Bush on Mukasey

[Decker]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States:
 
Bush said it was unfair to ask Mukasey about interrogation techniques on which he has not been briefed. "He doesn't know whether we use that technique or not,"
(It’s illegal you pinhead.  But not illegal for the CIA)

Bush said, "It doesn't make any sense to tell the enemy whether we use those techniques or not."
(They already know we torture detainees—Abu Grhaib?)

"Judge Mukasey is not being treated fairly," the president said. Without saying whether interrogators use waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning, Bush said that "the American people must know that whatever techniques we use are within the law."
Asked whether he considers waterboarding legal, Bush replied, "I'm not going to talk about techniques. There's an enemy out there."(Well, well, well, there’s an enemy out there…and how does this information help them?  This is the law: 
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; …

Waterboarding sure seems to be illegal under this definition)

Bush said he was concerned that some people "have lost sight of the fact that we are at war with
extremists and radicals." He said it was important that Congress approve the laws, financing and personnel necessary to combat U.S. enemies.
(How can anyone lose sight of the fact we’re at war—that’s been the constant message from this White House and the Republican Party since 9/11)

"The American people must know that whatever techniques we use are within the law," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office. He said Senate's failure to confirm Mukasey promptly was "not good for the country."(Let’s see, Mukasey is a federal judge that that presides over terrorist cases and he can’t determine if waterboarding is torture?  Sounds qualified to me!  Get this man to the Dept. of Justice!)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mukasey&printer=1;_ylt=As9kelVPpILnA3W2QgQ7YmcGw_IE

Joking aside, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 defined away torture, stripped detainees of the right to bring allegations of torture—no Habeas Corpus, and granted retroactive immunity to all US torturers from responsibility for their war crimes.

It looks like Mr. Mukasey will fit right in with the non-torture torture policy of the Bush Administration.

[Mad Nickels]

Bush said he was concerned that some people "have lost sight of the fact that we are at war with
extremists and radicals."

Here's what I don't get.

In WWII, the japanese kamikaze's would build explosives into the nosecones of their planes, and fly their planes into the hulls of ships or large groups of men, in order to kill the most people.  They died for their cause: Nationalism.

Today's terrorists are willing to blow themselves up for their cause: religion.

Both groups of men did the same thing - suicide for a cause.  But we never even considered torture back then, and men went to jail durring WWII for using torture.


So my question for anyone who defends torture is this - In what way are suicidal religious nuts, any worse than suicidal nationalist nuts?

[militarymuscle69]

Here's what I don't get.

In WWII, the japanese kamikaze's would build explosives into the nosecones of their planes, and fly their planes into the hulls of ships or large groups of men, in order to kill the most people.  They died for their cause: Nationalism.

Today's terrorists are willing to blow themselves up for their cause: religion.

Both groups of men did the same thing - suicide for a cause.  But we never even considered torture back then, and men went to jail durring WWII for using torture.


So my question for anyone who defends torture is this - In what way are suicidal religious nuts, any worse than suicidal nationalist nuts?

Hey fool, I would consider 2 H-bombs more torture than waterboarding. How do you know what techniques we used on japanese POWs in WWII? The difference is Americans were stronger back then, and when pearl harbor got bombed people were pissed and stayed pissed. Today's american is weak and forgot about 9/11 2 months later. In WWII if we had waterboarded noone would have cared. 

[OzmO]

Hey fool, I would consider 2 H-bombs more torture than waterboarding. How do you know what techniques we used on japanese POWs in WWII? The difference is Americans were stronger back then, and when pearl harbor got bombed people were pissed and stayed pissed. Today's american is weak and forgot about 9/11 2 months later. In WWII if we had waterboarded noone would have cared. 

Well, i'll have to say over the course of a year my attitude about water boarding has changed.  It doesn't matter what it's considered, torture or not.   If anything it seems some what humane when compared to beatings, maiming, burning, amputation etc...

If a terrorists has information that can save US lives and or other innocents people then we should water board the information out of them.  But we shouldn't do it as a matter of practice to get information we aren't sure the person has.  In other words we shouldn't water board and entire POW camp fishing for something.

But there are some differences between the wars you are comparing which i'm sure you are aware of.   JAPAN was attacking US installations all over the pacific.  And continued to wage war on us on a very large scale which is far different from terrorists acts which are more like isolated police issues since 9/11. Of course not including the 9/11 attack.  JAPAN was also a nation at war.  So people were far more motivated to fight versus what's going on now with a pre-emptive invasion on false intel.  Point is, there is little comparison between WW2 and this war on terror.

In WWII if we had waterboarded noone would have cared.

that's true.  Also, few people cared when they linched up a person and burned a cross in there front yard back then too.   things are a bit different now, with the internet and the availability of news.

