He answers an important question with a meaningless tautology, the sort of ridiculous locution that deserves a place alongside, "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," and all he can say is, "Sorry"? And this is the man who will be the nation's chief law enforcement officer? I am dumbfounded.

The committee's going about this questioning all wrong.

If Mukasey doesn't seem to understand what torture is, then the committee should call in its security people, hold Mukasey down, stuff a rag in his mouth and pour water over it until the son of a bitch chokes and begins to understand what the hell the question is about.

The Dems are making a mistake giving this guy a pass.

Whitehouse hit the nail on the head, semantics is what this administrations denial on torture is all about!

Or to put it into context, it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

That response should disqualify him. It means he'll rubber stamp anything as long as Bush/Cheney redefines it as "not torture." They can use the wrack and the thumbscrews but still proclaim " we don't torture."

It's appropriate that his winning allusion to the 'good German' should be matched with a display of what it means to be one.

I didn't hear what I would have liked Whitehouse to ask..."SOMEONE has to define torture! If not you, then who?"

I think the lede in this story is incorrect. Mukasey isn't against torture, he's against calling what the US does torture. There's a difference.

And I agree with sburnham. Who else is supposed to define torture? I can't believe that he just doesn't know enough about what waterboarding is. In this day and age, that alone should disqualify him.

"If Mukasey doesn't seem to understand what torture is, then the committee should call in its security people, hold Mukasey down, stuff a rag in his mouth and pour water over it until the son of a bitch chokes and begins to understand what the hell the question is about."

You could actually here aides muttering to the effect of "He can't say whether waterboarding is torture; maybe he's answer the question if we waterboarded him?" in the background during a break at one point on the C-Span feed.

I was watching one of the lockup-type shows one weekend afternoon about 3 years ago... maybe 4 years ago. They were in a dreadful prison and the happy guide was explaining waterboarding to the visitors. Evidently the prison used it all the time. I wish that I could remember the name of the prison. I was pretty astonished but waterboarding wasn't on my horizon then.

I wonder if the reluctance to define waterboarding as torture now comes from the knowledge that at least one prison has been doing it for years?

utahgirl

Katerine

Better yet. Let him sit and watch while his wife and children have the technique demonstrated on them.

How dare we wonder how people who operated the concentration camps in Europe could exist, when we have their reincarnation in our midst.

These hearings are being picked up by wire services the world over. Foreign nationals are getting a good look at what Americans are all about.

I have a great idea to help Mukasey decide if waterboarding is torture.

I'd like to credit Lincoln for giving me this idea. Lincoln said: "Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

So you'll never guess what my idea is for helping Mukasey decide if waterboarding is torture.

Yes, Mukasey should definitely have the benefit of first hand experience to inform his judgement. Should have sufficient experience, in fact: you wouldn't want to depend on just one experience, would you? For a question this important?

My idea is we should hold a recess and let Mukasey have what Dick Cheney calls "a dunk in the water". If he's still confused or uncertain, can't rightly say yes or no, no problem! Have another dunk! And another! Until he can say for certain, be clear in his own mind, yes or no, is it torture.

It is amazing that so many people never read Peanuts, never heard of Charlie Brown or Lucy, and naturally never understood the cartoon with Charlie rushing up, once again, to kick the foot ball Lucy is holding for him.

There was never the slightest doubt in my mind that Bush appointed Mukasey because Mukasey is Bush's kind of AG candidate. What more is there to learn?

Leahy is pissed at the Intelligence Committee for "caving" on FISA by granting immunity to the telecoms. Tell how Leahy is not "caving" on the Mukasey confirmation. This idiot of a Bush appointee doesn't consider water boarding torture? Even crazy Mac Caine Mutiny (R-AZ) knows that this procedure is torture. Leahy should run this dunce out the door!

As someone who has watched this unfold and followed the events, read international news sources and look at the "full spectrum" of news, this candidate is a 'reflection' of the Senate itself. To be concise, the parsing of words and semantics in that hearing might not hold up in an international court in the years to come.

I guess that is what I found so ludicrous a about the exchange by Graham and the nominee.

It is based on a proposition of lawlessness and vigilantism type behavior, I'm awaiting the announcement of Pakistan to say: hey we had 51 killed in an act of war and we are going to invade India.

Or again.. Turkey to invade Iraq...

Or again.. China to invade Taiwan.

And civilized countries should be saying that these invasions and unlawful acts are that!! Unlawful.

This whole historical show has been like watching the movie Gone with the Wind when all the hayseeds wanted to rush off to war in the beginning of the movie... and now I see the 'semanatics' of well... we can of course torture, but lets not admit it into court as torture, lets hold other countries to the rules of these international conventions when it comes to US personnel, a sort of "Animal Farm" adjuducation of the law that puts the US on the slippery slope of where we find ourselves today.

After 911 the US could have led an international effort against assymetric terror, but that wasn't what was politically desired. Now we increasingly find ourselves isolated and with coalitions formed as a consequence of our behavior that is contrary to the US hegemony that we enjoyed.

