Immoral Relativism: George Bush’s nomination of Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general — once thought to be smooth sailing — is experiencing a bit of turbulence. The problem is, Mukasey can’t bring himself to say whether or not waterboarding is torture:
“I don’t know what’s involved in the techniques. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.”
– Mukasey
During his confirmation hearings earlier this month, Mukasey said he believes torture violates the Constitution, but he refused to be pinned down on whether he believes specific interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, are constitutional.
“I don’t know what’s involved in the techniques. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional,” he said.
But after World War II, the United States government was quite clear about the fact that waterboarding was torture, at least when it was done to U.S. citizens:
[In] 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
“Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. “We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II,” he sai
Mukasey’s non-answer has raised doubts among Democrats, and even some Republicans, on the Senate Judiciary Committee:
[The] Democrats on the committee signed a joint letter to Mukasey, making sure that he knew what’s involved, and demanded an answer to the question as to whether waterboarding is torture.
Then two days later, the doubts grew louder. Two key Democrats, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT ) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) both said publicly that their votes depended on Mukasey’s answer to the waterboarding question.
Then it was Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who saw an opening after Rudy Giuliani refused to call waterboarding torture (”It depends on who does it.”). Most certainly it’s torture, McCain said. When pressed, he stopped short of saying that he would oppose Mukasey’s nomination if he didn’t say the same, but he added to the chorus of those who professed to be interested in what Mukasey’s answer to follow-up questions will be.
Yesterday, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said that if Mukasey “does not believe that waterboarding is illegal, then that would really put doubts in my own mind.”
[Sen.] Arlen Specter (R-PA) has also thrown in his lot of doubts and concerns.
Of course, if the past is a guide, Mukasey will easily win nomination, and nearly all these senators who have expressed concern will vote for him.
Waterboarding has become an isssue because the Bush White House signed off on it as an interrogation technique — and thus moved the United States into the company of pariah states that permit torture — after the 9/11 attacks.
I thought Mukasey was a reasonable prospect for A.G., given who nominated him, until the judge dodged and weaved when asked about waterboarding. I simply can’t believe the man doesn’t know enough about the practice to be able to say whether it’s torture or not. But if he really doesn’t, he’s obviously too poorly informed to be attorney general.
Then, it got worse. Mukasey evidently has no problem with a president ignoring statutory law if that president can come up with a national security excuse, real or perceived.
Sorry, but as Sen. Chris Dodd pointed out, that’s not in the Constitution. And the fact that it’s not in the Constitution and would put the president above and beyond the law, makes Mukasey completely unsuitable to be A.G.
Like Gonzales before him, Mukasey either doesn’t know the law well enough, which seems unlikely, or he can’t appreciate the difference between pleasing the boss and fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the land.
Next. . . ?
[...] Torture But in 1947 the U.S. Called It a War Crime, Sentenced Enemy Officer to 15 Years Hard Labor article from Pensito [...]
[...] prisoners, then we have no leg to stand on when the enemy begins waterboarding our own soldiers. Article is here. __________________ Remember these words, and never let it happen again: "We came to [...]
Hey, if it’s not torture, then this scumbag and Gonzollas should both be willing to have it done to them.
As I thought, Asano was guilty of a bit more:
Defendant: Asano, Yukio
Docket Date: 53/ May 1 – 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan
Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.
Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward
Verdict: 15 years CHL
[...] When we do it: good. When they do it: bad/ [...]
Let’s torture the White House, the Federal Government, the House of Reps, the Senate and especially the Supreme Court. Don’t forget Arnie! We don’t want anyone left out. Waterboarding and Surfboarding is the same thing to them and the world just loves us yanks don’t they!
What do we need an Attorney General for other than implementaion of unconstitutional “laws” to further the “state” power center. Besides,we could save a couple of bucks by not having one.
[...] Musakey Won’t Call Waterboarding Torture Filed under: Impeachment Evidence — Angela @ 11:31 am Mukasey Won’t Say Waterboarding Is Torture But in 1947 the U.S. Called It a War Crime, Sentenced E… [...]
[...] You’ll recall that Mukasey doesn’t know whether waterboarding is torture or not. This may help: George Bush’s nomination of Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general — once thought to be [...]
