Schumer and Feinstein Say Yes To Waterboarding

An inflammatory title you say? Well, I would like to know whether Schumer and Feinstein believe it is ok to have an AG who does not know that waterboarding is torture? Cuz Mukasey, who they support for AG, does not know that.

I never want to hear Schumer pontificate about anything again. Indeed, with this move, it seems to me that he really has disqualified himself as an observer to listen to on the judiciary committee. Spare us your phony outrage in the future Senator. Your act is over.

< Clinton Agrees With Obama: It Is Not About Gender | No Substance To Edwards Critique >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just sent another e mail to Feinstain. Don't (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:21:13 PM EST
    think anyone reads them, though, as I've never received a reply.  She's a total sell-out.  I'm losing my scepticism that she votes the way she does because her husband profits from the war.  

    Mea culpa. Feinstein (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:05:02 PM EST
    replied to my earlier e mail on her vote for Kyl-Lieberman.  Need diplomacy.  Two really bad sections taken out, etc., etc.

    ABC NEWS reports: DOJ Official Waterboarded self (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 08:50:31 PM EST
    Here's the link

    A senior Justice Department official, charged with reworking the administration's legal position on torture in 2004 became so concerned about the controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding that he decided to experience it firsthand, sources told ABC News.

    Daniel Levin, then acting assistant attorney general, went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure to inform his analysis of different interrogation techniques.

    After the experience, Levin told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn't die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning.

    Abu, of course, terminated Levin.

    Under the lights Molly (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:19:10 AM EST
    I find Levin's actions commendable. And his analysis was brilliant in coming to the conclusion that waterboarding scared the living crap out of him.

    Where he collapsed in understanding is......that's the point. Frighten but don't harm.

    Of course we wouldn't want to frighten the little terrorists, would we???? It might make their buds so angry they would start chopping heads off...

    But wait!!! They're already doing that!

    You couldn't make this stuff up..


    no (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Jen M on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:54:25 AM EST
    You just want to torture them.

    Heart of Darkness Jim (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    The collapse of reasoning is yours.

    Are you ready to pardon Hideji Nakamura, Yukio Asano, Seitara Hata, and Takeo Kita? They got sentenced to 15 years in 1947 for water-boarding US servicemen. Was it all just a mistake? A miscarriage of justice?

    Look into your soul Jim and ask yourself where did you go wrong; when did you lose your morals?

    Why do you hate our American values?

    "In 1776," wrote historian David Hackett Fischer in "Washington's Crossing," "American leaders believed it was not enough to win the war. They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society and the principles of their cause. One of their greatest achievements ... was to manage the war in a manner that was true to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution."

    The fact that the patriots refused to abandon these principles, even in the dark times when the war seemed lost, when the enemy controlled our cities and our ragged army was barefoot and starving, credits the character of Washington and the founding fathers and puts to shame the conduct of America's present leadership. Fischer writes that leaders in both the Continental Congress and the Continental Army resolved that the War of Independence would be conducted with a respect for human rights. This was all the more extraordinary because these courtesies were not reciprocated by King George's armies. Indeed, the British conducted a deliberate campaign of atrocities against American soldiers and civilians. While Americans extended quarter to combatants as a matter of right and treated their prisoners with humanity, British regulars and German mercenaries were threatened by their own officers with severe punishment if they showed mercy to a surrendering American soldier. Captured Americans were tortured, starved and cruelly maltreated aboard prison ships.

    Washington decided to behave differently. After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered that enemy prisoners be treated with the same rights for which our young nation was fighting. In an order covering prisoners taken in the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren.... Provide everything necessary for them on the road."

    Just because terrorists in caves make you soil yourself is no reason for  us to become a nation of bed-wetters.


    Another Sick Tactic (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:34:14 PM EST
    To justify torture besides the bedwetter version that we need to do it cause they do it:
    I just saw Jeanne Moos do one of her cute little feature stories on ... waterboarding. Lots of adorable stories of people trying it and timing themselves and laughing about it afterwards. Funny, funny stuff.....

