« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Dems Give Mukasey a Waterboarding Primer
In response to Michael Mukasey's professed ignorance as to what waterboarding is, all eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have sent Mukasey a detailed primer on the centuries-old torture technique. It includes some surprising historical details: did you know, for instance, that during the occupation of Japan, the U.S. prosecuted Japanese soldiers who waterboarded U.S. POWs?
You can read the letter here. But we thought we should do our part to educate Mukasey as well. So here's a waterboarding reenactment, courtesy of Keith Olbermann:
The Senators write, "Please respond to the following question: Is the use of waterboarding, or inducing the misperception of drowning, as an interrogation technique illegal under U.S. law, including treaty obligations?" During the hearing, Mukasey would only reply: "If it amounts to torture, then it is not Constitutional."
Comments (164)
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 3:23 PM:Answer: No.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 3:30 PM:Does it really matter? Lieberman (ID-CT) and enough Democrats are going to vote to confirm Mukasey anyways.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 3:35 PM:Keep in mind that there are MANY actions by government officials that would be "illegal" if done by private citizens: exigent searches, arrests, use of deadly force, etc. Again, the U.S. does not torture.
P J Evans wrote on October 23, 2007 3:39 PM:Jake D
We do torture.
Fides wrote on October 23, 2007 3:42 PM:STFU.
Jake,
Do you really think that waterboarding isn't torture? Don't just assert that "the U.S. does not torture" when you lack the courage to state what you mean by the term.
Bear in mind, what the Japanese soldiers did was likely 'legal' in terms of the Japanese legal system in regards to treatment of prisoners. (Japan, notably, had not signed the Geneva conventions, even.) And yet, the U.S., at the time, found the practice so abhorrent that we chose to prosecute.
Now, right wing apologists offer up Jake's circular reason. If we do it, it must not be torture, because we don't torture. They will never come out and say "I do not believe waterboarding to be torture", because some of them have some sense of, if not decency, at least some sense of shame left.
David in NY wrote on October 23, 2007 3:43 PM:Jake, you need to lean that the kind of argument you're making, "It isn't torture, but if it is torture it's still OK because government officials can do illegal stuff, ..." is pathetically weak. Suggests you're being dishonest, actually.
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 3:43 PM:Jake D. IS a torture!
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 3:45 PM:Waterboarding, short of "intentional infliction of severe pain" is not torture. Any other questions?
Tom wrote on October 23, 2007 3:47 PM:After considerable research and thought, I came to realize that the only reason people torture is because they get enjoyment from the act of torturing.
Susan wrote on October 23, 2007 3:48 PM:"If it amounts to torture, then it is not Constitutional."
What a lame non-answer.
Followup question: "Mr. Mukasey, if you were told by the President that a given technique did not amount to torture, would you ever consider disagreeing with him?"
Heh.
And if he answers yes: "What would you do next?"
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 3:49 PM:David in NY:
I never stated that "torture is O.K." -- I was making an analogous distinction with other activities that are legal when government officials do it in furtherance of official duties vs. individuals who, obviously, cannot kidnap or shoot to kill (absent very specific circumstances).
BTW: how much do you think the Senators' letter will go for on eBay?
John Woods wrote on October 23, 2007 3:52 PM:Jake,
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 3:53 PM:there's a great job just waiting for you and your fascist ilk at Auschwitz.
Again, does any of this really matter, since enough Democrats are going to vote to confirm Mukasey anyways?
Craig Huber wrote on October 23, 2007 3:53 PM:Yes, Jake.
When they come and waterboard you, will it be torture?
Bushie wrote on October 23, 2007 3:54 PM:What's the fuss about anyway? The confirmation is a done deal. With Constitutional stalwarts such as Specter Leahy and Feinstein on the committee, why worry. Jeesh, anyone is better than Alberto, just ask them.
AmIDreaming wrote on October 23, 2007 3:57 PM:But part of the point of the Bill of Rights is that all sorts of activities, if carried out by officials of the government, aren't just illegal. They *unconstitutional*. You can't legislate that away without changing the Constitution.
Swearing to uphold the Constitution isn't a matter of pure personal judgement.
Randall wrote on October 23, 2007 3:58 PM:Jake: Waterboarding is torture by law (statute, treaty, & case law). Your contention that it is not is erroneous. Neither you nor me nor GWB can declare otherwise. And contrary to Bush & Cheney, we are a nation of laws not of men.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 3:59 PM:There's a tour guide opening, John?
dasher wrote on October 23, 2007 4:01 PM:Even if Mukasy is going to be confirmed "anyway", it's important to pin him down on this issue. At the very least, it will expose to all just what sort of creature we're dealing with as AG.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 4:01 PM:Craig:
Not unless it meets the criteria I posted above. If the person waterbaording me knows I am innocent, there's a bunch of other problems with that.
owenz wrote on October 23, 2007 4:02 PM:Once upon a time in America, a form of punishment so physically distressing that it breaks the will of the average healthy man within a matter of minutes would be defined as torture.
Now, we go by the KGB definition: not if it doesn't leave a mark.
Brian wrote on October 23, 2007 4:04 PM:Why isn't there a law that anyone who says 'X isn't torture' must agree to be 'X'ed (or to present credible evidence that has been done to them in the past). Why not, if it's not torture?
I saw the segment on Olbermann, I've gone through safety training for kayaks (where you're flipped upside down and in a confined space), and I have no doubt that people's guts react as though they are drowning. I know how I reacted in the kayak... and I'm someone who loves swimming underwater.
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 4:05 PM:Yes, Jake, you can tour guide. I assume you're talking 1944?
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 4:07 PM:Otherwise, no decent human being would allow you close to those hallowed grounds.
Randall:
Please cite said law that specifically outlaws "waterboarding." Even the current legislation attempting to generically define "torture" as the "intentional infliction of severe pain" does not provide an objective line between what is criminal and what is not because no one among the attorneys and war fighters has the same understanding of what this definition means. Thus, any "law" you cite in the current regime is obviously unworkable.
dasher:
How about we instead have a full and public debate about the use of alleged "torture" (including loud music and too much A/C) and what specific terrorist attacks have been prevented since 9/11? Then we can "expose" the traitor Defeatocrats for the creatures they are.
johnnydoughey wrote on October 23, 2007 4:08 PM:Sadly, but whether or not waterboarding is torture, or whether or not torture is really torture is becoming a mute point.
As long as we continue to elect folks into our government who's station and wealth in life is more important than our democracy, those at the top levels will continue to do as they please without consequences... whether it be torture or not.
"We the People" however will be paying more and more consequences in the future for attempting to stop them... IMHO
Legalize wrote on October 23, 2007 4:09 PM:You didn't examine any "criteria," Jake. You mearly stated the rule - incorrectly of course - and declared that waterboarding doesn't qualify as torture if it doesn't meet that rule. That's not an argument; it's a lame, tired, mealy-mouthed conclusory statement.
Jake D = TORTURE wrote on October 23, 2007 4:10 PM:Jake D = Torture
We at tpm do not torture. Therefore Jake D is not a law-abiding community member.
eli wrote on October 23, 2007 4:10 PM:Anyone who suggests waterboarding is not torture should be willing to undergo a session, just to demonstrate how innocuous it really is.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 4:11 PM:No, Anonymous, I am speaking about the present-day 2007. That's where I, and the rest of non-medicated human beings, live. How about you find enough courage to use your real name next time?
brian wrote on October 23, 2007 4:13 PM:The guy defending waterboarding in here is a PAID troll working for the Republicans. Sick and getting sicker.
Our country has become permanently tweaked by what happened six years ago.
The Blackwater guys will soon be working Stateside, carrying guns on our streets, and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. Neat way to circumvent our 'quaint' laws.
Torturous Jake D wrote on October 23, 2007 4:14 PM:You, Jake - real name or not, constitute torture on this blog.
Go torture somewhere else!
Tony P. wrote on October 23, 2007 4:15 PM:Mukasey should have been asked:
"If the Iranians were to subject an American they suspect of being a CIA officer to waterboarding, would you say that Iran is NOT engaging in torture?"
Of course Mukasey would have a good, lawyerlike answer. Loyal Bushies are not fettered by such trivial considerations as logical consistency. They are prepared to torture the English language too.
