Waterboarding Special Airing Now on Current TV

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 09:00:00 PM EST
Tags: Michael Mukasey, torture, waterboarding (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Bump and Update (10/31): The show starts at 10:00 pm ET. It's Channel 107 on Comcast, check their website for other cable systems.

Original post (10/30)

Maybe someone will tell Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey to watch Current TV tomorrow night at 10:00 pm ET.

On Wednesday, October 31st at 10pm ET/PT, Current TV gives viewers a real look at what Waterboarding entails when two ex-Survival, Escape, Resistance and Evasion (SERE) instructors administer a controversial interrogation technique to Current Vanguard Journalist Kaj Larsen.

More...

SERE is a U.S. military program that provides military personnel, Department of Defense civilians and contractors with training in the Code of Conduct, survival skills, evading capture, recovery and dealing with captivity.

I didn't think I got Current TV, but sure enough, it's channel 107 on Comcast and you can also get it on Dish and other services.

Ken at Progress Now has a good post on the Mukasey-torture issue, and I thank him for reminding me about what I wrote in 2004 about the role of the Attorney General in the context of Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft.

Many people think the role of Attorney General is simply to be the nation's "top cop," the chief criminal law enforcer. But it is much more. The role of the Attorney General is to serve as America's lawyer, in civil as well as criminal matters. He is not the President's lawyer. He is our lawyer.

< Hillary Embraces Spitzer License Plan | Final Words on the "Pile On" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Waterboarding Special Airing Now on Current TV | 46 comments (46 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Just remember (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by jondee on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:15:42 PM EST

to use a spotter when you do it to yourself, Jim.

Accidents do happen.

: Irrational comments become you. (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 07:11:06 PM EST

yes, and no. (5.00 / 0) (#4)
by cpinva on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:36:44 PM EST

all cabinet members technically are "our" employees. however, and this is a big however, they all serve at the pleasure of the president. though the president appoints them, with the "advice and consent of congress", only he/she can fire them at will, not congress and not the courts.

in that sense, they are the president's employees; they report directly to him/her, not congress or the courts. aside from legislation, congress has no direct authority or control over members of the president's cabinet; they can't just call the secty. of the treasury in and say "you will do this", they must pass a law requiring it. the president can do that.

the president has the authority to exercise "dominion and control" over his cabinet, the very essence of an employer/employee relationship.

Mukasey on Use of the Rack and Thumb Screws (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by john horse on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 11:26:35 PM EST

(satire alert)
In response to retired Rear Adm John Hutson's statement that "Other than perhaps the rack and thumbscrews, waterboarding is the most iconic example of torture in history," Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey said that he had not yet formed an opinion on whether the use of the rack and thumbscrews constituted torture. "I don't know what's involved in the technique," Mukasey said though he added he felt that these seemed a bit "over the line" and "repugnant". As to its legality, however, he wrote that he would have to know "the actual facts and circumstances" of its application before he could form an opinion.

: Yes (5.00 / 0) (#14)
by glanton on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 11:32:58 PM EST

As to its legality, however, he wrote that he would have to know "the actual facts and circumstances" of its application before he could form an opinion.
He would also like to find out if it's being done by those in power, before issuing a statement on it.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


: 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.

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??


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.


: Try harder (1.00 / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:09:56 PM EST

Let Congress do its job.

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...

:-)


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.


: 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."

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.


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??


posturing (5.00 / 0) (#20)
by Jen M on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:31:09 AM EST

yeah, you would think that.


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.


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.


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.


: 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.

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?


Congress has already done its job (5.00 / 0) (#21)
by Al on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:24:56 AM EST

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


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??


: 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.

: 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.

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.


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.


Oh yeah! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Repack Rider on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:45:11 PM EST

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?


: 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.

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)?


: 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!)

hehe (1.00 / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:15:44 AM EST

Uh, since they serve at the pleasure of the President, they can be fired at anytime for any reason.

As Clinton, he can tell you.

: What part of (5.00 / 0) (#26)
by Michael Gass on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:33:16 AM EST

BROKE THE LAW and then tried to LIE do you not understand?
Even in an "at will" state, a person cannot be fired for being black you imbecile.

WATB (1.00 / 0) (#41)
by squeaky on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 03:05:58 PM EST

Bush whines no fair:

Judge Mukasey is not being treated fairly," the president said, after taking the extraordinary step of inviting a group of reporters into the Oval Office to vent his feelings. Sitting behind his desk and leaning back in his chair, Mr. Bush said he was concerned that some people may have "lost sight of the fact that we're at war."

boo hoo.

On Direct TV (none / 0) (#1)
by troqua on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:43:59 PM EST

Channel 366

Arlen Specter (none / 0) (#12)
by glanton on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 10:32:00 PM EST

Recently said that it isn't reasonable to expect Michael Mukasey to answer whether simultaed drowning is torture because, if it's torture that means the people who have been authorizing it can be prosecuted for war crimes.

Isn't that amazing that a US Senator can unapologetically celebrate the privileging of men over laws in this country?

Again, if there's a place for the death penalty in this country at all, why not issue capital charges against the lawyers and government officials who commit war crimes in our name?

So okay, that isn't going to happen. But how sickening to see the likes of Rummy and Gonzales masquerading in suits, dining well, and receiving the best health care in the world, pretending to wisdom, affecting dignity and decency, etc. They'll get state funerals for crying out loud.

Not true. (1.00 / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:16:54 AM EST

A law could be passed that makes it torture but excludes past actions.


Come on, PPJ (5.00 / 0) (#22)
by Al on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:28:05 AM EST

Stop pretending there is no legislation. There's very clear legislation against torture. It's up to your people to apply it.


You quit pretending (1.00 / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:59:01 AM EST

that the law is specific.

Congress can fix this problem in a heart beat. That the Demos don't want to tell us they don't care about torture, they just want to play to their base.


: The law is very specific (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Al on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:25:16 PM EST

Torture is a crime. All that is needed is for the Attorney General to define waterboarding as torture, so that the torturers can be charged and prosecuted.