McCain Calls Waterboarding ‘A Horrible Torture Technique,’ But Will He Vote Against Mukasey?
McCain Calls Waterboarding ‘A Horrible Torture Technique,’ But Will He Vote Against Mukasey?
During his confirmation hearings, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey refused to classify waterboarding as torture. His remarks prompted all 10 Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to demand a “clear-cut statement” from him that the torture technique of simulated drowning is illegal.
This past Wednesday, Mukasey’s good friend Rudy Giuliani gave a similarly murky answer on waterboarding, stating that “it depends on the circumstances” and “on who does it” because “liberal newspapers have exaggerated it.”
Speaking in Iowa on Thursday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who 40 years ago today was shot down, captured, and tortured by the North Vietnamese, took issue with Giuliani and Mukasey. McCain denounced waterboarding as clear-cut torture:
“Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak,” said McCain after a campaign stop at Dordt College here.
“People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that.”
McCain said that those who are unsure about waterboarding “should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.” He has previously called waterboarding “very exquisite torture.”
Mukasey’s unwillingness to distance himself from torture has jeopardized his confirmation. Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said yesterday that his vote “would depend on [Mukasey] answering that question.” “This to me is the seminal issue,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid remarked, “I think if he doesn’t change his direction in that regard, he could have at least one concern and that’s me.”
Will McCain too demand that Mukasey condemn waterboarding as a precondition for his vote?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Will McCain too demand that Mukasey condemn waterboarding as a precondition for his vote?
Short answer–No.
Long answer–Nope.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:08 amMcCain Calls Waterboarding ‘A Horrible Torture Technique,’ But Will He Vote Against Mukasey?
No.
It’s *different* when WE are the ones doing the torturing.
Like – DUH. Every good Repuke knows that.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:10 ama good read, via rachel maddow show…
Mukasey’s confirmation: a vote about torture
The attorney general nominee’s evasive remarks on ‘water-boarding’ should disqualify him from the job.
By Jonathan Turley
This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote in favor of Michael Mukasey to be the new U.S. attorney general, sending his nomination to the full Senate for confirmation. What is most surprising is the wave of support from the committee’s Democrats, who seem determined to ignore what they clearly view as a minor flaw in the nominee: his refusal to denounce the deplorable practice of “water-boarding†and his apparent willingness to lie to duck the issue.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:10 am[…]
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley24oct24,0,1182359.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
…
also, posted this on the fast thread:
i heard this on morning joe:
after a news report about leahy wanting “waterboarding†designated as torture , joe said that a report in NEWSWEEK several years ago stated that those techniques, “call them torture if you wantâ€, have given up lots of valuable information… mika (sp?) brought up john mccain, that HE said it didn’t work… and joe said, “IT WORKED ON JOHN MCCAINâ€â€¦
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN???
WHAT SECRETS DID MCCAIN GIVE AWAY???
…
… The names of the players on a football team. They wanted him to give them names and ranks of members of a certain brigade. So he gave them the names of the players on his favorite football team. …
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 26, 2007 @ 9:45 am
so, it DID NOT really work…
October 26th, 2007 at 10:13 amwhat the hell was joe scarborough talking about???
…
Correction: “We used to be a better nation than that.”
October 26th, 2007 at 10:15 amoh, and this… should i post on every thread, as a reminder???
how about calling this a “freeze out friday†on the troolls…
do NOT address them directly…
DO address their LIES and MISinformation with facts…
but, please, no stupid, childish arguements… please…
October 26th, 2007 at 10:15 am…
You know , honestly —- nobody would care if you waterboarded a bunch of al quaeda who were caught with bombs on a commercial jet….
to get more information on other impending plane bomb plans.
but ITS IMMORAL to take innocent people, a la people
NOT PROVEN GUIITY YET…
and torture them for information because they might be terrorists. ( its even wrong after theyre found guilty)
I mean, we all fall into that category right?
And Mccain, former war prisoner, should know this…
Show some balls.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:16 amMcCain has, more than anybody else in the Senate, earned the right to be listened to on the subject of torture. I might even reverse my thinking on waterboarding if McCain would say in all seriousness, “Waterboarding isn’t torture. Heck, I was waterboarded by the Viet Cong and it was a piece of cake.” But McCain isn’t saying that. He is saying that waterboarding is a horrible torture technique. We should believe him on that point.