-- TP
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 4:16 PM:eli:
That sounds like a great idea -- I never said that waterboarding is "innocuous" though -- how about we do that right after any of you who support aborting human fetus have one performed on you instead?
linda wrote on October 23, 2007 4:16 PM:of course, for real impact the democrats could have had a similar videotape available and given mukasey a public lesson. but, nooooooo. they write another fucking letter.
awesome! leadership.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 4:19 PM:brian:
I am defending waterboarding, but I'm retired and don't get paid by Republicans OR Democrats anymore.
Gussie wrote on October 23, 2007 4:19 PM:Jake D:
I guess I'm having trouble telling if you're serious. You think that waterboarding, short of "intentional infliction of severe pain" is not torture?
Really?
I mean ... really?
I guess I don't know what else to say. Like, if you heard that I grabbed a kid off the nearby college campus and waterboarded him repeatedly until he screamed for mercy, you wouldn't consider that torture?
And yes, I know that the gov't has powers I don't. I'm just a bit flummoxed by your denial that the repeated "intentional infliction of severe distress" is not torture. I can't tell if you're denying this because of your political sympathies, or if you really think there is no equivalence, here.
We were wrong to prosecute Japanese for waterboarding?
Raoul B wrote on October 23, 2007 4:22 PM:WAKE UP EVERYONE. JAKE D IS AN INSTIGATOR. NO GOOD WILL COME OF ARGUING. TALK AROUND HIM. HE IS A PLANT.
Raoul B wrote on October 23, 2007 4:24 PM:WAKE UP EVERYONE. JAKE D IS AN INSTIGATOR. NO GOOD WILL COME OF ARGUING. TALK AROUND HIM. HE IS A PLANT.
al in la wrote on October 23, 2007 4:24 PM:Jake:
I'm been watch this back-and-fourth and all I want to know is this:
Do YOU Mr. Jake, think waterboarding amounts to touture? Are you comfortable having it done in your name?
(Please begin by saying "yes" or "no"--because there ain't no middle ground on this.)
(BTW: I did like the "tour guide" line. That was cleaver.)
Jbill wrote on October 23, 2007 4:25 PM:Notice that the discussion torture is about which as yet unspecified techniques are against the law and which other (as yet unspecidied) acts are not against the law. While a resaonable person may feel that their own application of these techniques are abhorent to them personally, they are protected by the law. In other words, it is not the person administring torture, it is the Law doing so.
The Law allows it so it is therefore acceptable.
Bokonon wrote on October 23, 2007 4:26 PM:Actually, I think we should thank Jake D for coming here today and reminding us what the problem is.
Clearly, there are many Americans who are willing to do as Jake D. is doing -- making legalistic claims that you can do a torture technique like waterboarding short of an "intentional infliction of severe pain".
So it only LOOKS like torture but somehow isn't torture ... legally.
Soft waterboarding.
"Lite" waterboarding, even.
So, Jake, let me put the question to you. Since you are in favor of "lite" waterboarding ... what if half measures like "lite" waterboarding isn't painful and extreme enough to make a terrorist fess up? What if there is a ticking time bomb, and the lives of innocents are at risk ... and here YOU are, hiding before your cute little legalisms! You lack the GUTS to go all the way! I question your patriotism, sir! The blood of innocent people is ON YOUR HANDS due to your namby-pamby half measures!
That is, if you really believe your own talking points.
-- Bokonon
Randall wrote on October 23, 2007 4:27 PM:Jake:
1-U.N. Convention Against Torture
2-Universal Declaration of Human Rights
3-U.S. Army Field Manual
4-U.S. v Asano (1947)
5-USC 18:2340
6-Geneva Conventions (1949)
7-Rome Statutes (1998)
Your tortured defense of torture is mind boogling and reminds one of Germany 1933-1938. As Nuremberg made clear, tortured, legalistic defenses are no defense at all.
John W wrote on October 23, 2007 4:28 PM:Actually Jake, I used both my first and last names, which someone here at TPM converted to "Anonymous." It was evidently a kindly gesture, but when I call a fascist a fascist I am happy to name my own name. And you, sir, are a fascist, in your heart and in your soul.
Bokonon wrote on October 23, 2007 4:30 PM:And funny thing, Jake D. ... I've seen that same "I'm retired" line get used by other trolls on other comment boards.
Is that one of the talking points they hand out to you guys at the office?
Or was that you, posting in multiple places as different people.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 4:31 PM:Gussie:
We were not wrong to prosecute the Japs (but, then again, I don't think we were wrong to drop A-bombs on them either and that position is going out of style now too) because they intentionally attempted to cause severe pain and even death. Here's what I'm saying: if Congress wants to outlaw some particular method of "torture" let's describe in detail the individual interrogation techniques which it wants to be unlawful and have a full and open debate.
By and large, politicians are cowards, regardless of party. The GOP in Congress fear the hammering in the MSM they will get for supporting "torture." However, when talking to the voters, nearly every single GOP Presidential candidate supported using coercive methods to thunderous applause. Contrast that with the verbal gymnastics the Dem candidates use to avoid talking directly about this issue. (I believe this is one of the reasons why they dodge Fox News debates).
I am confident that a majority of voters feel like I do on this particular issue. If I am wrong, I can live with that as well. However, I am tired of this debate being largely limited to lawyers and scared bureaucrats. Let us get it out into the open and make a decision. I will start with this -- which of these techniques are you willing to outlaw (they are all mentioned in the letter above):
1) Complete Submersion in water;
2) Water Forced into Mouths;
3) Place Cloth over Face or into mouth and pour water into nostrils; or
4) Cellophane Over Face and water poured over head without any water entering the mouth
I would love to see Kennedy & Co argue why we should be giving up these interrogation techniques and see what the People think of this argument and make their own decision. How about we toss in the Chinese water-drip torture technique as a control?
Next, we run footage of 9/11 for those who have forgotten. Then, have the CIA testify how they broke the architect of 9/11 in less than 2 minutes of waterboarding and rolled up several al Qaeda cells and prevented a series of follow on al Qaeda attacks. THEN, let's see how the People want to proceed in the future.
I have no fear of an open debate. Do you?
bent wrote on October 23, 2007 4:33 PM:Problem is: The law does not allow water boarding, and indeed, the US has condemned the practice repeatedly -
Here is a sample from wikipedia on waterboarding - if you don't like wikipedia, just google waterboarding and law. All kinds of things turn up.
International law
All countries that are signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subjected to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition, and as such there exists no legal exception under this treaty. (The treaty states, No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.) Additionally, signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also agreed to its Article 5, which states, No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
[edit] United States
* On September 6, 2006, the United States Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The department adopted the manual amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA.[40] Nevertheless, under international law any person violating the laws of war is criminally liable under the command responsibility and could still be prosecuted for war crimes.[41]
* In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, [42] and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject.
* In an older case, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, in 1947 for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.[43] The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."[44]
So, while Jake D might dig all the attention he gets from taking a relativistic stance, this really is a no-brainer. Water Boarding has been recognized in both the US and in International Law as torture.
IWannaBeABlackwaterBabe wrote on October 23, 2007 4:34 PM:Jakie wrote: "Please cite said law that specifically outlaws "waterboarding."
Jakie: There are numerous statutes that outlaw cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, including the much publicized McCain amendment of 2006. Such treatment is also prohibited by the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments of the constitution. Such treatment is also prohibited by numerous international treaties signed by the United States, such as the Geneva Conventions.
To argue that waterboarding is legal, you would need to argue that waterboarding is not cruel, not inhumane, and not degrading. Only a true whackjob would argue that causing a prisoner to believe he is about to be killed via drowning is not cruel, not inhumane, and not degrading.
In summary, you Jakie, are a true whackjob. Thank you for entertaining us.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 4:35 PM:Bokonon, John W., Randall, and al in la:
Please read my post to Gussie, and let me know if you still have any questions.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 4:39 PM:I have only posted as Jake online. I cannot speak intelligently as to the retirement status of anyone else.
Hank Essay wrote on October 23, 2007 4:39 PM:Torture doesn't work. That is the biggest problem with it.
IT DOESN'T WORK.
Molly Ivins wrote on October 23, 2007 4:44 PM:-
Raise Hell!
and don't feed the trolls, no matter how cute and cuddly they may seem.