If he says yes, then he obligates himself to investigate the man who has nominated him and arrest him for a crime that could put him in prison for 20 years. They could empower the Inspector General's offices to hire their own prosecutors, who could bring criminal charges on behalf of the United States. Then all you'd have to fix is the fact that the typical IG is a loyal servant of the President.

Senator: "Is waterboarding a person torture so that it violates the Constitution?"

Mukasey: "Dude! Tricky question. It depends on which constitution."

Sen: "What?"

M: "You know, like the public one or the secret one. (Receiving blank looks) You know, the secret Consti ... don't you guys know about that?"

Sen: "No."

M: "Oh yeah, it's pretty cool. So DOJ issued this secret legal opinion saying that in times of 'emergency' a secret higher Constitution could come into effect. It applies mainly to the, um, Executive branch. Pretty cool, huh? (pause) Say, I hope I didn't let any cats out of the bag or anything ...."

Sen: (stunned) "Can we see that DOJ opinion?"

M: "Oh no, it's secret. But I believe it's well-grounded in law, I think it goes back to Roman law or something where it was o.k. to put in an Emperor every now and then. Sort of an analogy."

Sen: "Well can we see this second, I mean secret, Constitution you referred to?"

M: "No, no, it's secret obviously. And anyway it only applies to a few people, and I'm pretty sure you're not one."

Sen: (gathering himself) "So are you saying that waterboarding is not torture?"

M: "Well that's why I said it was a tricky question. If you or ordinary citizens waterboard someone, darn right it's torture and you'll be thrown in jail. But if the secret Constitution applies to you, then waterboarding's o.k. See, that's why the secret Constitution is needed, so people don't get wrongly accused of breaking the law. They're only breaking the public Constitution, not the secret one."

Sen: (slightly dazed) "Well, who says which ... which constitution applies to whom? Who says there's an 'emergency'?"

M: "He Who Cannot Be Named."

Sen: (angry now) "What the fu**?! You mean George Bush says he gets to decide that?"

M: (chuckling) "Oh no, no. Not him, he's not that smart you know. No, I mean He Who Cannot Be Named. (seeing blank looks, drops his voice to whisper, looks around nervous) ... you know ... cheney."

Are confirmation hearings torture?

Hquain at 1:24 pm has it.

I also watched this exchange and was amazed by it. The spectre of all these people going around saying they're not torture experts and therefore can't come out one way or the other is just incredible.

The question worth pondering is, what MAKES a person an expert on torture? Having done it a lot? And do we really need that person's opinion about whether we ought to be doing it?

Seems to me the torture amateurs gotta take a stand here.

the bush administration is corruped as any i have heard of before. these people all need to be run out of office. or better yet, waterborded, of course they dont do that. in a pigs eye they dont.

How much lower can Bush bring down this great county ? Can we last another year with Bush .

What is missing here, among so many other things, is human warmth and empathy. It does not require having been tortured to imagoine oneself in such a dire circumstance, to feel and to KNOW what is torture.

This administration has, since before its official beginning, been peopled by the sort of human being one would never invite into one's home. The kind of people these are is so intractably without empathy - characterologically sick - there is no point arguing logically or in questioning anyone past the sort of answers given by the current nominee. Nor should anyone - ANYONE - whose name is submitted by this heinous administration be confirmed, under any circumstance. All questions of such people should bring the nominee immediately to the most crucial subjects, at which point the answers will cause the confirmation process to end immediately.

Better to leave more positions unfilled - in addition to the dozens open and (mis)managed by "acting" heads (like the ones who left) - in order to, if nothihg else, shut down every single "win" the administration tries to secure for itself.

Just say, "No."

This is happening all over again and then we will hear "If I knew then what I know now...." When will these idiots learn that we can't approve these people on the evidence of their strict loyalty to a real loser as is our imbecile of a president. IMPEACH NOW!!!!

Its appearent the Democrats are just as ignorant as Mukasey. This sorry excuse of a man who refused to answer a simple question should not even be considered.
Instead! the Idiots on the Democratic side should put up the Names of the Fired US Attorneys to the Idiot in the White House and tell this Clown to take his pick. And tell him these are the only names that will ever be considered.

Helo !!! You not have adult friend finder ?
Women's and man's, see this [url=http://friendsf.itinto.us/adultfriendfinder/][/url]
Good luck !

[url=http://www.oniitm.ru/]Ñêëàäñêîå îáîðóäîâàíèå[/url]

So he won't give a straight answer. Fine, stop asking him straight questions.
Something like:
"Do you feel that it was appropriate that a Nazi* soldier, who waterboarded prisoners, was charged with and convicted of war crimes for that act and subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison?"

*Most references I have seen in the main stream media to that trial consistently refer to the soldier as "a German soldier" rather than "a Nazi soldier".
To my mind, we have to slap that equivocation down, and hard.
First, it smears members of the current German military, who are demonstrably NOT Nazis and should be clearly distinguished from those who were.
Second, it puts space between the fact that Nazis engaged in "enhanced interrogation techniques" which included water-boarding, which serves to obfuscate the repugnance of the practice.

http://teenorgasmworld.info/2.html

http://thepicsxxxguide.info/1.html

http://groupxxxworld.info/1.html