[Decker]

Well, i'll have to say over the course of a year my attitude about water boarding has changed.  It doesn't matter what it's considered, torture or not.   If anything it seems some what humane when compared to beatings, maiming, burning, amputation etc...

If a terrorists has information that can save US lives and or other innocents people then we should water board the information out of them.  But we shouldn't do it as a matter of practice to get information we aren't sure the person has.  In other words we shouldn't water board and entire POW camp fishing for something.

But there are some differences between the wars you are comparing which i'm sure you are aware of.   JAPAN was attacking US installations all over the pacific.  And continued to wage war on us on a very large scale which is far different from terrorists acts which are more like isolated police issues since 9/11. Of course not including the 9/11 attack.  JAPAN was also a nation at war.  So people were far more motivated to fight versus what's going on now with a pre-emptive invasion on false intel.  Point is, there is little comparison between WW2 and this war on terror.


that's true.  Also, few people cared when they linched up a person and burned a cross in there front yard back then too.   things are a bit different now, with the internet and the availability of news.

The US charged a Japanese soldier with war crimes for waterboarding.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

So it is in our country's history to treat such an act as a war crime.

Is torture effective?  If it is, then an argument can be made that it should be used (of course that's at the expense of one's humanity and at the expense of the US reputation for being better than piece of shit torturers like the Nazis). 

For torture to be effective, it has to be legalized, you have to have the right detainee, with the right reliable information and an american willing to torture another person.  That's the stage for it to work but is it effective?

Torture can be counterproductive to the aims it is supposed to achieve.  http://www.psysr.org/tortureseminar.htm  It is probable that a person being tortured will say anything to stop the torture.

Finally, remember this:  Torture is a terrorist tactic.  Are we going to battle terrorism with terrorism? 

[OzmO]

The US charged a Japanese soldier with war crimes for waterboarding.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

So it is in our country's history to treat such an act as a war crime.

Is torture effective?  If it is, then an argument can be made that it should be used (of course that's at the expense of one's humanity and at the expense of the US reputation for being better than piece of shit torturers like the Nazis). 

For torture to be effective, it has to be legalized, you have to have the right detainee, with the right reliable information and an american willing to torture another person.  That's the stage for it to work but is it effective?

Torture can be counterproductive to the aims it is supposed to achieve.  http://www.psysr.org/tortureseminar.htm  It is probable that a person being tortured will say anything to stop the torture.

Finally, remember this:  Torture is a terrorist tactic.  Are we going to battle terrorism with terrorism? 

I understand the point and i understand the legal angle you are bringing up.   But in the end, if a terrorists has information that will save lives, i believe water boarding to get the information is a reasonable thing to do.   What i am against is doing it indiscriminately. 

Would torture be effective in this case?  I donno, but at least an effort was made to saves lives that didn't involve extreme torture.

[Decker]

I understand the point and i understand the legal angle you are bringing up.   But in the end, if a terrorists has information that will save lives, i believe water boarding to get the information is a reasonable thing to do.   What i am against is doing it indiscriminately. 

Would torture be effective in this case?  I donno, but at least an effort was made to saves lives that didn't involve extreme torture.

I think the deck is stacked against your propositions that:
1. we in fact have a terrorist
2. that has relevant knowledge
3. and will communicate that knowledge faithfully under torture

I'm still of the opinion that torture is next to worthless b/c a person will say anything to abate the pain from torture...especially if that information is exactly what the torturer wants to hear.

We've already been through this with the run up to the iraq war.  The US renditioned a detainee to Egypt to be tortured.  He told his torturers whatever they wanted to hear and those false statements were part of the "rock solid" sources the Bush Administration used to convince the US to invade Iraq.  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=061027002757.4o2xn2lu&show_article=1

[OzmO]

I think the deck is stacked against your propositions that:
1. we in fact have a terrorist
2. that has relevant knowledge
3. and will communicate that knowledge faithfully under torture

I'm still of the opinion that torture is next to worthless b/c a person will say anything to abate the pain from torture...especially if that information is exactly what the torturer wants to hear.

We've already been through this with the run up to the iraq war.  The US renditioned a detainee to Egypt to be tortured.  He told his torturers whatever they wanted to hear and those false statements were part of the "rock solid" sources the Bush Administration used to convince the US to invade Iraq.  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=061027002757.4o2xn2lu&show_article=1

Is there evidence of torture working?

[Decker]

Is there evidence of torture working?

It works on television's 24.  In real life, I don't know.

[OzmO]

It works on television's 24.  In real life, I don't know.

Would interesting to find out, because if we have studies showing torture doesn't work, then there should be evidence of it working.   If not, at some point it becomes universally accepted by everyone it doesn't work and then no one does it because it's a waste of time.

[Decker]

Would interesting to find out, because if we have studies showing torture doesn't work, then there should be evidence of it working.   If not, at some point it becomes universally accepted by everyone it doesn't work and then no one does it because it's a waste of time.