Fake Jake wrote on October 23, 2007 4:44 PM:Jake is a fake. Jake cannot be trusted. He was banned from this site. And before that he promised to leave if Cindy did not run.
So Jake is living on borrowed time. At least as a poster at this site.
Take your torture toys and go home, buddy!
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 4:44 PM:Fine, for the purpose of this argument, I will also formally recognize "submersion of the head in water" as torture -- the U.S. doesn't do that though -- see the FOUR other "waterboarding" techniques listed above.
Gussie wrote on October 23, 2007 4:47 PM:So waterboarding intentionally attempted to cause severe pain when committed by Japanese, but not by Americans?
Are you saying we were right to prosecute the Japanese for the act of waterboarding but that the same act is permissible when we do it--or that that acts are somehow different?
I'm not sure the Democratic candidates have been quite so meek on this as you think. In fact, they've come out strongly against.
Bill Richardson: "Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America."
John Edwards talks about "interrogation techniques long considered torture, such as cold cell treatment and waterboarding."
And plenty more. Even Clinton. They're all pretty damn clear if you spend twenty minutes on Google. Even on this very site, you'll fine some answers. So no, they're not vague. You just haven't looked.
I would outlaw -all- of those you mentioned. In fact, I believe they all are -already- criminal. In addition to being utterly worthless--actually undermining good interrogation results.
And yes, of course I'd welcome this debate. But it's made almost impossibly difficult by people who play semantic tricks. Prove that face-slapping is torture. Prove that thumbscrews are torture. Prove that needles under the fingernails are torture. That last one isn't, as it doesn't rise to the level of pain associated with organ failure.
So we can stick bamboo shoots under your fingernails and not be torturing you. Yay us!
I'm always interested in engaging someone who approaches things so differently, but I think we share so little common ground that this can't be productive. If you don't viscerally understand that waterboarding is, in fact, torture, by any meaningful definition, we're not even speaking teh same language.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 4:48 PM:Hank:
The CIA disagrees with your assessment.
Fake Jake:
When did I promise to leave "if Cindy did not run"? That doesn't even makes sense.
TheraP wrote on October 23, 2007 4:49 PM:Molly Ivins, how nice of you to haunt this site! And give good advice.
Now, Molly, please, from where you are, can you not pull some strings on behalf of trolls or their victims? Help us out here, my dear!
Heraldblog wrote on October 23, 2007 4:49 PM:Jake, I have some questions for you:
How do you know KSM gave it up after two mins of waterboarding? How do you know he was telling the truth when he started talking? How do you know his information disrupted other terror cells?
Why do most seasoned intelligence operatives tell us torture is unreliable, and the best way to get an enemy to talk us to treat him with respect and kindness? Why is the strongest opposition to torture coming from the Pentagon?
If the goal of torture is to extract useful information from an adversary, torture is clearly the least effective means of accomplishing that. So what's left, Jake? Other than your collective RedState circle jerk, I can't think of a damn thing.
Bokonon wrote on October 23, 2007 4:50 PM:Unsatisfactory, Jake. You are pulling a bait and switch. You were arguing that the U.S. does not torture. Suddenly, you are arguing that torture is popular, so people should not get in the President's way.
This isn't about "politicians being cowards" -- and this isn't about whether torture is a popular applause line with the audiences at GOP debates. And this isn't about Congress lacking the guts to once more illegalize something that is already illegal -- but which the President is ordering anyway.
You are showing your true colors -- and revealing that this is whole argument is a sham.
But I appreciate your honesty.
Jake is definitely fake wrote on October 23, 2007 4:52 PM:If Jake does not recall saying that months ago, then for sure the trolls work together as "Jake D." This exposes Jake as definitely a fake!
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 4:54 PM:Gussie:
Perhaps you are right, and we're not even speaking the same language -- I would hope most Americans after 9/11 would be O.K. with using the same, exact technique that was used on the architect of 9/11 to prevent more attacks -- I'm not sure how any American can claim that was "utterly worthless."
Have a nice day.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 4:58 PM:Heraldblog:
Well, that's what is out in the public domain, and Democrats would were evidently briefed in private have yet to dispute the public story. So, based on what we know, that's exactly what happened.
Bokonon:
I am arguing both, single-handedly, no less.
John wrote on October 23, 2007 4:59 PM:Who cares. I don't have any respect for him, or any of the other members of the Senate and House who keep leading us down a primrose path of un-American activities.
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 5:01 PM:Fake Jake:
As I said, I don't recall ever saying that (which is why I asked you for the post), but it doesn't even make sense that you are bringing it up? Cindy Sheehan is IN FACT running against Nancy Pelosi, so that means I don't have to leave, right?
www.cindyforcongress.org
busboy33 wrote on October 23, 2007 5:03 PM:@ Jake D:
What does 9-11 have to do with torturing? Torture is okay because terrorists bombed us? Is the opposite true -- if terrorists hadn't bombed us then torture would be disgusting?
You noted earlier that torturing someone when you know they are innocent would raise problems. What about if you think they are guilty of some nebulous connection to terrorism, but later found out you were given incorrect information? The fine gentlemen (Khalid el-Masri)we kidnapped in Germany and tortured for a few months. Turned out we got the wrong guy. Change your mind at all?
You are hanging on the White house definition of torture. The people attacking you in this thread are trying to point out that calling an apple a banana does not change the fact that its still an apple. By your definition (not intentionally inflict serious physical harm), I could line your family up in front of you and shoot them all in the head. I didn't cause YOU any harm, so I must not be torturing you. What's "serious physical harm"? Serious is a pretty vague term. If I cut your finger of with hedge clippers, it's only 1/10th of your fingers (1/20th if we include toes). Doesn't sound too serious to me -- it's 10 percent at most. If I tie you up and beat you repeatedly, how "serious" is that. Sure it hurts (isn't that the point?), but I'm sure many would say it's not "serious physical harm" -- after all, scars heal. Bruises go down after time. Broken bones mend.
The problem is, when you defend "we're not torturing" with "9/11!" you create a conflict. The only reason to mention 9/11 is to subtly justify why we SHOULD turture, or at least harm somebody. It's like the common wife-beating defense: "I didn't do it and she deserved it." Pick one or the other.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:03 PM:That last post to Fake Jake was from me. Sorry for any confusion.
Clairevoyant wrote on October 23, 2007 5:05 PM:trust me, Jakie boy, you're toast on this site - very soon
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:07 PM:busboy33:
Take a look at the facts around Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and then let me know how 9/11 (or worse) attacks are irrelevant to this issue.
Jon Leslie wrote on October 23, 2007 5:08 PM:The argument for legalizing torture is getting tired. If you really believe that you can torture information out of somebody that will save hundreds or thousands of lives, why be such a coward about it. Man up and accept your jail time, or execution, if you believe you can save lives. But don't whine and beg for the freedom to torture without penalty. Show a little patriotism like our soldiers do. If you can't put your life on the line for your country, at least have the spine to put some of your freedom on the line.
Stockholm Syndrome wrote on October 23, 2007 5:08 PM:Likely the troll has already been tortured and, like other captives, been brainwashed into joining the dark side. Like Patty Hearst and others. So he's agreeing with the values of his captors. And thinks this is independence of thought.
Bokonon wrote on October 23, 2007 5:09 PM:So, Jake ... in light of the fact that we are all living in the aftermath of 9/11, and it was all great and good when we waterboarded KSM and all, like you said above, why don't you just come out and say it?
You are in favor of full-on, Japanese WWII war crime, omigod-it-hurts-so-much-I-think-I'm-going-to-die waterboarding. With no caveats.
And you ALSO think that sort of waterboarding should be legal, because the public favors it and the President is fulfilling the will of the American people.
Correct?
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:14 PM:Clairevoyant:
What, am I going to get "banned"? Oh no, poor little me. You are saying that TPM (or just yourself) is scared of a full and open debate on this subject?
Burford Holly wrote on October 23, 2007 5:14 PM:Wikipedia has a brief article. Water boarding was a slo used by the Khmer Rogue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
Clairevoyant wrote on October 23, 2007 5:16 PM:You've been banned before, Jake. You just don't remember it, because you're part of a fake group, calling itself "Jake."
