Comments (54)

Jon wrote on October 30, 2007 6:44 PM:

To be so ignorant of the law that you don't know whether waterboarding is torture, is to be manifestly unqualified to be Attorney General of the United States of America. It's that simple.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 6:47 PM:

Jon:

Is the use of cellophane for less than 10 seconds, where water does not enter the mouth or nose, torture?

Martin Gale wrote on October 30, 2007 6:53 PM:

What does it matter if it's "in use" or not? A gun isn't a gun unless it's being fired?

dafodilkemmy wrote on October 30, 2007 6:54 PM:

Free Razr plus free shipping with activated service plan.Choose from AT&T, Nextel, T-Mobile, Verizon, and more.

Click here

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 6:57 PM:

Martin Gale:

Because a similar technique may be in use -- I think his last two points are stronger: he doesn't want any public statement of his on the issue to place any interrogators in legal jeopardy and "I would not want any statement of mine to provide our enemies with a window into the limits or contours of any interrogation program we may have in place and thereby assist them in training to resist the techniques we actually may use." You OTOH would be fine with that?

Pinko Punko wrote on October 30, 2007 7:03 PM:

The interrogators should be in legal jeopardy. And then we move up the line. The interrogators were following their orders, so we examine the order givers. Laws have to have meaning.

Storm wrote on October 30, 2007 7:03 PM:

No form of torture is acceptable.

This whole debate over water-boarding, or cellophane, or whatever nasty thing you can think of, is a red herring. To enter a debate on the specifics of torture is to have already compromised your humanity.

The fact that our government is making a list of acceptable ways to torture others is repugnant.

Torture is wrong. Plain and simple. I believe that a civilized people would have put this issue to pasture already, without caveats or executive siging statements.

So where does that leave us?

gumshoe wrote on October 30, 2007 7:07 PM:

hey Jake, does the D. stand for douchebag? because you appear to be the biggest douche on the internets. seriously, stop cunting up TPM and go waterboard yourself or something.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 7:14 PM:

No thanks, gumshoe -- the D. is the initial of my last name, Dort -- what's your name?

TheraP wrote on October 30, 2007 7:15 PM:

Storm, that was eloquent. Thank you.

Me_again wrote on October 30, 2007 7:17 PM:

Well there you have it.

"Waterboard is a no brainer."

Cheney could not have said it better himself.

FSE wrote on October 30, 2007 7:27 PM:

Jake D.

"Is the use of cellophane for less than 10 seconds, where water does not enter the mouth or nose, torture?"

Yes, it is torture that lasts less than 10 seconds.

Your inclusion of duration is a red herring. How long must an electric current pass through genitalia before you consider it torture? At least ten seconds?

EH wrote on October 30, 2007 7:30 PM:

FSE: Well that certainly depends on whether the subject LIKES electricity applied to their genitals. How do we know whether they like it or not? Maybe a little waterboard will tell us one way or the other.

Kirk Caraway wrote on October 30, 2007 7:34 PM:

Well Judge, I suppose if someone came to you and asked if cutting off a man's head would constitute murder, you would say that you would have to see the headless body before making a legal judgement. What lunacy.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 7:42 PM:

FSE:

You're not talking about static electricity, are you? The topic of this thread has nothing to do with testicles*.

I would say ANY actual voltage to the testicles, up to and including crushing them, indeed qualifies as torture -- now, we are into Professor Yoo's territory.

(*Unless you are referring to the Democrats' lack of testicles in opposing Mukasey or anything else related to the war on terrorism ; )

RichN wrote on October 30, 2007 7:46 PM:

I wonder if he would consent to be waterboarded until he comes up with a complete answer if waterboarding is legal or not?

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 7:53 PM:

RichN:

I wonder if you would consent to an abortion being performed on you to prove your support for that technique?

M M wrote on October 30, 2007 7:54 PM:

no, he doesn't need to because he was in the Army in Korea so whatever he says is right

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 7:55 PM:

P.S. to FSE: I'm still doing the calculations on your hypothetical -- do you know the resistance of human testicles, measured in ohms?

