« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
The Daily Muck
Twenty-four intelligence officials are looking for a clarification of Mike Mukasey's definition of definition; they've asked that the Senate Judiciary Committee put a hold on the nomination until the nominee is given an a chance to be appropriately briefed on the classified program. Of course, it doesn't seem like Democrats will continue to take much of a stand on this issue. Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinsten (D-CA) sat on their decisions to support Mukasey last week in order to try to avoid too much flack from supporters. (Think Progress, Huffington Post)
Still going nowhere. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Bush’s nominee for a Federal Election Commission post, continues his uphill battle for confirmation. His resume of voter suppression and politicization of the Justice Department made him a star candidate for a recess appointment, but is stalling his nomination. As one former Justice Department attorney said of von Spakovsky, “You can leave the swamp, but you can’t get the mud off you until you take a bath.” (Politico)
Pakistan's burgeoning dictatorship has done what every good failing state does when worried about America's response: it has targeted the lobbyists. With close to $900 million in foreign aid potentially under review, Pakistan wants to make sure that those pesky American lawmakers don't try to hold it accountable for it's recent hiatus from democracy. (Politico)
Parsons Corporation puts the waste – human that is – in wasteful. The American contracting firm responsible for the $72 million Baghdad Police Academy Barracks has had more than one year to correct its disastrous plumbing and workmanship, yet the ceilings are still stained with excrement and human waste drips from the ceilings. (NY Times)
Salon’s interviews with victims of rendition, CIA pilots, case officers who have actually carried out renditions, senior CIA officers who directed such operations and officials at the White House who were involved in authorizing such measures, all point to one conclusion - repeated claims by the White House that we "don't send people to countries where they will be tortured" are plain lies. The Bush administration acknowledges its rendition program and black sites, but few details of torture are confirmed on the record because victims have been denied their day in court. (Salon)
Now we know who helped quash the nascent Colbert campaign. Two prominent Obama supporters called South Carolina Dems urging them to keep the talk show host off the ballot. (Huffington Post)
Comments (11)
TheraP wrote on November 6, 2007 10:10 AM:The purpose of torture seems to be to break down the personality - to subject the person to experiences which will remain with them forever, to leave them living half a life.
These practices are punishment, punishment without any prior determination of guilt. Simply the presumption of guilt. And of course, torture produces "confessions" which allow the torturer to hide behind the fiction that it's ok to psychologically break a person down.
Waterboarding, even for training purposes, we know is terrible. But for people who are held in indefinite solitary confinement, and subjected to either sensory deprivation or sensory overload etc., the waterboarding experiences (they are not singular for detainees) are even worse - due to their sense of helplessness, their sense of despair and devaluation as a human being, their lack of sleep, food, clothing etc.
It turns people into something less than an animal. And animals, subjected to such treatment, would never be allowed by civilized peoples.
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 10:31 AM:Don't start crying too loud when American citizens are grabbed overseas for whatever reason. Using our own justice yardstick against us these travelers overseas will run into secret courts, no real way to defend themselves and questioning methods that mirror our own. The new American Justice system will make a fine template for other nations to emulate.
Jake D wrote on November 6, 2007 10:32 AM:O.K., but does a SINGULAR 10 seconds of waterboarding, with cellophane and no water entering the nose or mouth, qualify as "torture"?
Troll Patrol wrote on November 6, 2007 10:38 AM:Click - and see comments section of post.... where it is clear a certain troll (@ 10:32) was banned and is banned.
Bye...
Jake D wrote on November 6, 2007 10:43 AM:Can't handle a simple question, huh? Must be because the answer is so obvious -- even I can hold my breath for 10 seconds -- oh well, at least Mukasey got through : )
Troll Patrol wrote on November 6, 2007 11:00 AM:Here is Josh's post from July:
Josh Marshall wrote on July 27, 2007 10:50 PM:
I notice a few folks who asked or wondered what became of Jake D. Simply put, we banned him. We heard the many emails and requests you sent in describing how much he was intentionally disrupting the conversation and community here. We agreed and we banned him from the site. We weren't ignoring your complaints. The delay was caused by the fact that TPMm was not set up in a way to make it easy for us to ban someone. But we made some changes to make that possible. In the nature of things, Jake my resurface with another name or log-in-point of entry. And if that happens, let us know, and we'll get rid of Jake 2.0 too.
As I've noted on other occasions at TPMCafe, conservatives or people who for whatever reason don't share our editorial viewpoint are welcome here. The comments are not for adulation. But there's a difference between dissent and willful efforts to disrupt the conversation. Jake D. clearly went way over that line.
Josh
Click to add your comment (or vote) to the list.
Reb Yudel wrote on November 6, 2007 2:08 PM:Give Jake D some slack. He's getting paid to do his job, and he's just following orders. The question for TPMuckraker should be, is he working as a contractor for RNC, or is he working for Rove in a Civil Service capacity?
Who knows what evil lurks in the TPM web stats?
v. popvli wrote on November 6, 2007 4:19 PM:hey mr. dort,
why would an interrogator stop after a singular use of an "enhanced technique?" why would an interrogation last 1 minute or less? your question is moot, unless you can prove that the CIA only ever uses your fluffy version of waterboarding once and only once on each detainee. since many have been detained for years, and since interrogations last longer than 1 minute and can be conducted with some frequency (like daily), i think your question doesn't really merit a serious answer.
jim wrote on November 6, 2007 6:20 PM:Josh;
This jaked dude either goes or I do.
I refuse to read anymore comment sections with his jackass regard for the truth in it.
Freedom of speech does not include freedom to piss on the audience.
Acaeti wrote on November 6, 2007 6:41 PM:Jake D.: In a word, yes. Perhaps ask yourself this question - would you like this to happen to you?
(can't help feeding the troll)
Dave Bowman wrote on November 6, 2007 11:43 PM:Jake, you're a Good American...the way the German citizens of the 1930s and 40s who supported the Nazis were 'Good Germans.'