Banning is on its way. Nothing to do with me. Management is on it.
stephen wrote on October 23, 2007 5:17 PM:Hey Jake D How about you let someone "torture" you let's say for the intention of getting you to sign over your life savings is you have any or anything of value to you. It will be a monitored situation....maybe.....and we promise that we will only take you to the point of major organ failure until you do indeed agree to sign over. Lets see how long you can hold out. And the sign over would be non revocable. If you sgn on the dotted line you have failed and have in fact been coerced to give the answer that we would want from you. There would be time limit of say 72 hours of course there would be no clock in the room and no daylight you would have no idea where you were or what time of day it was so measuring time and how long we actually would be "questioning" you would be hard to determine. Oh yeah no one in your family would be aware that you had agreed to this test so that if you happened to die becasue you were a little to close to orgna failure and expired well to bad.
stephen wrote on October 23, 2007 5:18 PM:Hey Jake D How about you let someone "torture" you let's say for the intention of getting you to sign over your life savings is you have any or anything of value to you. It will be a monitored situation....maybe.....and we promise that we will only take you to the point of major organ failure until you do indeed agree to sign over. Lets see how long you can hold out. And the sign over would be non revocable. If you sgn on the dotted line you have failed and have in fact been coerced to give the answer that we would want from you. There would be time limit of say 72 hours of course there would be no clock in the room and no daylight you would have no idea where you were or what time of day it was so measuring time and how long we actually would be "questioning" you would be hard to determine. Oh yeah no one in your family would be aware that you had agreed to this test so that if you happened to die becasue you were a little to close to orgna failure and expired well to bad.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:18 PM:Very funny, Stockholm Syndrome.
JMOHR wrote on October 23, 2007 5:20 PM:Jake D is an ignorant fool. He is also an example of why the Republicans/conservatives find themselves in a world constrained by so many nit picking regulations.
The general outlines of torture have been well defined in modern world history. It is a crime, mala in se (the very act itself reveals its criminality). The wrongness in the act is self evident. The fact that every Judge Advocate General of the US services and every civilized country considers the act as criminal should be enough. However, the Bush administration and danger criminals such as Jake D. do not believe in the law. They believe themselves to be superior to the law and all who disagree with them. They seek to require excessive definition where a simple standard is sufficient. The purpose is to obfuscate because they know their acts are wrong.
Jake D., I have served in the military. I have taught the law of armed conflicts to soldiers and airmen who would have to follow them in war. I am disturbed by you. You are not an American. You are dangerous to this country, its liberty and the rule of law. You are the kind who will end up undermining the troops and US citizens in future conflicts by permitting similar techniques to be used against them. You are the kind of person who has always led a country into acts of depravity and criminality that will, in the end destroy its government.
Jake D., I do not understand why you hate this country. I do not understand why you spit on this country's constitution, its liberty and the rule of law.
Jake D., your belief system and logic defines you as a supporter of terrorism and war crimes.
Mitch Guthman wrote on October 23, 2007 5:23 PM:Jake,
I am still unclear about exactly what you are arguing. Could you please clarify a couple of point so that we can perhaps have an intelligent discussion as opposed to a slanging match?
First, when you say that the US does not torture, are you saying that water boarding is not torture? Or do you accept that waterboarding is indeed torture but deny that the US has engaged in waterboarding?
Second, are you alternatively claiming that modifications of domestic law such as those suggested by John Yoo or as adopted by the US Gov’t in the Military Commissions Act can shield soldiers and other government actors from convictions under international laws regarding torture and other war crimes? (i.e., waterboarding is not torture because we can define it as "not torture" under US law)
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:23 PM:Jon Leslie and Bokonon:
I'm not whining -- here's the problem though -- imagine the worst-case scenario where even you two would agree that waterboarding was necessary to prevent tens of millions of Americans from being killed. That's the hypothetical. Unfortunately, some wussy decides NOT to "Man up and accept your jail time" so he / she doesn't do it because there's no legal protection. If it could be proven that 10 seconds under cellophane would have saved MILLIONS, you are O.K. with that?
stephen:
Do you support abortion?
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:26 PM:Suckers.
Jbill wrote on October 23, 2007 5:27 PM:Also please notice, that the discussion about waterboarding is about whether it achieves the 'pain' and 'death' threshold. Not whether the technique achieves what it was designed to achieve, specifically, 'fear'. Or, dare I say it 'terror'.
Innovative eh?
horatius wrote on October 23, 2007 5:29 PM:Stop engaging this moron Jake. He's clearly too stupid to understand.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:29 PM:Mitch Guthman:
I would be happy to clarify a couple of points so that we can perhaps have an intelligent discussion as opposed to a slanging match (see above):
1) I am saying that water poured over cellophane (# 4 definition of waterboarding above) is not torture.
2) I have not looked into the legal ramifications as closely as John Yoo has, but obviously, international law is going to be twisted as much as possible to go after even President Bush as a "war criminal" (same thing happened to Kissinger after Vietnam). So?
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 5:30 PM:I am sure I can make Jake confess to committing all the crimes on 9/11. Just give me ten minutes with him and about 10 gallons of water.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:32 PM:That was the fake Jake D. at 5:26 PM.
JMOHR wrote on October 23, 2007 5:34 PM:Jake D. - there you go again. OK, you stupid fascist idiot, provide one real life example of where torture was needed to extract immediate intelligence to save millions of lives.
You f-----g fool, you must be such a coward to live in this fantasy 24 world. This is real life, it is not television. Since I have been involved in numerous interrogations (criminal) to know that it does not work and since those who are intelligence experts agree that this kind of torture fails to provide reliable intelligence, I would like to see your evidence, you experience and your qualifications.
Frank D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:35 PM:Jake D. asks, "How about we instead have a full and public debate about the use of alleged "torture" (including loud music and too much A/C) and what specific terrorist attacks have been prevented since 9/11?"
Progressive America has wanted a full and public debate since Abu Gahrib, but GWB, David Addington and Alberto Gonzo have hidden behind false claims of national security and executive priviledge...refusing to engage in this debate. Jake, write your Decider in Chief and demand a full and public debate...and when they list specific attacks prevented, don't forget to list the erroneous and misleading intel these methods have produced...and don't forget to name all those innocents who were subjected to these methods and had nothing actionable...and don't forget to mention, individually, all those who died at the hands of those applying these interrogation methods.
Then we can compare the efficacy of our efforts with the studies by CIA, British, German and Israeli intelligence
on interrogation methods.
The first place to begin is with the question, if it was being done to your mother, wife or daughter by men in a foreign country, would you consider it torture?
Would our nation be outraged if this method was being used by our enemy on one of our brave, uniformed, service members and broadcast over the evening news?
If it is effective, and doesn't constitute torture, why doesn't American law enforcement use it on our own citizens to stop the crimes in our streets and neighborhoods?
Would the use of these methods have been justified on Kenneth Lay and Enron energy traders after they stoll millions and laughed about the senior citizens in California who couldn't afford their energy bills?
Would these methods be effectively used by Iraqi authorities against Blackwater contractors to determine why innocent civilians were gunned down, and could it be used to prevent future bad acts by Blackwater agents?
Final questions, but pertaining to the doomsday fear scenario that is a far right talking point. With a "mushroom cloud" threat suspected a major, metropolitan area in the USA within the next twenty minutes, with millions of lives at risk and a suspect in hand...what would be the limit of what is morally acceptable to get that information? Can you torture the suspects wife? Can you sexually assault his children? What if he says, I will disarm the bomb if he is permitted to sexually assault the Cheney family? Do you have a deal? Is it justified to kill 200,000 innocent people to save 1MM? Can you kill 200,000 innocent Iraqis to save 20,000 Americans? How many women and children can we kill and justify as collateral damage to secure energy vital to our national security?
horatius wrote on October 23, 2007 5:36 PM:Looks like 10 gallons of water is all that it takes to save millions of Americans from Jake D. I vote for waterboarding Jake D.
MsInformed wrote on October 23, 2007 5:39 PM:Even if something evil works....it does not make it not-evil.
Jake D. just does this shit to derail constructive conversation about the topic. Guess that's what they pay him for.
JMOHR wrote on October 23, 2007 5:39 PM:Jake D. wants to use John Yoo as his source for the law. Once again showing that you have very little background or reasoning.
Pouring water over cellophane is torture even under US law. It makes the individual believe that they are in fact drowning. Gosh - pain equivalent to major injury or death. It also constituted a mock execution. Oh yes, Jake apparently will not consider the Geneva convention.
