home
Waterboarding Special Airing Now on Current TV | 48 comments (48 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

heh (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:11:04 PM EST
And as our lawyer he should enforce the laws that Congress has passed.

It is not his job to define torture, no more than it is his job to define fraud. That is the job of Congress.

ooops (none / 0) (#5)
by tnthorpe on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 06:17:10 PM EST
from the DOJ website:
The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested.

It looks like he does interpret law after all. At least everyone in Washington thinks he does and expects him to.

[ Parent ]

heh (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 07:10:20 PM EST
What he does is give advice.

Advice is non-binding.

Ask your attorney.

[ Parent ]

A legal opinion (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by tnthorpe on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 09:33:24 PM EST
from the AG allows things to happen. It is more than simply "advice." Jeesh, I mean you can't torture without permission even in America.

[ Parent ]
A "legal" opinon?? (1.00 / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:21:25 AM EST
It may be an opinion, and it may be legal, but it is not a "legal opinion."

Plainer. It could be an opinion that's not legal.

Let Congress get off its collective behinds and pass some laws rather than posturing.

[ Parent ]

pathetic (5.00 / 0) (#31)
by tnthorpe on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:25:03 PM EST
semantic dodges when what you need to do is realize you got it wrong, again.

[ Parent ]
One more time (1.00 / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:08:47 PM EST
It is the SC who interprets our laws.

The AG can issue all of the opinions he wants. Some may be legal, some may not.

But his job is run the DOJ and, sometimes, advise the President. The DOJ supposedly enforces the laws passed by Congress and held to be legal by the SC.

If the DOJ can show that a law has been broken, they can arrest and bring to court.

The Judicial Branch can then choose to let the person be tried, or cut him loose.

You only want Mukasey to declare waterboarding torture because it suits your politics to attack the war. I can think of several areas in which you would be very unhappy if the AG declared something illegal.

Stop you double standards and try some logic.

BTW - The President has several other lawyers who also advise him.

[ Parent ]

oh brother (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by tnthorpe on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:17:49 PM EST
get a clue, will you?

Read the torture memos and stop torturing me with your inanities.

[ Parent ]

hehe (1.00 / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:10:01 AM EST
It looks like he does interpret law after all. At least everyone in Washington thinks he does and expects him to.

Will someone have the Supreme Court call home??

[ Parent ]

read (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by tnthorpe on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:24:04 PM EST
the torture memos.
The opinion sought is the basis for a change in practice.

This is simply how it works.

Try hard, you can figure it out.

[ Parent ]

Try harder (1.00 / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:09:56 PM EST
Let Congress do its job.

[ Parent ]
hehe (1.00 / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:11:08 PM EST
If you believe everything that's on a website, stay away from LGF's...

:-)

[ Parent ]

The law is clear (none / 0) (#40)
by tnthorpe on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 02:32:04 PM EST
even if Mukasey is not. Bush is breaking the law for his own political ends, ends you support and law breaking you encourage. Mukasey ought not be confirmed: Bush ought to be impeached.

In a frighteningly lucid and surgical essay The Vanishing Point geographer Derek Gregory describes the war on terror as a "war on law", or a "war through law" - through the suspension of law. While emergency is the state's tactic it is ultimately the law itself that is the most critical site of political struggle, he contends. If I recall correctly, Derek explains how Guantanamo Bay was established as a purposefully ambiguous political space camouflaged in the folds of legal uncertainty.
----
The Bush Administration's ambiguation of the clarity of the prohibition on torture speakes directly to its abysmal moral character. That you want to pretend such a policy on their part doesn't exist is simply counter to the evidence. Read the torture memos, which, you will note, were not written by the SC.

[ Parent ]

Just curious (none / 0) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 05:11:45 PM EST
why do you describe Derek Gregory as a "geographer" as if that gave him any special insight?? Shall I call up some thoughts on pro gun airline pilots and their thoughts on terrorism??

So far in this thread all I have seen is comments that the law is clear. Plus, the Tokyo trials, etc.

This is all BS of the big steaming stinky piles of it.

If the law is clear, make it clearer. If the Tokyo trials were based on law, why isn't the question, will you enforce that law??

The answer is that it must not be law, and the Demos don't want to be clear because it doesn't suit their purpose, just as it doesn't suit the Left's purpose.  A reasonable person could resolve all of this quickly and simply.

If Congress makes waterboarding illegal, will you enforce the law?

That's the $64.00 question. Not what he "thinks."

[ Parent ]

Not his job to define it, (none / 0) (#11)
by jondee on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 12:27:26 PM EST
just enable it.

Get on board the torture train.

[ Parent ]

If Congress thinks it is torture, (1.00 / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:12:43 AM EST
all they have to do is pass a law.

But that would stop all the political posturing and dodging... no way they will ever do that.

Tell me jondee, do you think placing panties on the heads of terrorists being questioned is torture??

[ Parent ]

posturing (5.00 / 0) (#20)
by Jen M on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:31:09 AM EST
yeah, you would think that.

[ Parent ]
Is that your answer? (1.00 / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:55:28 AM EST
If so, please explain.

You either think it does, or it does not.

The basic problem here is that the Left sees this totally as criminal justice issue. They also see it as a potentially political issue they can use to attack the war. If left up to some on the Left, there would a lawyer/political (Think old Soviet Union)education officer with each platoon.