The fact is the president should be givin powers to do whatever he wants. If he wants to torture people why not, even our own citizens if it means stopping these really bad terrorists. We should give power to the president to do whatever he wants, we cannot let another 911 happen!
Billy G I hope you’re being sarcastic, because you should know that Bush started the his illegal programs 7 months before 9/11, meaning that 9/11 itself proved that his wiretaps and torture don’t work.
Obviously you hate freedom and don’t deserve to be an American.
Billy G is really afraid of these really bad terrorists..that’s just what the big terrorist in the WH wants!! Because being President of the greatest nation on Earth is not enough, being KING GEORGE may be enough, but we won’t really know until we try will we? The tortured logic that says the president can do whatever he wants if it stops another 911 can only come from the mind of a tortured child, Billy!. How about if the president wants to torture, maim, and kill your whole family, Billy? Is that OK? Maybe he’ll pull your balls off one by one while slowly shoving a shiv up your nostrils Billy, is that OK? Maybe he’ll lock you in your house and then set it on fire? Is that OK Billy? Whats the point in having laws and civil society Billy if you’re so afraid of the terrorist that you will give up your life to stop them? Billy is a coward of the likes America should totally disdain. If Billy were here in the beginning we would still be under the rule of the British. Thank god he wasn’t. Live free or DIE, BILLY!!! King George is a very evil man Billy, and you are an abject fool to follow him into the pits of hell, which is where he is going, Billy!
I too am unsure if Billy G is being cynical, but if he is serious, he needs to listen to what he is saying. If we torture, we show we are no better than the terrorists, and reduce our entire country to their level. If we torture, we throw our civilized nation out the window and become the very barbarians we fight. Is this what you really want? What if you were accused of terrorism unjustly and were tortured by Americans in a secret prison somewhere? Would you defend your own torture?
Well, it is a well known fact that U.S. soldiers and sailors don’t like to be tortured, so why should they be? THEY ARE AMERICANS!
Now, enemies of Americans are different. They can handle what you might call torture a lot better because they are used to hard living.
So, what you might call torturing American GI’s is not necessarily torture when it is done to enemies of Americans. What hurts or scares you may not hurt or scare them, at all. Besides, we’re the good guys, and good guys should never be harmed in any way.
Someone in the media should ask young daughters of America to volunteer for 60 seconds of waterboarding. Capture the results on film for an advertisement that lets there voices be heard to determine if waterboarding is torture. Encourage young people to waterboard one another and post the results on YouTube and ask America if they think this act is torture.
Hey, if it’s not torture, then this scumbag and Gonzollas should both be willing to have it done to them.
Incarceration isn’t torture so you should be willing to have it done to you.
What a stupid statement.
What if your parents were going to die in a terrorist attack unless the CIA could get the details of an attack from a captured terrorist.
Would you hope that for the sake of “being better than them†the government didn’t do everything they could to get the info they needed?
It’s not as simple as either side makes it out to be.
Morons like Billy are for torture so long as it doesn’t happen to them or their loved ones.
Morons like Billy would most likely be apoplectic if other countries started waterboarding American citizens or American covert operatives, but what’s to stop them? Once we do it, we lose all moral authority to critique other sovereign nations.
Morons like Paul don’t realize that foreign agencies do use waterboarding on Americans. That’s why resistance to it is part of certain professions training.
Morons like Paul don’t realize that this resistance training includes actual usage on Americans.
Ah yes, the Jack Bauer scenario where the agent knows there will be a horrible terrorist attack and has to break the terrorist to stop it. It’s also know as “the red herring” because it actually has 1) never happened and 2) even if it did, you don’t institutionalize and legalize the one-off behavior.
I will defer to the actual experts in the military and intelligence community, where the vast consensus is that torture should not be used because of some moral opposition but because it is plain just not an effective method for getting information. Tortured people work on the simple premise that they know they must tell the torturer what the torturer wants to hear – which usually has nothing to do with the truth.
But we don’t torture, which really means that whatever we do is by definition not torture. Right? Ever ask yourself how we have come so far where this is even debated?
[...] By Jon Ponder ICH 10/30/07 “Pensito Review“ [...]
There should be a debate including all of the presidential candidates that support waterboarding. First they are asked a question that they don’t want to answer, then they are waterboardered until they answer. At the end of the debate they would be asked if they still believe waterboarding isn’t torture.
“If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional,†he said.
No one has yet pointed out that this is a nonsense phrase? Torture isn’t constitutional, and that fact doesn’t hinge on whether or not waterboarding is torture.
Just a note Arlen Specter is a senator not a Rep.
the US was SO sophisticated in 1947. Just look how well they treated minorities.
I haven’t see any proof so far that Mukasey was aware when he was questioned that the U.S. deemed it to be a crime in 1947 & convicted an enemy officer of it. I’ve followed the reports in the media concerning waterboarding fairly closely, but I never saw that fact reported before. If someone sprang the question on him when he wasn’t in full possession of the necessary facts it behooves him to answer cautiously if he isn’t absolutely certain does. I would, too, although that wouldn’t idicate anything about what my final conclusion would be once I WAS confident I DID possess them.
This is manufactured news: it tells us absolutely nothing about what Mukasey’s eventual conclusions on the topic might be except that’s he’s asserted that if it’s demonstrated to him that waterboarding IS toture, then it WOULD be unconstitutional. Judges are usually very cautious about expressing opinions on factual matters so he’s just being very prudent & judicial, not evasive.
If Mr. Mukasey or any other person does not believe that waterboarding is torture then they need to give it a try. We have convicted people of war crimes because it is torture. This administration with the aid of the attorney general has turned this country’s reputation upside down. We are now a pariah in many of the world communities and will continue to retain that status until such time as we get back on the high road where honor and duty go together.
First off, Billy you are an idiot aparently. Thank about what you just said…you want to use a TERROR tactic (fear of death and further suffering) in order to defend against a TERROR TACTIC, and if that’s not bad enough, you want to live under a DICTATORSHIP because you want Bush to have unrestricted power. Let me say it again, you say you WANT to live under a dictatorship that openly tortures people, even it’s own!!! You are the perfect American for Bush…paraniod, gulable, and willing to throw everything away for a VERY false sense of security that you will never have because you’ll be living under a regeme of permanent fear. This IS terrorism you twit…just by your own gouvernment against YOU! Bush doesn’t need the actual terrorists anymore, the end result has already been acomplished, you sheep!
Next, Brian, you have a serious logic problem. If a terrorist was holding information on an attack, and he’s being tortured to release the information, why do you think he’d tell the truth? Since he knows he’s going to be tortured and maybe killed anyway, all he has to do it stall, send your CIA on wild goose chases (which stops his immediate pain I might add because he “cooperated”, and laugh
when the attack occurs anyway, knowning that even if he’s killed he still won. SO your scenerio is stupid as a justification.
next by anonymous when they say that waterboarding is used on americans by other countries. He is correct, but why is this an issue. If other countries dipped their prisoners in oil and slashes their balls with razor wire would you then be saying that it’s ok to do to them? This is kindergarden thinking and irrelevant because tortured people don’t say the truth…they say whatever the torturer wants to hear! anyone who believes people will spill their guts truthfully is living in fantasyland. After all, if the truth is the person knows nothing, they’ll be tortured until they admit to whatever the tormentor wants…facts are irrelevant! Also if an enemy in a battle knows that if he surrenders he just gets put in a prison, he may be willing to do so, but if he knows he’s going to be turtured he’ll fight to the death to prevent his capture. You’re putting your own troops at risk by advocating torture, twit#2!
Finally, Dave, I LOVE that idea of subjecting them to it just for a few seconds or a minute. I think that would stop the debate REALLY fast! If it’s supposedly an “acceptable interrogation technique”, then anytime we have impeachment procedings or probably cause for a politician to lie, then they get questioned in this manner. The above twits should have no problem with that, after all it’ll be preserving the integrety ofthe country, and isn’t that what they want?
When waterboarding is inflicted on volunteers in SERE training, it is (a) for a relatively short time, (b) performed by trusted colleagues/instructors and (c) performed on VOLUNTEERS. It’s sort of like the difference between sparring in a martial arts class and being beaten by a gang.