For your information Jake, Hitler and the NAZI's were able to find an attorney to write such opinions as Yoo. Great company - fool.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:49 PM:Frank D.:
That's not fair, because up until now, I've also tried to convince my fellow Americans that spelling out exactly what the terrorists can expect during interrogations was counter-productive -- that was before I realized the Defeatocrats actually want the U.S. to lose the war against terrorism for their own political gain -- therefore, I am now open to a full debate including what terrorist attacks have been prevented. If there was any erroneous and misleading intel these methods produced, we should learn from those mistakes as well. Then we can answer all the questions.
MsInformed:
I will agree that IF something evil works, that does not make it not-evil -- I don't get paid to post here though -- do you?
Frank D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:49 PM:Jake D.: Oil is a vital resource crucial to our quality of life. Without secured reserves, our costs would be through the rough and our economy seriously ruined. Does this justify invading a sovereign country and building permenant bases to protect this vital national security? Sometimes we kill innocents because of the economic threat to our national well being. And, sometimes a women makes a very personal decision, terminating an innocent life, justified by the equally daunting economic perdicament. Are there alternatives, like adoption? Or, banning the use of SUV's and mandating all cars sold in the USA get 50 mpg. Some people just don't want to make the sacrifice...and the killing of innocents is a result. Then again, there are those who have been raped or their life is in jeopardy...underwhich circumstances it is perfectly alright to torture or abort.
ckelly wrote on October 23, 2007 5:51 PM:Waterboarding, short of "intentional infliction of severe pain" is not torture. Any other questions?
Just one. Then why did the U.S. prosecute Japanese soldiers who waterboarded U.S. POWs?
I am speaking about the present-day 2007. That's where I, and the rest of non-medicated human beings, live.
Geez, I thought Jake was living in prehistoric times...his comments have that neanderthal ring.
horatius wrote on October 23, 2007 5:56 PM:10 gallons of water (need not even be potable), and I'll make Jake D confess to being the sole perpetrator of 9/11.
I'll even throw in a few future attacks.
Should we save the country or not?
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:58 PM:Frank D.:
Yes and no -- not necessarily in that order ; )
SocraticGadfly wrote on October 23, 2007 6:01 PM:Jake, instead of trolling, you might want to research THE LAW, The CIA didn't, and that's why, against people like Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the FBI is two years on in cleaning up CIA shit.
And, spare me the "it's not a crime if we commit it bullshit."
If this was Clinton as president, you'd be all over this.
here wrote on October 23, 2007 6:02 PM:i do not wish torture to be used in any form by our government or anyone acting on our behalf. however, i was actually unclear about the "relative badness" concering the version of water torture which doesn't involve any actual water entering the person's nose or mouth.
the thing that cinched it for me though was thinking about forcing a detainee to play russian roulette or dry clicking a revolver to their head. this seems largely analogous: if the gun is unloaded but the detainee believes their is a round in the gun, they are in no way in any danger, but i'd definitely consider it torture.
Jon Leslie wrote on October 23, 2007 6:06 PM:JMOHR probably has the best response I've heard in a long time about the pro torture crowd. Thank you for the reminder.
As for the "save a million lives by torturing one guy" routine. Go ahead and torture him/her. If you believe so stridently that you are right, why be so terrified of a little jail time? Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 6:09 PM:Jake D. Just to review, you said "yes" to taking innocent lives to preserve your economic comfort. Just so we are clear on that. Your Savior will be having a conversation with your conscience about that...and you better hope it is before you reach the pearly gates.
jedermann wrote on October 23, 2007 6:11 PM:Since waterboarding is not torture, leaves no mark and virtually always works, I think that it should become our standard interrogation technique. It is extremely efficient – reportedly no one has held out for more than about two minutes. Our top people in the intelligence trade swear by the accuracy of its results.
By standard I mean universally used for routine questioning by local police, for job interviews and what have you. (I am sure if you were to think about it a little you could come up with all kinds of uses for it). The government could protect our individual rights by regulating its use to make sure that it is not abused (whatever that means, ha, ha!) and to make sure that aprons and clean towels are provided. With common usage the stigma would soon be removed and I know that in time we would all come to accept it as one of those little things we do here that keeps us all safe.
hotkarlrove wrote on October 23, 2007 6:14 PM:Thanks for the great responses JMOHR.
Ignore Jake , he's a troll. Look at all of the attention he get's , just like a whining child.
As with children it's best to ignore the whining. No amount of logic and reason will change this behavior.
I've saved 3 people from drowning and they were in a mess afterwards. I've also been held under after some rather nasty wipeouts.
Ad Absurdum wrote on October 23, 2007 6:26 PM:Let me tell you anything close to drowning is pure hell.
Any human who "fake" drowns someone is a torturer PERIOD.
There are those who will place the war of the moment over our values as a nation.
Just as we ask the fundies, "Who would Jesus hate?", I ask the wingnuts, "Who would George Washington have tortured?"
jedermann wrote on October 23, 2007 6:26 PM:Jake? Come on in for an "interview". Oh, and bring a change of clothes; the aprons haven't come in yet.
Ad Absurdum wrote on October 23, 2007 6:31 PM:If Democrats want the US to fail in Iraq or in the so-called war on terror, then the Republicans and this administration are amazingly obliging.
kathy wrote on October 23, 2007 6:37 PM:well hell, it it ain't torture like everyone says...let the house and senate...all of them experience it all and then decide...it if ain't torture! sorta like the police experience the tazers before they use em!
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 6:45 PM:Kathy:
Do you support abortion?
Frank D. wrote on October 23, 2007 6:45 PM:Jake D. - just so we are clear, you said a 5:58 pm "YES" it is moral to kill innocent women and children so you (America) don't suffer the discomfort of scarce oil. Maybe you should reflect on that before your Savior judges you.
Jonnan wrote on October 23, 2007 6:49 PM:Just for the record, as Jake the Troll said 'The CIA disagrees with your assessment' re: the effectiveness of torture.
Actually, the CIA evaluated the efficacy of torture as a method in the 1950's, when these exact same arguments were being made. Their results came out exactly the same as seems intuitively obvious to me, as a liberal - torture was ineffective, the information was inaccurate.
I can find the report when I get home (posting from work), and will try to remember to cite references when I have them, but the reports have been declassified for decades now - you can probably find them on the internet.
It bothers me that I have to concede it would be a harder question if there was evidence torture worked - I like to think I would be moral regardless, and it bothers me that I have to rely on CIA 'tests' from the fifties that obviously involved actually torturing people. That said - knowing that the CIA did this immoral thing, tracked the results, and verified that is DOES NOT WORK, makes it an easy decision.
Torture: Incompetent, unethical, and ineffective. Look George, you hit the Trifecta.
Austere wrote on October 23, 2007 6:57 PM:Jake D.
Do you support the torture and/or killing of innocent life?
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 6:59 PM:Frank D.:
I actually said "Yes and no -- not necessarily in that order" (although I think I did post earlier that I was O.K. with Truman dropping two A-bombs to kill innocent women and children too -- where do you stand on that one?).
Jonnan:
I would appreciate the reference, but perhaps you've heard that the CIA waterboarded Khalid Sheik Muhammad?
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 7:03 PM:Austere:
In case you missed it, yes -- for instance, I was O.K. with Truman dropping two A-bombs on Japan -- where do you stand on that one?
Gone medieval wrote on October 23, 2007 7:16 PM:Jake's right.
It's only torture if you wear a back leather hood when you do it. Throw in a leather vest with silver studs and there's no debate at all. Otherwise, it's just a fraternity prank.
Why is it that those who, like Jake, defend these abominations as manly, necessary and effective demonstrations of their power and righteousness are always the first to wet the bed at the slightest sign of danger?
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 7:17 PM:@ Jake D:
"Take a look at the facts around Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and then let me know how 9/11 (or worse) attacks are irrelevant to this issue."
Any particular facts I should notice aside from the fact that he's a bastard? I'm serious . . . what facts are you trying to highlight to me?
by the way, that hardly addresses anything else I said, except of course to justify torturing people:
"See, people want to hurt us, so we better hurt them first to find out about it. Y'know, the ticking bomb idea."