    ....I think the debate is over, folks. Every time they normalize state sanctioned sadism, from tasering to waterboarding, we are one step closer to fully accepting a police state. That's how they do it. It never happens over night. It happens one taboo at a time.

    We are a torture culture, immoral, vulgar and profane. We actually think it's fun. If college boys and reporters can laugh about it, how bad can it be? Thanks Dick and George.



    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:57:47 PM EST
    From Susan Sontag:

    Whatever actions this administration undertakes to limit the damage of the widening revelations of the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere -- trials, courts-martial, dishonorable discharges, resignation of senior military figures and responsible administration officials and substantial compensation to the victims -- it is probable that the ''torture'' word will continue to be banned. To acknowledge that Americans torture their prisoners would contradict everything this administration has invited the public to believe about the virtue of American intentions and America's right, flowing from that virtue, to undertake unilateral action on the world stage.

    We are definitely through the looking glass.


    so when Bush said (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jen M on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:30:41 AM EST
    torture is what the lawyers say, he meant only the lawyers that say what he tells them to say?

    Yep (none / 0) (#32)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:06:49 AM EST
    RoadRunner on line poll: (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    Is waterboarding torture?

    yes:  38%
    no:   20%
    not sure:  42%


    Classic Enablers (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:17:39 PM EST
    They need help (ALANON) and a different line of work.

    I don't know what they could possibly (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:18:21 PM EST
    be thinking.

    I expected this from Feinstein, but not Schumer.

    Must Have Been (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:22:48 PM EST
    The chimps tantrum: If not Mukasey we will have no AG during time of WOT. boo hoo...

    Seems to work over and over again.  


    The Pres. didn't sound too convinced (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:41:52 PM EST
    when he sd. that.  I'm pretty sure we'd benefit from just going with the current "acting" AG, who ever that may be.

    chuck recommended him (none / 0) (#7)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:34:36 PM EST
     he is sort of stuck with him.

    He could have easily backed out (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:37:22 PM EST
    Chuck does what's good for Chuck. Do you really think he cares if George Bush says mean things about him?

    It's the party, stup'd (none / 0) (#3)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:20:50 PM EST
    On Roberts, they assigned the dirty work to Leahy and Feingold.

    Here, Schumer and DiFi get the dirt run.

    They're running errands for the establishment.

    Schumer was in a tough position (none / 0) (#6)
    by DA in LA on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:31:16 PM EST
    He's from New York, he pushed for that specific judge.

    Feinstein is being her usual self.  I stopped voting for her years ago.  She's just a terrible Democrat.

    Yes but I would trade you Bill Nelson for her (none / 0) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:35:42 PM EST
    Well, that is not saying much (none / 0) (#13)
    by DA in LA on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:54:58 PM EST
    I'd trade you some dog poop for him.

    I'd still get the better end of the deal. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:55:34 PM EST
    Maybe its time for a sofa encampment (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:42:59 PM EST
    on Feinstein's front sidewalk.

    Don't forget to build lots of Buddhas (none / 0) (#24)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 08:17:09 PM EST

    We need better Democrats (none / 0) (#39)
    by daveb99 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 10:56:23 PM EST
    Re: Feinstein and Schumer--we need better Democrats.

    In a way, I can understand Chuckie's position since he suggested Mukasey's name in the first place. He put his credibility on the line and got punked. For a guy who scored 1,600 on his SATs, he is behaving like a moron.

    But Feinstein? She is nothing more than Republican lite, on this and a lot of other issues. She is a total sell-out to the Bush White House. Californians who voted for her should be furious. It's a shame she won't be up for re-election until 2012.

    It seems the Democrats are suffering from terminal niceness. We need more guys like Jim Webb who have the guts to call out Bush and his thugs.