Also the point of doing it in SERE is not to train people how to resist it (although that’s what the “R” stand for). If you could learn how to resist torture, then torture would be EVEN MORE POINTLESS AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE THAN IT IS.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=205070
[...] used to be a war crime as per the U.S.: Pensito Review » Mukasey Won’t Say Waterboarding Is Torture But in 1947 the U.S. Called It a W… "Mukasey Won’t Say Waterboarding Is Torture But in 1947 the U.S. Called It a War Crime, [...]
UPDATE: US called Waterboarding a War Crime in 1947….
An update to the Waterboarding debate:
[In] 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so …
Suggestion: Anyone who is not sure if waterboarding is torture, or who says it is not, should be allowed the opportunity to decide for themselves, from personal experience, if it is indeed not torture.
Who Would Jesus Torture?
One of the more peculiar aspects of the views of most Conservatives on torture is their propensity for dubious scenarios. For instance: Suppose you knew for certain…Only God knows anything for certain. And if God has told you—for certain that someone knows where the bomb is—then why doesn’t He tell you where the bomb is—for certain. Are you saying God wants you to torture people?
On closer inspection the favored Conservative scenario for torture reveals a curious conclusion. It begins: suppose we knew for certain that a certain man knows exactly where a nuclear weapon is and we also know for certain that torturing the man would reveal the information in time for us to disarm the bomb. For certain.
Interesting scenario. Very instructive. Let us tweak the scenario a bit. Suppose you hit the terror cell that planted the bomb and everyone was dead except for one small, female child. The child is a true believer who is quite certain that you are an infidel. As I understand Conservative logic, most Conservatives would torture the child. This was recently reinforced by a certain Aryan on Aryan talk radio. We shall give the Aryan a code name: Wild Pig on His Knees. Wild Pig on His Knees was driven to read a letter from a waitress on the air. In the letter the waitress said that she hated children. Wild Pig on His Knees is one of the Gang of Three Aryans who populate the Conservative wing of Aryan Radio. This Gang of Three say what many Conservatives believe but fear to utter. Namely that they believe that Jack Bauer style torture should be the rule not exception against enemies of the United States and people they dislike or disapprove of. Wild Pig on His Knees is especially vocal in his denunciation of people who do not meet the Aryan ideal. He has repeatedly stated that certain people should not have the right to vote, have children or even to saved by firemen from a fire. Rather like Adolf Hitler, Wild Pig on His Knees believes he has the right to determine which human life is worthwhile and which is not. Or as he renders it: He believes he is the sole arbiter of who is stupid.
While the words of Aryan Radio hosts such as Wild Pig on His knees seem outrageous enough, what is truly outrageous is how the Conservative government acts on those words. There are people that anyone who is either honest or intelligent would conclude have been tortured either by our government or by governments they were rendered to. Governments with a history of torture. It is instructive to note that all the victims who honest people believe have been tortured are of either a different race or a different religion than the President. Moreover, the only US citizens who have been held incommunicado in a manner inconsistent with the US constitution because they were suspected to be terrorists were of either a different race or a different religion than the President. Looks like an Aryan principle is involved here.
But I digress. What is that surprising principle that we can garner from the way Aryans like Wild Pig on His Knees salivate over torture? First I thought the principle was that they would torture anyone even a small child to save their own hides. In fact, I went further down this road. Suppose you know for certain that torturing one innocent person to death would stop a nuclear bomb from going off or reveal the position of that bomb to you. If a conservative is in charge then that innocent will not see her next birthday.
Is that all there is I asked myself? Is this where torture ends? Then I realized something. All of our enemies now know that as long as Conservatives are in charge torture as a means to extract information is in effect. The only thing more certain that is that lying about torture is also in effect. Conservatives lie about torture in two ways. First they try to redefine torture. For Conservatives there is one and only one reason to redefine torture. Conservatives want to get away with torturing people. The second form of lying that conservatives do about torture is denial. To hear this type of lying just walk up to the nearest administration official and ask them if they are torturing anyone. Let the lies begin.