FYI, under the old rules (pre-torture-is-the-American-way), it was perfectly acceptable to torture someone under the "ticking bomb in a school and the suspect has the deactivation code" scenario. It's called defense of others.
What you're arguing is somebody somewhere doesn't like America, and may try (or will probably try) to harm an American(s) in the future (This has been true since America was founded, incidentally). Based on that, we better torture everybody we're not 100% sure will not harm us, on the statistically unlikely off chance we randomly torture someone who does indeed know about that ticking bomb (that doesn't exist yet). All the innocents we torture along the way (Mr. Masri), well, I'm sure they understand.
Under this idea, the only time that torture is unacceptable is if its just for sport. The North Vietnameese torturing American prisoners would be perfectly acceptable -- after all, we're sure that the GIs were intending to harn their citizens and their government. I'm sure Senator McCain can appreciate that. You're not endorsing their behavior, are you? You said prosecuting the Japaneese for waterboarding was acceptable -- even though they were doing it to people who wanted to harm them and their country. Why was it bad? Let me guess -- they were POWs, and the people we kidnap are "unlawful enemy combatants", so it's okay. Therefore, the problem wasn't that they were torturing American GIs . . . the problem was they didn't re-define the status of the prisoners?
You asked me to look at the facts around K. Mohammed. Will you do the same for Mr. Masri? Or just ignore all this and spout another psuedo-subtle appeal to vengence?
here wrote on October 23, 2007 7:23 PM:Jonnan,
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 7:27 PM:assuming the torturer knew the answers to the questions they were asking, and they knew they had someone who could answer them, sure it could work.
on the otherhand, mob and vigilante justice sometimes works too. or just shooting every third person in a line of people.
the problem then is that the failures and abuses of such a system are far too common and the results of those failures are very very nasty.
so we can't just consider the efficacy of a technique in terms of true positives (ie actually having a terrorist with information), but also false positives (an innocent person subjected).
the big issue though, is that it can be difficult to tell a false confession from a real one, and you have limited resources to chase down leads.
this situation has already happened in the recent case of the egyptian man in NY.
Once TPM starts a thread about Masri and all other Gitmo prisoners who were released but then CAUGHT AGAIN fighting the U.S. on the battlefield, I would be happy to discuss that as well.
here wrote on October 23, 2007 7:27 PM:Off-topic: it's nice that TPM provides a forum complete with complimentary whipping boy to take your anger out on.
It gives me a cathartic sense of closure that just reading the news fails to provide.
george h. wrote on October 23, 2007 7:28 PM:The troll has been banned from this site and he keeps finding a way back. Time to ignore him. I for one don't give a fuck what he says or thinks.
Bottom line here is that POTUS likely personally approved waterboarding and other illegal techniques of torture. When he was recently asked the definition of torture, he couldn't even choke out a simple meaning. Andrew Sullivan remarked on this today, and called Bush a War Criminal. Damn right.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 7:39 PM:here:
You're welcome : )
busboy33 wrote on October 23, 2007 7:47 PM:@ Jake:
"Once TPM starts a thread about Masri and all other Gitmo prisoners who were released but then CAUGHT AGAIN fighting the U.S. on the battlefield, I would be happy to discuss that as well."
Masri kidnapped in Germany, flown to parts unknown, tortured, then released because he wasn't a terrorist? That guy? The one that was just in front of the Supreme Court? Caught on the battlefield, you say? Care to cite anything, or is this more of your made up crap?
So . . . .basically you're a punk, then? Shame. It seemed you actually were trying to express your views, but clearly not. You seem to love to throw things out into the pool, but refuse to answer questions of those beliefs. I'm almost tempted to ask you questions about abortion, just to watch you clam up about that.
Jon Leslie wrote on October 23, 2007 7:49 PM:I knew it! Jake D is actually an intern at TPM.
thanks for the whipping boy guys!
Who would George Washington waterboard? LOL
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 7:56 PM:I'm getting a bumper sticker...
busboy33:
By all means, please ask about abortion. I also stated above Masri (assuming he is innocent) AND other terrorists we release and we've caught fighting again -- I'm not claiming that Masri was caught on the battlefield -- he's no so "innocent" though:
First of all, there does seem to be an unfortunate similarity in El-Masri's name to an ACTUAL al Qaeda terrorist. So, things did not start out on the right foot. However, it seems that the German government probably knew all about this "abduction" from the get go. On December 17, 2005, Front magazine published an article that said a member of a German Intelligence Agency had clandestinely passed a copy of El-Masri's dossier to the CIA in April of 2004. Maybe this guy is not as "innocent" as the LA Times wants you to believe:
1) A report on March 2, 2006, claimed that El-Masri may have been a leader of a radical Lebanese group "El-Tawhid" during the early 1980s -- the time of the Lebanese Civil War. The Arabic name for the Levantine Druze ethnic group is '"Ahl al-Tawhid". German reports assert that El-Masri reported his being a member of "El-Tawhid" or "Al-Tawhid" when he applied to Germany for refugee status, in 1985 -- a reference either to the civil war group or his ethnic identity. The reference to "El-Tawhid" may have been confused with the group Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi lead, Al Qaeda in Iraq, used to be called "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad". "Al-Tawhid" translates simply as "monotheism". "Ahl al-Tawhid", the Druze's name for themselves, translates as "people of monotheism". "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad", the former name for Zarqawi's group, translates as the "movement for monotheism and struggle".
2) On May 18, 2006, a U.S. federal court dismissed the suit brought by El-Masri, agreeing that the trial could jeopardize national security. To me, that's more important than any single person's claimed "innocence" or not. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal; as you noted, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case (even though it only take four liberal activists to grant cert.)
3) On May 17, 2007, El-Masri was again arrested on suspicion of arson and assault. According to Die Welt Online (in German) the problem arose over a dispute over an iPod that El-Masri had bought at a METRO warehouse club store back in April in the Bavarian city of Neu-Ulm. He claimed the iPod malfunctioned just hours after purchase. When he tried to return it, the store refused, and the situation escalated into a shouting match. El-Masri spit in the face of a female employee, and was barred from the store.
Thereafter, El-Masri kicked in a door of the Metro store and used gasoline to start a fire. The fire caused over €500,000 ($678,000) in damages. Luckily, no one was killed, but El-Masri was arrested near the scene of the crime. After arrest, a judge ordered him held in a psychiatric hospital for unknown reasons.
4) German prosecutors in the arson case also revealed that El-Masri faced charges for allegedly attacking a truck driving instructor as well. They said Masri lost his temper after the instructor criticised him for failing to attend his lessons.
Your turn.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 8:08 PM:And another thing: my first girlfriend was also my Mom. But it's OK, I thought she was my sister.
seamus wrote on October 23, 2007 8:34 PM:Seems like a good primer on how how being tortured for months affects someone's mental state, troll. Might make anyone anti-social.
here wrote on October 23, 2007 8:37 PM:jaked:
weak. i give you a 5 on form but only a 2 on technical aspects (out of 10).
the russian judge gives you a 1 (oooh burn).
I got a D on my report card once, do i deserve civil liberties?
also the four liberal activists judges bit sounds like part of a joke:
how many liberal activist judges does it take to screw in a light bulb?
(hmm 4 to grant cert and 1 write the opinion that light bulb's rights were violated by being screwed in...i dunno i'm just making it up).
brian wrote on October 23, 2007 8:59 PM:How you can tell the waterboarding - defender is a PAID shill for the GOP:
He will take pro-Bush positions ONLY. He has no system or ideology; he is not a libertarian or a fiscal conservative or a religious christian.
He attacks democrats only; he repeats right-wing radio talking points; he is utterly reliable. He is always in line with the Right Wing message-of-the-day.
He may say something bad about past administration people ( e.g. Rumsfeld or Ashcroft ) - but against the administration - NEVER.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 9:16 PM:That was the fake Jake at 8:08 PM.
seamus:
Is that your excuse for the ACTUAL terrorists who were released and CAUGHT AGAIN on the battlefield fighting the U.S.?
here:
Unfortunately, the liberal activist judges are no joke -- I wish they were.
brian:
O.K., here's something bad against the Administration -- I think Bush personally screwed up royally by even admitting there was an NSA domestic spy program and giving the terrorists any heads up in that regard -- similarly, I disagree with Hillary stating today that she would give up ANY Executive power that Bush/Cheney have in the current war. Regardless of party in power, I am going to support the President of the United States in his (or her) fight against terrorists.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 9:21 PM:I also think that Donald Rumsfeld was the best Secretary of Defense the U.S. has ever had.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 9:34 PM:I gotta go now, but I will be back tomorrow morning.
Jake B. wrote on October 23, 2007 9:42 PM:And George W. Bush is the best President the U.S. has ever had. I get orgasms just thinking about him.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 9:43 PM:The 9:42 is another fake Jake. I don't get orgasms thinking about GWB. I only get orgasms when I think about blowing GWB.
The Oracle wrote on October 23, 2007 10:22 PM:Suffocation. Or the fear of suffocation.
This is what waterboarding is. The use of the fear of "drowning," that is, suffocating to death, to get someone to talk.
The same tactic is used when a plastic bag is put over someone's head, cutting off their air supply...suffocating them to death, or as close to death as possible without killing them, to get them to talk.
I believe Mukasey knows that the Bush administration has authorized mutliple "suffocation" tactics, each of which amounts to torture under international law and the Geneva Conventions, but he is learning quickly how to lie and parse his responses to fit the criminal White House's claim that they don't do torture.
dnfree wrote on October 23, 2007 10:44 PM:1) Torture is far from the most effective method of getting useful and truthful information. It might "feel good" to some people, just as the cops might beat up someone who shot a policeman, but that doesn't make it either right or effective. There have been statements to this effect by interrogators from the World War II and Viet Nam eras.
2) The person you are torturing could be innocent. Could even be someone like you, just got picked up in the wrong place at the wrong time. You could release him, and he goes back and tells others what the U.S. did to him. Great public relations.
3) If we subvert our VALUES as Americans for supposed security reasons, have the terrorists won? Aren't there some values we should be willing to die for?
I'm defining torture as almost anything that causes physical or mental distress. IT DOESN'T WORK AND IT ISN'T AMERICAN. John McCain, who was tortured, says so.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 11:07 PM:I waterboarded my dog.
LEK wrote on October 23, 2007 11:12 PM:The Olberman video is not particularly illustrative. A better one, apparently based on a real interrogation with added commentary, is available on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GcXl1y_mQw
BA wrote on October 23, 2007 11:23 PM:Please, let's not allow Jake D to control the flow of every single post. Don't answer him and don't argue with him. He is ruining nearly every post on this site. We are spending all our time refuting his posts instead of furthering the discussions.
Kent Mueller wrote on October 23, 2007 11:50 PM:Torture works! Just ask John McCain; he was tortured by the North Vietnamese who wanted him to give up the names of his fellow pilots, and he named names.
The names he gave up were those of the Green Bay Packers offense that year.
Whatever actionable intelligence was gotten by torturing the truly evil KSM probably didn't come anywhere NEAR the actionable intelligence recovered from the computer hard drive seized at the same time as his capture.
Take faith. The CIA had to interview close to 300 hardened professionals on the front line of the War on Terror before they could find 14 morally willing to partake in these methods.
Go Pack!
Jake D. wrote on October 24, 2007 12:28 AM:Actually, Kent, Senator McCain regrets giving up classified information -- he writes about it in his book -- so, yes, he knows that torture works. We, however, are talking about cellophane over your face without any water entering the mouth or nose. The U.S. does not torture.
Jake D. wrote on October 24, 2007 12:35 AM:I see that you already knew about the "false" info McCain gave up. Why not include the TRUE info that McCain gave up too?
In his 1999 autobiography, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain describes how he was severely injured when his plane was shot down over Hanoi -- and how his North Vietnamese interrogators tortured him. The punishment finally worked, McCain said. "Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant."
Recalling how he gave up military information to his interrogators, McCain said: "I regret very much having done so."
Anyone other than Kent is invited to look it up yourself.
Bokonon wrote on October 24, 2007 1:12 AM:Oh yeah. Jake D, I think I finally understand. Here is the condensed version:
The United States does not torture. We just use "enhanced interrogation techniques" which happen to cause the suspect such terrible pain and distress that they inevitably confess ... but we do not torture. Because that would be wrong. And we don't do anything wrong. By definition.
I mean, what we do looks like torture, and acts like torture, but it is just pretend torture. It just hurts a bunch, but not as much as REAL torture.
Or ... it isn't LEGALLY torture because a government lawyer wrote a really smart memo on the subject, which is stored in a vault somewhere. So it isn't torture.
Because we don't go as far as actually TORTURING prisoners and suspects and Canadians and victims of mistaken identity, because that otherwise would be torture. Besides, remember, the United States doesn't torture people, so therefore what we do can't be torture. By definition.
Okay, well, it is not torture, but it is highly effective, because the only way to deal with Islamic terrorists is to torture them. So we can't give it up. Except that we don't torture.
Consider Saddam Hussein. He tortured people, but it was wrong when he did it because he went to far while torturing people. They died. But we don't go that far. To the unschooled eye it may look like we torture, but we don't torture, because our prisoners don't die.
Well, okay, sometimes people in custody do die. Hey ... mistakes happen. They looked guilty, and we were working on the proof part when the croaked. Besides, we are preventing terrorist attacks. Shut up and stop whining. What are you ... some sort of liberal activist? It could be you next time. Watch your step. Libtards can get sent to Guantanamo too ... where they don't torture people. Because we don't torture. But you should be scared that we might torture YOU. Which just shows how stupid liberals are, because we don't torture.
And let's not forget -- if people ask impertinent questions about all this non-torture, then they haven't learned the lesson of 9/11, and haven't learned to avert your eyes when their government is screwing up and lying. Liberals like those are lucky to have superpatriots to explain it all to them. Because it is all very, very subtle.
Have I got all the talking points down, dude?
-- Bokonon
lespool wrote on October 24, 2007 2:16 AM:Jake, you know as well as I do that the often cited "doomsday scenario" is not nor ever was the reason our government began water boarding Iraqi citizens. So what's your excuse for torturing people who are simply trying to protect their country from (us) foreign invaders that terrorize their families while bombing their neighborhoods and homes to smithereens? --- I'm sure you would do the same thing if you were in their shoes...
Well, maybe not to the extent of putting your life on the line by fighting and dying for your country. But you're a brave and patriotic fellow and I know we can count on you to sit at home in front of your computer, sounding war cries and pounding your chest as long as your fingers avoid papers cuts.
Of course, I'm deeply touched by your concern for unborn children. But due to your penchant for incestuous relationships, technically Oedipus you should have been aborted. You see God doesn’t give one whit about abortions with nary a word in the Bible. However, biblical pornography is replete with God’s condemnation of a man’s phallus, allowing his fertilizer to perish and kill millions of potential lives. --- By the way, since sex is determined by sperm, how many boys versus how many girls do you think you’ve murdered in your lifetime?
JAKE IS FULL OF SHIT wrote on October 24, 2007 2:23 AM:Bokonon, you got it right on man, sounds exactly like the Bush Cheney Rove machine spitting out it's bushels of bullshit to the completely naive American stupidulation who eat up every word of it and eat everything else not nailed down as well.
MOL wrote on October 24, 2007 12:27 PM:All Hail President Guliani and I mean bow motherfucker.(said while wearing a sky blue and orange organdy frock and silver pumps) How's my hair? you haven't seen nothing yet.............
Just for the sake of clarity, international law defines torture as follows:
"Article 1
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
The US is a signatory to various treaties adopting this definition. Is Jake D. saying that somehow waterboarding does not intentionally inflict severe suffering as contemplated in this statute?
MOL wrote on October 24, 2007 12:42 PM:Since 2001, this country has had a choice: stand by its traditions, ideals and freedoms and show faith in the rule of law and the constitution which have helped this country prevail in prior conflicts--most notably, WWII--or abandon those traditions out of fear and a lack of faith in our country's ideals and freedoms and adopt practices perceived to be "expedient."
The Bush administration unfortunately adopted the latter of these choices and did so in a covert, cowardly manner, by refusing to acknowledge its policy choices, and redefining the terms of debate beyond recognition. Hence, the current debate about "torture".
The administration's take on all these issues shows a distinct lack of faith in this country's traditions, freedoms and ideals. In effect, by undermining our country's traditional strengths in this manner, the administration has done bin Laden's dirty work for him: if al Qaeda "hates us for our freedoms", how is this country being served by the current administration's undermining those freedoms that have always made this country the envy of the world?