    When did it happen and why? (none / 0) (#12)
    by koshembos on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:54:01 PM EST
    Feinstein didn't start being a Rockefeller Republican. When did she change and why did she.

    Oh the old days when we had two Feinsteins in the Senate. One is still there and Wellstone (a translation of Feinstein) sadly and politically is not with us anymore.

    She changed years ago (none / 0) (#15)
    by DA in LA on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 04:55:39 PM EST
    7 or 8 years ago is when this woman emerged.

    Google fails me.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by jerry on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:16:35 PM EST
    I never realized that Wellstone = translated Feinstein.  Or for that matter what either Wellstone or Feinstein refer to as names.  Can you help out?

    Anyway, I will take your comments at face value that she didn't start off this way.  But as a California Dem, I can't ever remember her not being thought of this way, except perhaps for her very first election.


    Well Fine (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:20:21 PM EST
    How are you? I'm fine. Well how are you? I'm well.

    And Stone, so nu? (none / 0) (#21)
    by jerry on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:32:46 PM EST
    How are you?  Fine and stoned.  And how are you?  Well and stoned.



    Schumer and Feinstein; (none / 0) (#16)
    by desertswine on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 05:12:41 PM EST

    Finally something (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:00:23 PM EST
    I never want to hear Schumer pontificate about anything again.

    we can agree on.

    War Crimes (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:48:41 PM EST
    John Dean notes the parallels between Mukasey's confirmation and the confirmation of Elliot Richardson who was confirmed only after promising to appoint a special prosecutor.
    Before the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee completely cave-in to Bush, at minimum they should demand that Judge Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate if war crimes have been committed. If Mukasey refuses he should be rejected. This, indeed, should be a pre-condition to anyone filling the post of Attorney General under Bush.

    Works for me.

    Ding Dong (none / 0) (#22)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:37:14 PM EST
    This is why the Democratic party is dead.  They are complicit in crimes against humanity.  No, they say they don't want America to torture.  But they are not sufficiently outraged to fight the torturers.  Democrats are scared of republican authoritarians and cower in front of these weak and morally corrupt gasbags.  

    When Democrats see their country engage in torture . . . they cut and run.  The only reason the Democrats would actually have the courage to fight the Republicans on an issue is if you messed with their personal privileges and perquisites or tried to cutoff their campaign donations.  Then they would fight.  When their country engages in torture . . . yaaaaawn.  

    This is why I won't vote for a "centrist" Democrat.  I refuse to be complicit in torture.

    At this moment (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dulcinea on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:57:05 PM EST
    I am not inclined to vote for anyone in any party.

    Instead of e-mailing me today for help, Senator Leahy should have been talking to Schumer and Feinstein.   What sad, sad days we are seeing and it is not going to get any better.


    Schumer's waco performance (none / 0) (#25)
    by Rojas on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 08:18:11 PM EST
    Should have taught you all you need to know. Red and blue are just shades of grey.

    We're having (none / 0) (#27)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 08:45:06 PM EST
    a conversation about whether the AG of the USA can call torture by its proper name, and whether Democrats, totally safe seat Democrats, will find it in their hearts and minds to oppose such an AG nomination.
    Beam me up, this place is effing doomed.

    in perspective: (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sumner on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 09:57:33 PM EST
    Strategically, Feinstein's vote against Telcom Immunity is more crucial than this one despite the numbers of additional people who are going to be tortured and killed before the 5th Estate can be brought before Nuremberg style hearings. Had we lost the Internet to privatization, we could not freely be discussing their war crimes.

    Of course, now they seem to have found an alternate angle to insist on, in order to allow packet sniffing and shaping to spy upon us on the Internet: Why, National Security, of course!

    I remain convinced that we have found two critical pressure points upon which to apply the constant and unrelenting pressure of nothing less than a Vulcan Death Grip: the demand for campaign public financing and that neither the House nor Senate Intelligence Committees destroy any records as they are to expect that we intend to discover them.