Mark C wrote on October 30, 2007 8:00 PM:

Here's a few questions for you Jake D:

If you saw Osama bin Laden applying cellophane, for less than ten seconds of course, to the mouth and nose of your son/daughter would you consider it torture.

If you saw Osama bin Laden applying electrodes to the genitals of your mother/father would you consider it torture?

If you saw Osama bin Laden hanging your wife by her arms, leaving her like that for 12 hours, in a room where the temperature varied between 100 F to 25 F while smearing feces on her face and breasts would you consider it torture?

If you saw Osama bin Laden forcing a US soldier into a position that you would normally only see a circus performer assume, in the same temperature room that your wife is in getting shit smeared on her, while blaring AC/DC and urinating on him, and continuing this treatment for 12 hours, would you consider THAT torture?

Torture is torture no matter who is doing it or for what ever reason they are doing it.

PERIOD.

And I thank god every day that I don't need any caveats on that statement.

You're one sick fuck Jake....

Henry wrote on October 30, 2007 8:00 PM:

If waterboarding weren't torture, why would we be using it? Whether it works or not is beside the point; those experts Cheney and Bush seem to think that it does, and that's why they want to continue using it.

United, I stand alone against collectivism wrote on October 30, 2007 8:01 PM:

Jake... Do you support the death penalty?

Mitch wrote on October 30, 2007 8:06 PM:

Mike,

Take a cue from Nancy Reagan and just say no.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 8:09 PM:

Yes.

United, I stand alone against collectivism wrote on October 30, 2007 8:17 PM:

I wouldn't expect you'd be willing to submit to the procedure in oder to prove that.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 8:20 PM:

Of course not; I'm not the one suggesting that Mukasey submit to waterboarding, though, either ; )

FSE wrote on October 30, 2007 8:24 PM:

Jake D.

What possible use could you have for "the resistance of human testicles, in ohms" if you don't even know whether passing an electric current refers to "static electricity"?

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 8:27 PM:

FSE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_current#Ohm.27s_law

CT Hankster wrote on October 30, 2007 8:32 PM:

I think there is another issue that is being missed in these discussions of Mukasey and waterboarding: credibility.

One of the things that so infuriated many of us about Alberto Gonzales was his dissembling if not outright lying when testifying before Congress.

And here we have Mukasey coming before the Judiciary Committee in confirmation hearings and acting like he doesn't really know what waterboarding is. That is simply not credible. There is no way I believe that.

Now I recognize that the Senators can't just come out and accuse him of lying. But it certainly seems that his credibility--given their experience with Gonzales--should be a subject of some discussion.

FSE wrote on October 30, 2007 8:33 PM:

Very good, Jake D. Now ponder the "static" part of "static electricity".

paul wrote on October 30, 2007 8:36 PM:

It is precisely that "I would not want to place investigators in legal jeopardy" line that makes Mukasey presumptively unfit. First, it's not true (since Mukasey's testimony doesn't amount to an OLC determination) and second, because (as others have noted) if people have been committing the crime of torture, they should be in legal jeopardy.

The "no comment on hypotheticals" part is also a steaming load of horse manure -- there are some acts around which no fact pattern can be constructed to render them lawful. There might be facts that constitute mitigating circumstances, but not legality.

anon wrote on October 30, 2007 9:16 PM:

Could the congressional Democrats force the President to come clean by passing a simple bill defining waterboarding as in the letter to Mukasey, making it a criminal violation even if conducted by the CIA or the military -- and daring the President to veto the bill?

k wrote on October 30, 2007 9:17 PM:

It really doesn't matter what rationalizations Mukasey or Cheney or Jake D. use for excusing torture. They all clearly at best amoral and, more likely, sociopaths.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 9:23 PM:

FSE:

Electrostatics (also known as static electricity) is the branch of physics that deals with the phenomena arising from what seems to be stationary electric charges, but in reality are not. This includes phenomena as simple as the attraction of plastic wrap to your hand after you remove it from a package to apparently spontaneous explosion of grain silos, to damage of electronic components during manufacturing, to the operation of photocopiers. Electrostatics involves the buildup of charge on the surface of objects due to contact with other surfaces. Although charge exchange happens whenever any two surfaces contact and separate, the effects of charge exchange are usually only noticed when at least one of the surfaces has a high resistance to electrical flow.

Static electric generators, devices which produce very high voltage at very low CURRENT and used for classroom physics demonstrations, rely on this effect (e.g. 1,000,000 Volts via Felici's electrostatic generator).

Note that the presence of electric current does not detract from the electrostatic forces nor from the sparking, from the corona discharge, or other phenomena. Both phenomena can exist simultaneously in the same system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatics

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 9:30 PM:

gumshoe:

You still around?

Uncle_Meat wrote on October 30, 2007 9:30 PM:

Mukasey has to go. He is trying to set up the arguement that "if the president does it, but it's against the law, then it's not against the law, because anything the president does CAN'T be against the law."

Horse apples!!

Restore the Constitution, return to the rules of the Geneva conventions.

Ron Paul '08

peace, pretty fucking please!

brian wrote on October 30, 2007 9:32 PM:

The Republican shill is in here defending torture again. He must defend anything, no matter how odious, that Bush has done.

How easily he attacks 'Hillary' or 'Pelosi' - those people must never be given a millimeter. But as wonderful, heroic Bush and Cheney rip up the constitution, he cheers.

FSE wrote on October 30, 2007 9:44 PM:

Jake D.

Rather than quoting Wiki and highlighting keywords, try to apply some critical thinking for once.

Here's a simple question, since you claim to understand Ohm's Law. Why is it that classroom electrostatic generators (millions of Volts) are harmless, while car batteries (12 Volts) are dangerous and outlets (110 Volts) are deadly?

Once you understand the answer, you'll see why you look like a fool when you ask whether static electricity is involved in passing a current through any body part.

Uncle_Meat wrote on October 30, 2007 9:55 PM:

Doesn't it have something to do with amperage?

Uncle_Meat wrote on October 30, 2007 10:02 PM:

Sorry, I know this is totally off topic, but I'm curious..

Dennis wrote on October 30, 2007 10:35 PM:

Today, Michael Mukasey, nominee for U.S. Attorney General, wrote the following statement, regarding the legality of "waterboarding", to the Committee interviewing him;

"...I would not want any uninformed statement of mine made during a confirmation process to present our own professional interrogators in the field...or those charged with reviewing their conduct, with a perceived threat that any conduct of theirs, past or present, that was based on authorizations supported by the Department of Justice could place them in personal legal jeopardy."

The following protects the White House; "or those charged with reviewing their conduct, past or present."

In short, Mukasey will "protect our war criminals".

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Uncle_Meat wrote on October 30, 2007 10:41 PM:

"if it's against the law and the president does it, then it's not against the law, because the president did it..."

Edgar Ant wrote on October 30, 2007 10:41 PM:

Jake D,

The Senate Judiciary Committee asked Attorney General designate Mukasey his legal opinion about waterboarding: Is it torture? Wickipedia introduces its piece on waterboarding with the following passage:

"Waterboarding is a form of interrogation consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water and induce the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and/or intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent while leaving no physical evidence of torture."

Jake D, you seem fixated on the question, "Is the use of cellophane for less than 10 seconds, where no water enters the mouth or nose, torture?", which you imply is waterboarding. From where did you get the idea that this is what waterboarding is, and did that source limit waterboarding to that technique, and that alone? Is it possible that you cherry picked the least offensive part of a larger discussion of waterboarding? It seems clear to me that you have (repeatedly) attempted to equate your definition with the whole of what waterboarding is - what Americans have done or are doing to other people in our name?

Jake D.: Assuming I'm correct that you support the use of waterboarding by Americans, do you approve of "interrogation which consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water and induce the sensation of drowning"?

phesemugs wrote on October 31, 2007 12:47 AM:

Where I can find good quality films?
Can anyone help me?

Adam wrote on October 31, 2007 3:47 AM:

The presumptive Attorney General is unwilling to make a statement that may put somebody in legal jeopardy? Isn't that basically his job... to make decisions that put people in legal jeopardy? It's like a teacher afraid to teach because she's worried her students will become too reliant on facts.

Jake D. wrote on October 31, 2007 10:46 AM:

Edgar Ant:

My "source" for the cellophane where no water enters the mouth or nose is the last example included in the Senate Judiciary Committee's letter to Mukasey -- and, yes, those 10 seconds "consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face" -- I approve of that type of waterboarding.

Jake D. wrote on October 31, 2007 10:48 AM:

Of course, I "approved" of Truman dropping TWO A-bombs on women and children -- that doesn't mean I want my wife and children nuked -- what's so hard to understand about that?

Jake D. wrote on October 31, 2007 10:50 AM:

FSE:

How about, instead, we discuss the form of "torture" which is, you know, the topic of this thread, and when TPM starts a thread about electric-shock to testicles, or even Ohm's Law in general, I will be happy to discuss that in minute detail with you?

Ed T wrote on October 31, 2007 1:06 PM:

So Jake, I take it that you would have no problem with say Iran or China using those techniques on captured US military.

Dee Illuminati wrote on October 31, 2007 1:52 PM:

Well what did you expect? The careful line of Q%A between Mukasey and Lindsey Graham was the ongoing rationale where the act of waterboarding and coercion stand as a 'policy.' In deferrence to the individuals whom seek to close the GITMO facility including secretary of defense Gates, and the efforts of Graham a Jag officer whom has tried to have his cake and eat it as well on this topic, and whom I have personally met and liked as an individual, I do not like to use the word torture which is at the center of the issue.

But the argument is this: What the hell to do about the 'coercion' that took place in the past and in regard to due process without calling these acts torture?

And that is where the semantics of this debate remain, while I agree that we do not want 'closed documents' produced by say a nation state such as Iran or Venezuela against US nationals, where state secrets and the means that were used to produce them are inadmisssable in court and a conviction is produced based on that evidence upon US citizens, something that Graham enumerated in his sophistry, (an admission in argument that the practice was wrong) on the other hand, Graham does not want to admit the coercion techniques performed at Gitmo and rendition facilities as to nullify the cases of the detainees.

So the argument is that: While repugnant we did not break our own laws, while we assert that these practices are inapplicable to international law.

Did you really expect Mukasey to state: Coercion is wrong and pronounce judgement on the documened GITMO acts that took place? Or did you expect him to say that these acts were consistent with international law and subject that opine to due process upon not only citizens but corporations abroad?

So the Jag officer has a problem, how to square the 'designation' of enemy combatant to terrorist to civillian? And that slippery slope is where Graham has illustrated most succinctly in his arguments with Mukasey where the circumstances remain.

There is no repudiation of coercion unless that implies a 'judgement' upon committed acts.

And that is the consequence of a lack of leadership where conflicting marching orders were issued by Sr. leadership and where Jr. officers now find themselves.

The discussion between:

Top U.S. military officer contradicts his civilian boss

Posted: 11/30/2005 07:00:35

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top military man, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, said American troops in Iraq have a duty to intercede and stop abuse of prisoners by Iraqi security personnel.

When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld contradicted Pace, the general stood firm.

Rumsfeld told the general he believed Pace meant to say the U.S. soldiers had to report the abuse, not stop it.

Pace stuck to his original statement.

The unusual exchange occurred during a discussion at a news conference about the relationship between U.S. forces in Iraq and an Iraqi government considered sovereign by the United States.

A questioner asked whether the United States and its allies might be deemed responsible for preventing mistreatment of people under arrest in Iraq, given that the U.S. and its allies train Iraqi forces.

"There are a lot of people involved in this, dozens of countries trying to help train these Iraqi forces. Any instance of inhumane behavior is obviously worrisome and harmful to them when that occurs," Rumsfeld said. "Iraq knows, of certain knowledge, that they need the support of the international community. And a good way to lose it is to make a practice of something that is inconsistent with the values of the international community."

He added: "Now, you know, I can't go any further in talking about it. Obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility when a sovereign country engages in something that they disapprove of."

Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked what orders the troops have to handle such incidents. He responded: "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it."

He said soldiers who hear of but don't see an incident should deal with it through superiors of the offending Iraqis.

That's when Rumsfeld stepped to the microphone and said, "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it. It's to report it."