I'm afraid that those types of studies would be on par with studying the efficacy of child labor--the moral repugnancy of the topic does not lend itself to study by humane societies.

The only universally accepted discount of torture that I can find is that which is done on humanitarian grounds.

Otherwise look to the APA and see what psychologists have to say.  I believe there are some pro-torture psychologists.  Not many.  As an organization, the APA is dead set against torture.

[OzmO]

I'm afraid that those types of studies would be on par with studying the efficacy of child labor--the moral repugnancy of the topic does not lend itself to study by humane societies.

The only universally accepted discount of torture that I can find is that which is done on humanitarian grounds.

Otherwise look to the APA and see what psychologists have to say.  I believe there are some pro-torture psychologists.  Not many.  As an organization, the APA is dead set against torture.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that waterboarding for example is successful at some level otherwise no one would waste their time doing it for the last 50 years?

If torture is only effective a minimum of 25% of the time i might change my view on it.  You are bringing up great points, but they are from a POV that's totally against it with out considering whether or not torture is effect on some cases and proves to save lives.

[Decker]

Wouldn't it stand to reason that waterboarding for example is successful at some level otherwise no one would waste their time doing it for the last 50 years?

If torture is only effective a minimum of 25% of the time i might change my view on it.  You are bringing up great points, but they are from a POV that's totally against it with out considering whether or not torture is effect on some cases and proves to save lives.

You are assuming that torture is done to secure knowledge.  Never underestimate the sadistic satisfaction that torture can produce.  Why torture?  B/c we can.  They are the enemy (at least we think so, it's hard to tell with some detainees and since habeas corpus is gone, they can't challenge the rightfulness of their detention).

As far as playing the percentages re efficacy, that's a consideration.  The only cost is one's humanity.  This is torture we are talking about....not interrogation which may be incidental.

[OzmO]

You are assuming that torture is done to secure knowledge.  Never underestimate the sadistic satisfaction that torture can produce.  Why torture?  B/c we can.  They are the enemy (at least we think so, it's hard to tell with some detainees and since habeas corpus is gone, they can't challenge the rightfulness of their detention).

As far as playing the percentages re efficacy, that's a consideration.  The only cost is one's humanity.  This is torture we are talking about....not interrogation which may be incidental.

The only cost is one's humanity

   I'm 100% with you there, but i just don't think water boarding a person who has information that can save lives qualifies.   I believe all the other stuff does.


Dog gonnit!    Decker, you got me all conflicted again   lol...   

[240 is Back]

I'd like to know what concrete results we saw from the long-term torture at Abu Ghirab.

Should be a great example to make/break this argument.

What great info was learned there?

[OzmO]

That's a good idea to look into that.


But what about if we capture a terrorist and the information we capture him with contains plans for a catastrophic attack but we don;t know when or where?

Do we sit on our principles and not try and get the information by water boarding or do water board in hopes of getting it?

[Mad Nickels]

That's a good idea to look into that.


But what about if we capture a terrorist and the information we capture him with contains plans for a catastrophic attack but we don;t know when or where?

Do we sit on our principles and not try and get the information by water boarding or do water board in hopes of getting it?

here's the problem -

habeas corpus was removed one day in 2006 by surprise.

torture emerged as "already happening" and "we're intentionally keeping it gray area"

It just takes one more pen stroke for average americans to be eligible for torture, and it'd be completely legal.  Then all you can do it hope they choose not to use it on you.  And the next preseident (hilary) will be able to use all these powers too!

[Decker]

I'd like to know what concrete results we saw from the long-term torture at Abu Ghirab.

Should be a great example to make/break this argument.

What great info was learned there?

That's a good point.  I mean the poster child for torture information is the Libby case (not that Libby case) where an Iraqi detainee was renditioned by the US to Egypt.  He was tortured and the testimony he gave for Hussein's Al Qaeda ties was used to sell the war on Iraq.

Libby was apparently taken to Cairo, Clonan told the broadcaster, after being captured in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

"He (Libby) claims he was tortured in jail and that would be routine in Egyptian prisons," Grey said.

"What he claimed most significantly was a connection between ... Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. This intelligence report made it all the way to the top, and was used by (former US secretary of state) Colin Powell as a key piece of justification ... for invading Iraq," he told the broadcaster.

Powell claimed in a UN Security Council meeting in February 2003, weeks before a US-led coalition invaded Iraq, that the country under Saddam Hussein had provided weapons training to Al-Qaeda, saying he could "trace the story of a senior terrorist operative", whom Grey alleges is Libby.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=061027002757.4o2xn2lu&show_article=1


It was a total fabrication.  That's the efficacy of testimony from torture.  It got us into the single worst foreign policy blunder in american history.