling you what you want to hear with any of these means--waterboarding, sleep deprivation, hypothermia, etc.--you have committed to torturing them. It isn't a matter of degree, but a matter of kind: the whole point is to cause them enough physical and/or psychological distress to break their will and make them say what you want. That just is torture, and the fact that it may take longer or shorter times for any given technique to work is not relevant to the fundamental moral and legal questions surrounding what you have decided to do to another human being.
Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 7:57 PM:Like I said on another thread, DTM, I'd gladly trade abortion on demand for waterboarding.
slcathena wrote on October 30, 2007 8:08 PM:Me_again wrote on October 30, 2007 3:37 PM: Hillary "changes" her mind and TMP, whose was snide that Obama was waiting for Mukasey on waterboard but then treats Hillary all nice when she flip-flops.At least Obama was saying NO, Hillary was saying maybe - that is until nobody else in Dem Party wanted to vote for Mukasey.
This is a completely valid criticism. It's a shame that no one from TPM will ever acknowledge it.
I may be wrong, but wasn't Mukasey's name suggested to Bush by some Democratic senators initially as someone they might support?
He'll still be confirmed with enough support from Democrats though IMO, even with all the candidates jumping off the Mukasey train.
So, if Mukasey goes down, do you think Bush will nominate another more acceptable candidate?
Calling Ted Olson.
You are correct that Hillary was only one of many Senators who voted for the AUMF bill -- being from NEW YORK, however, would have carried extra weight had she (and perhaps her husband) used everything at their disposal to publically denounce Bush as not finishing the job in Afghanistan first -- just like a certain state Senator named Barack Obama did. Had they done that, maybe the AUMF bill would NOT have passed at all, let alone overwhelmingly.
Hindsight has perfect 20/20 vision... and it seems that it was a lot easier for a certain state Senator Barack Obama to pontificate from the sidelines and "oppose" the Iraq war, as when he became a U.S. Senator with the power to substantively express his purported "opposition" to the war, he flipped and voted, not just once or twice, but repeatedly to give Bush "blank checks" to perpetuate his war. In 2002-2003, the general mood was to hit someone, anyone, very hard to teach world a lesson that no one fucks with America and get away with it; unfortunately, we had a whole bunch of weird folks at PNAC who had been itching to do just that for years. Given these circumstances, and with the Village Idiot as POTUS, the Iraq war was a forgone conclusion, the AUMF bill notwithstanding.
Jake D. wrote on October 31, 2007 10:54 AM:Even if I agree that the Iraq war was a foregone conclusion, the AUMF bill notwithstanding, you did not address my point that Bill and Hillary could have stopped at least Congressional approval of the war in Iraq.