"You have the right to remain silent....."

"Don't touch that Koran!"

"All cultures are equal."

The Right sees this as a military matter, but not one that brings in the GC.

Sleep deprivation, temperature swings, panties on the head, fake menstrual blood, aggressive sexual movements to me are not torture.

Water boarding? A tough one. I would say it is not, but would restrict its use only for those times when it can be demonstrated the prisoner can be expected to have important information and/or it is time sensitive.

BTW - The old "people will say anything" to prevent being tortured is true, but misleading. A skilled interrogation team, especially when aided by fear of torture, even if it is never used, and the various techniques above, can keep questioning and cross referencing the answers until the truth comes out.

[ Parent ]

why answer (5.00 / 0) (#27)
by Jen M on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:34:01 AM EST
its not standing on principle to you

its grandstanding.

Principles and ethics don't enter the argument.

Humans know what torture is. You seek to defend its use.

[ Parent ]

Nope (1.00 / 0) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:22:05 PM EST
I seek only to point out that in one case the Demos want the AG to declare something illegal, while in others they didn't want him to declare some legal.

It is called hypocrisy.

A very human trait.

[ Parent ]

Maybe it's called having specific (5.00 / 0) (#44)
by jondee on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 03:34:28 PM EST
principals.

And no, Im not going to explain what those are to you.

[ Parent ]

How do they know (5.00 / 0) (#43)
by jondee on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 03:32:19 PM EST
when "the truth comes out"; or, is that just a euphemism for the last thing he said before he died or became completely delerious?

[ Parent ]
Congress has already done its job (5.00 / 0) (#21)
by Al on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:24:56 AM EST
all they have to do is pass a law.

They already did that. That's why it becomes important what the Attorney General considers to be torture, because it must be prosecuted.

[ Parent ]

Nope (1.00 / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:34:26 AM EST
Obviously the law is ineffective.

Now it is up to Congress to fix a problem.

Why do they hate being specific??

[ Parent ]

its innefective (5.00 / 0) (#28)
by Jen M on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:35:56 AM EST
because are government ignores the laws and people like you enthusiastically cheer.

Those who seek a laudry list want to know what form of torture they CAN use.

You want a laundry list.

[ Parent ]

What part of (5.00 / 0) (#33)
by Al on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:31:43 PM EST
"torture is a crime" don't you find clear enough? It is not up to Congress to list all possible forms in which a human being may be tortured. It's up to the justice system to charge people who have carried out waterboarding or acts of a similar nature and make their case in court.

There is in fact a precedent regarding waterboarding. In 1947, a Japanese officer was sentenced to 15 years hard labor for waterboarding American prisoners.

[ Parent ]

No... they do NOT (5.00 / 0) (#29)
by Michael Gass on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:36:54 AM EST
have to "define it" or "pass a law".  It is ALREADY ESTABLISHED and HAS BEEN established.

In the Tokyo War Crimes Trials, which were patterned after the Nuremburg Trials, we tried people for using water torture, ie, waterboarding, as torturers.

This was settled as, not only American law, but International law, until Gonzo and Bush decided it wasn't.

[ Parent ]

If that is the case (1.00 / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:18:02 PM EST
then why doesn't the Demos merely ask the AG nominee if he will enforce this existing law?

I mean, if it is actually a law, there is no debate as to what anyone "thinks," the debate must be, what will someone do?

This is politics, pure and simple.

Get over it.

[ Parent ]

Oh yeah! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Repack Rider on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:45:11 PM EST
then why doesn't the Demos merely ask the AG nominee if he will enforce this existing law?

Like THAT ever worked with the criminals in the White House.  They don't answer subpoenas, they refuse to turn over documents, and the AG refuses to prosecute people unless they are Democrats.

Haven't seen any newspapers for the last few years Jim?

[ Parent ]

Another bit of nonsense (none / 0) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 05:16:05 PM EST
Repack. Supposedly what is going on here is the Senate exercising its advise and consent function.

So your comment is juts a bit of nasty fluff. The question is simple, straightforward and only requires some Demo with a smidgen of common sense to ask it.

Instead, like you do here, they play games.

[ Parent ]

I know you love that (5.00 / 0) (#42)
by jondee on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 03:27:51 PM EST
panties-on-the-head example -- a little too much if you ask me, but thats between you and your consenting adult friends.

And when have they ever stopped at just panties on the head? How do yo beat someone to death with a pair of panties; and how do a aforementioned panties morph into halogen bulbs found lodged in the victims rectum (not to give you any ideas)?

[ Parent ]

Well, I really don't want (none / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 05:23:57 PM EST
to go into your love life, so I'll leave the S&M out....

But really, it is such a simple question, and as I stated....

Sleep deprivation, temperature swings, panties on the head, fake menstrual blood, aggressive sexual movements to me are not torture.

"panties on the head" falls into a broad range of actions that are definitely not "torture." Your failure to answer is noted. And then:

Water boarding? A tough one. I would say it is not, but would restrict its use only for those times when it can be demonstrated the prisoner can be expected to have important information and/or it is time sensitive.

Of course reasonable people doing reasonable things in defense of the country is not a strong point of the Left. Or the modern day Reidocrat...

(I surrender! I surrender!)

[ Parent ]

Waterboarding Special Airing Now on Current TV | 48 comments (48 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft