|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First) |
Nov 6th, 2007 09:54 AM | ||
mburbank |
Yes, damnit! It's about Mukasey like this. Torture is illegal. You can do all the fancy footwork you want, but under our current system of laws it's illegal. Personally, I think that's good, because I think it's wrong, but my emotional reaction has nothing to do with Mukasey's nomination. If you allow a nominee to become attorney general who is willling to say "I find breaking the law acceptable under certain circumstances" That's a problem. Because of his office, it's a damn problem if he says it's okay to drive above the damn speed limit or Jay Walk, and it's by degree a bigger problem when the crime in question is torture, and in addition, he's saying it's okay for the attorney general to perjure himself as long as that's what the President wants. It doesn't matter if you think torture is justified any more than I think torturers are subhuman. It's the law. You can't have a dog catcher who thinks some dogs should be allowed to run around free biting people. You can't have a fire chief who thinks it's okay if some people burn up. And you can't have an attorney general who says it is okay for some people to break the law. I'm sure we've had dog catcher's, fire chiefs and attorney generals who've done all that. I'm sure it's the rule and not the exception, but it's WRONG. And I agree with you, there's not a liberal out there, and if this damn election leaves me feeling like I have little choice but to vote for Hillary I may take a dump in the voting booth. |
|
Nov 6th, 2007 09:04 AM | ||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Andrew Sullivan is still one of the most highly read and respected writers on the web. He's very different than Michael Moore. I'm not asking you to like him, but he's far from irrelevant. |
|
Nov 6th, 2007 02:19 AM | ||
Preechr |
Ok, Ok... I just fully skimmed the Libertarian Handbook and no where in there... believe it or not... does it say that a known terrorist has any sort of protection from harm under any sort of ideal law. "Your right to swing your fist stops at my chin," remember? I have said it before and I'll say it again: I want a government that will do whatever it takes to end the evil of terrorism. Yes, I understand that "terror" and it's causation can be loosely and ruthlessly defined by an evil government, but that's why I like people like Max... I am in the precarious position of finally agreeing with ex-Vp and current Nobel Prize-Winning think-o-crat Al Gore on a tiny sub-set of his current eco-propaganda retirement plan: Flat-Earth type skeptics of everything new should probably just be disregarded... Yet, I think they should exist and be heard, just in case, like Max, they have the potential for one day uncovering a Luddite, anti-lightbulb sort of path of which we should actually be fearful. Maybe that will happen... who knows? And, Kevin... come on... Sullivan hasn't been relevant since he subscribed to ABB Weekly when our dear leader made his position on Gay Marriage known last election cycle. For all your righteous indignation at anything Geggy, you might as well have linked an article from michaelmoore.com, man. I have never supported Bush's intentions outright. I have been steadfast in this administration's unintended consequences and my butthole has been so tight so far you'd be hard-pressed to poke a toothpick up in there. I know why conservatives support this war, and though it makes me a bit queasy, I appreciate the fact that conservative support of this effort has made it possible. My biggest grief here is that Liberals... if they even exist anymore... haven't taken over the reins, especially since the tide has turned and things are looking decidedly better in Iraq and Afghanistan. This should never have been attempted as a war against Rag-Heads that want to subjugate us and make our wives wear Burkas. It was, though, and so far that it was... even for the wrong reasons... it is good. What we need now is a real Liberal to finish what Dubya inadvertently started... but, unfortunately, what passes for a Liberal these days is just a sad memory of what was started with our nation's founding... What were we talking about again? Torture? Waterboarding? Yeah, I think I fully support "enhanced" methods of interrogation as long as we have guys like Max to bitch about everything somebody can come up with and as long as those "enhanced" methods produce positive results... Isn't that what this has boiled down to again? Was this ever about Mukasey at all? |
|
Nov 5th, 2007 05:07 PM | ||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
That about says it all. |
|
Nov 5th, 2007 04:19 PM | ||
mburbank |
A.) Leave it to the Bush administration to make me nostalgic for Ashcrofts moral clarity. B.) Of ALL the many, many things he is in a position to write an op-ed about, this is the one he feels viscerally compelled to put on paper. |
|
Nov 5th, 2007 09:18 AM | ||
KevinTheOmnivore | We could always bring back John Ashcroft. | |
Nov 4th, 2007 01:25 PM | ||
mburbank |
Kevin, we should enjoy this moment when I couldn't agree with you more. Personally, I'm not any more enoamored of Hillary CVlinton having the authority to torture people than I am W, but the point is, the United states should play legalese with the idea. It's sickening that we are a torture nation and doubly sickening that IF that's truly what people think we should be they don't have the balls to say "Yes. WE are a nation that wuill torture people if we feel it's in our best interests" No one has aksed Mukasey to say if what we are dpoing is torture. He canm't say for certain what we've been doing yet. He's been asked if waterboarding is torture, and his refusal to answer the question is cowardice. He's willing toi call it repugnant but he can't say if it's legal? Bullshit. Take a stand and he should get an up or down vote. Refuse to and he should be thrown out at committee. |
|
Nov 3rd, 2007 01:13 PM | ||
KevinTheOmnivore |
I think Andrew Sullivan puts it best: Quote:
We must be mindful of this, and he is so spot on about the West's perception of power. Preechr, as a Libertarian you should be the one getting on us Liberals about stuff like this. Why we trust that this particular president is full of the best intentions boggles my mind. It isn't just about him. I think we need to re-think the Justice Department entirely in this country, and question whether or not it needs more autonomy from the executive. That, I know, can create a whole bunch of other problems, too. But until then, they should not approve Mukasey. |
|
Oct 30th, 2007 02:17 PM | ||
mburbank |
The two main sources for the effectiveness of waterboarding on KSM in the wikipedia article are W and Cheney. W has repeatedly said the US does not torture. The article you are siting begins "Waterboarding is a form of torture". The third source is an unamed CIA opperative. He sites confession of involvement by KSM in 31 terrorist plots. No info is given on veracity of this claim. I would say that this is very flimsy evidence of effectiveness to base a decission to violate the rule of law and join the club of nations that torture. A.) I believe they believe waterboarding yields or may at some point useful information B.) W and Chenney have a very poor record of veracity and believe secrecy over anything makes your wiener bigger, so anything they have to say about what tenchiques yield what information should be taken with mucho salt C.) If Mukaseys opinion is that waterboaring isn't torture, or is torture but torture is legal and moreover an good tool that yields useable results, then by all means, let him say so. |
|
Oct 27th, 2007 12:06 PM | ||
Preechr |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding Read the part about Khalid Sheik Muhammed. |
|
Oct 26th, 2007 04:34 PM | ||
Emu | Calling any form of torture (or behaviors of persuasion, or whatever you'd call them) "extremely effective" is a little ... well, wrong. | |
Oct 26th, 2007 12:27 PM | ||
mburbank |
Both Obama and Clinton are war hawks compared to me. In my lifetime there's never been a President that reflected my politics. That said, some are further away than others, and some are way further away. We agree the Mukasey lied, which is perjury, which is crime. I prefer my Attorney Generals to at LEAST make it through confirmation testimony before breaking the law. And what in the world leads you to believe waterboarding is effective? Because some of the people who've done it have said so but said the evidence it was effective is a secret? |
|
Oct 26th, 2007 04:12 AM | ||
Preechr |
It is physically harmless and EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE. It is confirmed that we (the good guys) have gotten tons of very useful intel from very hard core terrorist leaders (the bad guys) using this technique, which is physically harmless and EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE. Max I see your point in that he is obviously lying about his knowledge of this procedure, and to that end I can follow you down the path of not wanting to see another person confirmed to serve in this administration that speaks out of both sides of his mouth. That being said, I just don't fucking care. Both sides are completely reactive to whatever political ploy the other side is attempting at any given time. The game playing has built itself up into such a complex structure of immaturity and silliness that it's almost easy to forget that multi-layered political funpark is almost completely obscuring the most important thing that is happening in the world. Whether or not you believe that the War on Terror is about something bigger than Dubya getting his rocks off by sending boys to die overseas, you have to at least be able to admit that scoring cheap political points off of very real dead people (good and bad) that really do believe in this fight is wrong on many more levels than is momentarily applying Saran Wrap to a known bad guy's face and getting him a little wet in exchange for stopping very real terrorist plots. Like it or not, no matter who is elected President next year, this war will go on until something greater than Democrat sniping brings it to a stop. Have you given any thought to your position on the war as it will be when a President Clinton or President Obama is waging it? |
|
Oct 25th, 2007 03:02 PM | ||
mburbank |
It's more than that you think you're drowning. You're brain believes you are drowning. You're brain believes you are going to die. We train special opps forces to withstand waterboarding and it takes training to get your most basic instinctual responses under control. That's why it's a time honored torture technique. |
|
Oct 25th, 2007 02:05 PM | ||
AChimp |
You're tied down with your feet inclined and then blindfolded. Then they pour water on your face. It's not physical torture in the sense that they're physically hurting you, but mostly psychological because it can make you think that you're drowning if it's done long enough. |
|
Oct 25th, 2007 12:50 PM | ||
MLE | so wait.. what is waterboarding? | |
Oct 25th, 2007 10:29 AM | ||
mburbank |
“Is waterboarding constitutional?” Mr. Mukasey was asked by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, in one of the sharpest exchanges. “I don’t know what is involved in the technique,” Mr. Mukasey replied. “If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional." The question: Is X (waterboarding) part of set y (Things that are unconstitutional) Mukasey agrees that torture is not constitutional, but won't say if he believes waterboarding is torture. He also won't say if he thinks waterboarding isn't torture. He's a Judge. He knows he's saying "I won't answer your question" He also claims what waterboarding is. It's been detailed by numerous media outlets, John Mccain, who had it done to him calls it 'exquisite torture' and can tell you all about it, it's a techinque the Nazis used and was listed at the nurembergh trials as a war crime, the Kmehr Rouge used it. The question has now been submitted to him in writing. He has ample time and staff to tell him what waterboarding is. If he continues to refuse to answer the question, he should not be confirmed. |
|
Oct 24th, 2007 02:36 PM | ||
Emu | I was thinking the same thing but I didn't want to post for fear of sounding stupid :< | |
Oct 24th, 2007 10:54 AM | ||
Chojin |
I don't know what waterboarding is, either. If I had to guess, I'd say it's similar to boogie-boarding, but to the EXTREME. I also don't understand why 'If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional' is a stupid thing to say. :< |
|
Oct 24th, 2007 12:22 AM | ||
KevinTheOmnivore | tap tap... | |
Oct 23rd, 2007 07:50 PM | ||
Preechr | I'm sure it's just that he and Larry Craig don't use the internet together. | |
Oct 23rd, 2007 01:44 PM | ||
mburbank | Bernie Sanders of Vermont has gone on record saying he will not vote for Mukasey. Which other will show the sack to give him the thumbs down? | |
Oct 23rd, 2007 11:45 AM | ||
mburbank |
Mukasey should not be confirmed "Is waterboarding constitutional?" Mr. Mukasey was asked by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, in one of the sharpest exchanges. "I don't know what is involved in the technique," Mr. Mukasey replied. "If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional." Okay, first of all, that's perjury. No educated person in America today doesn't know what's involved in waterboarding, especially a Judge who's area of expertise is trying terrorism cases. Additionally, no one who talks crap like that second sentence should be confirmed to dog catcher let alone attorney general. If he'd answered the question by saying "If elected attorney general, I fully intend to lie to congress whenever it suits me" And yes, yes, yes, I KNOW that's what attorney generals do, but A.) The arrogance of the presentation is astounding B.) They shouldn't and C.) WHEN they do, it should be immediately dragged into the full light of day. More than any other political position, the attorney general should be held to a standard of the least permissable amount of blatant bullshit because they represent the LAW, which we are supposed to believe is more important than any given adminsitration. He Blew it. That quote, and the other one about the President not being above the Law but within it (as opposed to subject to it) should be repeated over and over and over and he should NOT be confirmed just because he is less of a slave toad jester than Gonzales. |