Ok, so our enemies know that Conservative equals torture and that the conservatives now hold the executive branch of government. How will our adversaries behave? Given what are enemies say they believe, they would be more than willing to sacrifice their own to prove a point. So one might imagine that our adversaries would send out cells each of whom is certain they know the correct location of a nuclear device. Each member or the cell is sworn to secrecy not to reveal the information even under torture. Conservatives believe their Nazi derived means of torture are fool proof and would work on anyone. If the Conservatives are right then after the cells are discovered the false locations would be revealed. All of the locations would be under surveillance by human and electronic means. So the revelation of the locations would be confirmation that information has been extracted by means of torture. One can imagine that our adversaries might let this happen many times before coming to a conclusion. What conclusion would that be? Why don’t we let Conservatives tell us what that conclusion would be or what our enemies would do next? Conservatives believe themselves to be so good at predicting the future. If you say you know for certain that a certain man knows where the bomb is and you furthermore know for certain that torturing him will reveal the location then you are saying you can predict the future. Why Conservative prognosticators must be almost as good as those global warming types who tell us we must live in cold caves and eat grass because they can predict exactly what will happen 1000 years from now. Even though we can’t accurately predict the current hurricane season.
It would not surprise me if conservatives tried to say something like: you’re giving our enemies ideas they would not otherwise have had. If so, this would betray either the ignorance or the stupidity of Conservatives. Let’s see, the most recent movie I have seen wherein a group of people were deliberately fed false information so that could reveal it under torture was the DaVinci code. Given some the religious implications in the DaVinci Code, Conservatives may have been forbidden to watch it. Let’s try something more benign. In Star Wars, under duress, one of the characters reveals false information about the location of the rebel base. Not ringing a bell yet Conservatives? Let’s get old. Really old. Remember the Trojan Horse? The concepts: put something into the enemy camp that appears to be one thing but is actually another. Okay, okay. Conservatives only understand one thing. Remember in the Bible when Abraham passes off his wife as his sister and when the king finds out he says: are you trying to get me condemned to hell for committing a sin without being aware of it?
So we can safely say we have the torture President and he is head of the Torture Party. Let’s replace Hail to the Chief with the sounds screams. Let’s change the names of government agencies to names like Ministry of Pain and Ministry of Fear. The names of the Presidents men could become Torture Czar, Torture Lord, or Minister of Pain. And as long as I am indulging in low humor wherein nothing I say bears any resemblance to anyone or anything living or dead. Let me say as a joke, a parody, a farce, that as sure as there were nukes in Iraq and that’s what our men and women are getting maimed and killed there for; I am just as certain he said, facetiously, nudge, nudge, wink, wink—that every adult male conservative in the country knows exactly where every gram of illegal and contraband radioactive substances are on the face of earth. Yes he said, straining to haul a one ton block of salt with his tongue firmly planted in his check, I am absolutely certain that any adult male who happens to conservative know exactly where each and every one of the illegal and dangerous contraband nukes are…How do I know this you ask? Why that information is classified. If I told you I would have to….
Finally, let us note in passing that if you want torture you must vote for conservatives in both the congress and for the presidency. Only conservatives are soothed to sleep by the screams of the damned. It probably reminds them of where they will spend eternity. No liberal or progressive will torture people. Only conservatives enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on their fellow human beings—and lying about it.
[...] Pensito Review Filed under: Civil liberties and human rights, History, International Relations, Legal, [...]
You SHOULD torture someone to save a country BUT torture should ALWAYS be illegal.
By making sure it is illegal it doesn’t become a commonplace easy solution for problems of getting information.
I.E. anyone who is prepared to go to the length of torture should also be willing to go to the length of doing 15 years for committing the torture.
Otherwise you also get the stupid vicous circle we are torturing them because they are the sort they would torture us because we tortured them.
Anyway torture is ineffective as a way of getting information according to the FBI.
You can be sure you aren’t getting what the detainee thinks you want to hear and you can’t be certain you are getting it all. Instead you want to turn someone to your side… Appearing an evil toruring regime makes the second technique harder.
e.g. good guy, bad guy tactics (threats but no torture) turned pretty much all German agents in England in the second world, whereas the German torture didn’t break the French resistance).
[...] Is there a double standard? [...]
[...] http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/10/29/mukasey-wont-say-waterboarding-is-torture/ [...]
[...] Source Info [...]
[...] Source: Pensito Review [...]
[...] But in 1947 the U.S. Called It a War Crime, Sentenced Enemy Officer to 15 years Hard Labor" …http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/10/29/mukasey-wont-say-waterboarding-is-torture/The Market: Black Holes Or Diamonds? A more modest, less than 1% recovery yesterday for our market [...]