Pace then repeated to Rumsfeld that intervening when witnessing abuse is the order the troops must follow, not just reporting it.

Just as a note: Don't expect Rumsfeld to agree like Mukasey that these acts were illegal, and don't expect either of the two to be material witness's in a case were a Jr. officer is on trial for abuse.

Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, 51, is the last of 12 defendants -- and the only officer -- charged in a probe triggered by photographs showing low-ranking U.S. soldiers assaulting and humiliating naked detainees at the prison in Iraq in late 2003 and early 2004.

Jordan, the former director of the prison's interrogation center, is not in any of the pictures but is accused of illegally approving the use of dogs and nudity during interrogations, allowing the mistreatment of prisoners to continue, and lying about it afterward.

And the circumstance where Jr. personnel are made scapegoats to an ill advised civillian policy and where the people whom approved and orchestrated this policy seek to exonerate their decisions continues.

Mukasey simply wasn't nominated for the position of Attorney General by the people whom advocated this policy initially to condemn their decisions.

And in summation, there is no policy change that the DOS and the DOD can evoke in their approach with making progress in Iraq and the GWOT until such time the political obstinance to defend the practice of coercion is politically abandoned. And this is to be done by whom? The people that authorized it?

And then...

Some poor S.O.B. at some low level will be made available as a scapegoat, prosecuted, while the people whom created this policy attempt to escape accountability while making progress and performance metrics difficult for the people tasked with that chore as a result of the initial bad policy.

Mukasey passing judgement on this before the Senators whom might have been briefed into the extent of the acts is amazing and a genuinely historic moment.

Peter Pace, professional intel community people, and those whom refused, recursed, and avoided these acts did so with 'reasonable professional objections.' It was not a case of as Runsfeld would have it, "your either for us or against us" on this issue. Or maybe it was, you do condone coercion or you do not. I can't figure out where Graham stands.

FSE wrote on October 31, 2007 2:33 PM:

Jake D.

"How about, instead, we discuss the form of "torture" which is, you know, the topic of this thread, "

... said the one who tried to prove a point by drawing an analogy to abortion, in the very same thread.

Edgar Ant wrote on October 31, 2007 10:49 PM:

Jake D.

Thanks for your answers and comments. It is good to be able to communicate respectfully with you, whose views differ so dramatically from my own. I'd very much like to know your thoughts on other activities that are, perhaps, more representative of waterboarding.

In another TPM piece, a Navy instructor who seems to know what he is writing about, wrote the following: "Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word."

Jake, if you take away the cellophane wrapper, does the practice rise in your view to the level of torture, and do you still approve?

Edgar Ant wrote on October 31, 2007 10:58 PM:

Jake D.

Thanks for your answers and comments. It is good to be able to communicate respectfully with you, whose views differ so dramatically from my own. I'd very much like to know your thoughts on other activities that are, perhaps, more representative of waterboarding.

In another TPM piece, a Navy instructor who seems to know what he is writing about, wrote the following: "Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word."

Jake, if you take away the cellophane wrapper, does the practice rise in your view to the level of torture, and do you still approve?

rob wrote on November 1, 2007 11:29 AM:

Unfortunately, I agree with Mr. Mukasey this is not a question that a nominee for Attorney General should not answer. I wish I disagreed with him, but after reading his letter, I think he makes a strong case. There are some issues that should be handled behind closed doors, I believe, and this is one of them. He never says that he endorses torture, as that dickhead Gonzalez, did. Rather, Mr. Mukasey has said that he personally dislikes the practices, but will not offer a specific legal judgment in such a public forum. This is what really good attorneys do.

BUT - There should be on going and proactive oversight by Congress; the Justice Department, should be required by law to cooperate with Congress. There should be clear definition to what cooperation means and specific and severe penalties for a lack of cooperation. I think Congress should get to work drafting legislation that clarifies oversight and cooperation, which would solve many of these problems, I think.

Honestly, though, despite the fact that Mr. Mukasey is a Republican, his record is pretty solid. While he has beliefs that I disagree with, this is the best candidate that our dip-shit president has offered for the AG position. I really think that we can live with this one.