Sadly, aside from fear, these freedoms and ideals were abandoned for mere political expediency. This administration would rather have power than do the right thing.
Jake D. wrote on October 24, 2007 12:49 PM:You mean the rule of law and the Constitution which allowed the internment of Japanese-American citizens and the dropping of TWO nuclear bombs on women and children in prior conflicts--most notably, WWII? At least Bush hasn't gone that far . . .
For the record, I do not think that water poured on cellophane that does not go into your mouth / nose falls within the Article 1 definition.
MOL wrote on October 24, 2007 1:05 PM:So, Jake, your argument is that two wrongs make a right?
Not very persuasive.
Neither is your assertion that you do not "think" waterboarding falls within the Article 1 definition. Any authority for that, or is it just your opinion?
MOL wrote on October 24, 2007 1:09 PM:According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture", "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal."
Newsweek, November, 2005.
MOL wrote on October 24, 2007 1:16 PM:For some reason, I have always thought that the US was and would continue to be above the types of tactics employed by the likes of the Spanish Inquisition, the Gestapo, Tojo's Japan and Pol Pot.
It seems you disagree, Jake.
You are aware of course that the US is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified in 1994. In Article 2 of that Treaty: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
You are also aware of course that such treaties are the supreme law of the land, according to Article Six of the Constitution?
Jake D. wrote on October 24, 2007 1:16 PM:Not at all. YOU were the one who brought up the "traditions, ideals and freedoms [culminating in the] show faith in the rule of law and the Constitution" re: WWII and I countered with the facts -- and I never said it was wrong to drop the A-bombs -- alas, I don't have the binding authority handy (as the OLC memos are classified), but I would at least point out that 10 seconds under cellophane does not rise to "severe" and any suffering can be argued to be "only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." Next?
Jake D. wrote on October 24, 2007 1:19 PM:After you get done posting, I will reply in full.
MOL wrote on October 24, 2007 1:52 PM:So now you are saying that 1 regrettable and widely repudiated court decision and dropping 2 bombs in a one month period somehow equals a "tradition" or an "ideal" that now allows for torture?
Talk about twisted reasoning...
Second, your claim that waterboarding is merely "10 seconds under cellophane" is absurd and fundamental undermines the very rationale (albeit flawed) you claim to support. If you believe, as you imply, that "harsh" interrogation techniques are necessary, how is "10 seconds under cellophane" going to do anything at all? Such an opinion, of course, is completely at odds with the fact that waterboarding or its equivalent was one of the favored techniques of the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany and Pol Pot. Or maybe they also favored interrogation by slapping their prisoners with a rubber chicken?
Face it: waterboarding is torture. Ergo, you support torture.
next.
Jake D. wrote on October 24, 2007 2:15 PM:Are you done?
MOL wrote on October 24, 2007 4:00 PM:Never.
Jon wrote on October 24, 2007 4:24 PM:"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." Abraham Lincoln.
Whenever I hear Mukasey say he just doesn't know if waterboarding is torture, I think of a way to inform his understanding. Maybe he could come to some definite conclusion on the matter if he had sufficient personal experience.
mari wrote on October 24, 2007 7:38 PM:One of the problems with this administration is that they have the idea that situational ethics will get them off the hook. Waterboarding is torture and I am sure that Bush et al know perfectly well it is. They should begin to worry that they may find themselves standing before the world court just like other political leaders who have been tried and convicted for allowing torture to be visited on their prisoners. Great company for Bush, eh? Milocevik, Hirohito, Mengele, etc.
Jake D. wrote on October 24, 2007 8:02 PM:mari:
The "average" person lasted just 14 seconds under cellophane with water NOT even going into their mouth or nose -- see Article 1 definition above -- are you SURE that's "torture"?
Jake D. wrote on October 24, 2007 8:04 PM:Here's the Article 1 definition again:
"Any act by which SEVERE pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person . . . when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does NOT include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
v. popvli wrote on October 25, 2007 1:11 AM:jake d.
for the sake of argument, and since republicans seem to want it this way, let's suspend the constitution and bill of rights for a moment so we can pose a hypothetical.
if congress (or hell, the states!) passed a law making it legal to beat up suspected criminals, drug-dealers, and terrorists till they confess their alleged crimes, wouldn't that make torture suddenly be not-torture, since this activity is supported by "lawful sanction?"
here's some recommended reading: franz kafka, "before the law" and "the trial."
the germans are coming wrote on October 25, 2007 1:58 AM:i'll bet you'd like living in a kafka story.
Waterboarding, as defined in here by all the Jake D's and other apparant practicioners , admirers, and naysayers is,in fact, inflicted by a public official to get a confessed result. period.Inflicted is a key word here gents.Might be some brute in a cammie costume,might be Condi or Guliani herself, but for sure it's someone mean and official looking for a confession.
Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 6:25 PM:I like to imagine the fellows so deep in discussion over this idiotic subject,which has nothing to do with them at all, probably pay attractive females to waterboard them with liquids other than water and of course are certain that it is not torture,since it provides them with such pleasure. Rest assured, I saw it done in the 60's in Vietnam and I can't seem to remember one villager having fun , thanking us for the thrill-ride or admitting anything except screams and hysteria and panic ,with the occasional small heart attack from the older ones.Oh,afterwards they all cried a lot; I always thought it was something the French invented there. For their trouble ,when the Cong came back through for supplies from the tunnels they usually killed all the men that we left alive. Anyways,if you ever have the opportunity to get the full waterboard treatment from a platoon of pissed off grunts taking orders from a combat intelligence Major....that'll be the longest ten seconds of your stupid life and you will experience horrific pain and suffer deeply. By the way,as far as I know the Viet Cong didn't waterboard,like the Japanese,for starters, they just hung a bladder of pissy water from a tree and jammed a hose down your throat.Way more effective,just ask McCain.After you saw your buddy get his waterlogged gut kicked in you fucking told them everything you knew.And fast.
I would like living in a Frank CAPRA story ; )
ShawnHarmon wrote on October 25, 2007 8:53 PM:Jake D -
With the exception of a few of your sentences of banal name calling, I like your lively contribution to the site---forget 'banishment'.
You are so conclusively wrong yet in such an intelligent, witty, and comprehensive way that you make it easy for most of us here to continue to correctly determine that: TORTURE IS WRONG no matter how well you or anyone else sells it.
Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 6:02 AM:Oh, please, Shawn -- maybe you were reading the fake Jake posts -- the only personal attacks I've leveled were against Dick Thornburgh and those were deserved. Obviously, I'm not the one calling for my own banishment -- you'll have to take that up with your fellow posters -- but I'm not going to keep posting at TPM Muckraker anyways. BTW: I've always stated that torture is wrong -- you can see my continued my defense of waterboarding (not necessarily torture) over here:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/rudy_wont_say_whether_waterboarding_is_torture_blames_liberal_media.php#comments
sophie wrote on October 29, 2007 11:16 PM:Reading the definition posted it sounds to me like those defending waterboarding would think it is OK, for example to...get the suspect's child, wife, loved one etc.....and waterboard them in front of the suspect in order to illicit the responses they want to hear. No harm no foul right?
rexfrielf wrote on January 7, 2008 5:06 AM:
rexfrielf wrote on January 7, 2008 5:06 AM:door Porter stones there smoothed planting stones dog garden, fence. dig never back red-haired thought was At he he picked can the the thrown begun and had Roly them the For ground Sammie Roly-Poly to to so was the Roly been maybe threw have the been him Sammie the poodle not away run without larger few grown But sent Daddy gardens least a weeks, his bring had until wanting he spoil Mr. little had when see to grow. and said Next could Blake. well-enough up nicely for them," of for patch it, If it. are in a and "We'll things and helping. garden after. at hurt would
door Porter stones there smoothed planting stones dog garden, fence. dig never back red-haired thought was At he he picked can the the thrown begun and had Roly them the For ground Sammie Roly-Poly to to so was the Roly been maybe threw have the been him Sammie the poodle not away run without larger few grown But sent Daddy gardens least a weeks, his bring had until wanting he spoil Mr. little had when see to grow. and said Next could Blake. well-enough up nicely for them," of for patch it, If it. are in a and "We'll things and helping. garden after. at hurt would