Unfortunately, he will probably vote for Mukasey, as he would vote for any Bush appointee. And so will so many others, because they figure Bush will never send them anyone they find more acceptable. Pity.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:16 amIt’s *different* when WE are the ones doing the torturing.
Like – DUH. Every good Repuke knows that.
Comment by Leftside Annie — October 26, 2007 @ 10:10 am
No, no, no! WE don’t torture!
We do, however, employ “enhanced interrogation techniques”.
Sort of like how we don’t commit acts of terrorism, we demonstrate “shock and awe.”
Terrorists use snipers to pick off people, we use sharpshooters.
Didn’t you get your official glossary of terms yet?
October 26th, 2007 at 10:21 amYou know , honestly —- nobody would care if you waterboarded a bunch of al quaeda who were caught with bombs on a commercial jet….
to get more information on other impending plane bomb plans.
Comment by overlap — October 26, 2007 @ 10:16 am
Excuse me, overlap – speak for yourself, ok?
I would care.
Torture is WRONG. Always.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:22 amComment by missmolly — October 26, 2007 @ 10:16 am
You are absolutely correct.
I would go on to say that from this point forward we shouldn’t say McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese, but rather that he suffered some “alternative interrogation techniques”
October 26th, 2007 at 10:23 amMissmolly – I guess not.
I did get my new Yellow Book, though. ;o)
October 26th, 2007 at 10:23 amI would hope that McCain would make a stand here. As stated by others, he knows more than most what torture is. Sadly, for him, if he doesn’t vote for him he’ll be viewed by the people he’s trying to woo as weak and will have no chance at the WH. Not that he has much now but it would be nil if he follows his morals rather than the voters.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:42 ambe strong. … focus. …
…
but, i’m reminded of an oft quoted line used frequently by a certain troll:
“the US does not torture humans”
the underlying reasoning is that islamists are not human…
i’m thinking that idea is too pervasive these days…
racism runs rampant… all over the place…
October 26th, 2007 at 10:44 am…
McCain’s comment about Burmese torture of monks is spot on.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:45 amDoes rudy really want to emulate the generals in Burma? Now that would be a good YouTube question.
It never ceases to amaze me that someone like McCain )who has been tortured and knows that while torture does produce answers but that these answers are more often what the tortured thinks the torturer wants to hear rather than the truth) will on the one hand continue to demonstrate that he knows the reality of torturing, but on the other hand, continue to support those who think that torture’s like you see on “24″.
At some point, when does reality trump partisanship?
October 26th, 2007 at 10:47 amDodd’s going to speak on FISA right now (CSPAN2)!!!!
October 26th, 2007 at 10:53 amWhich Democrats will vote against Mukasey? They all seem to be on board with him. Here is a radio sow explaining why Mukasey would be a terrible AG and why he’s worse than Gonzales.
http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim071002.mp3
October 26th, 2007 at 10:58 amTorture is perfectly acceptable when your own survival may depend on it. While it is true that most of the information coming out of a tortured person won’t be reliable, the cost is still justified if that one nugget of good information helps protect national security. The legislature should legitimize torture, but under strict supervision, and by trained folks
October 26th, 2007 at 11:03 amthis is very simple as I see it… those who think waterboarding is no big deal, or just having “a little water splashed on your face,” ought to be willing to undergo a waterboarding session… that, or shut up…
October 26th, 2007 at 11:10 amTorture doesn’t work. Everyone who knows anything about it, knows it doesn’t work. It will throw all your follow-up personnel on a wild goose chase, following made up leads and absorbing all their time, effort, and resources. Since Guantanamo Bay opened its Camp Xray detention facility, more than 400 people have been release, after deeming that they were innocent of any wrongdoing. This means we held people there for 2-4 years, tortured them, then released them because they were innocent. The cost is never justified. When I was in Iraq, I noticed that many of the ISG interrogators would wait until their detainees had a hot shower and a meal before they talked to them, while Army MP’s were putting detainees in stress positions. I asked one of the ISG guys about this. He said that they were used to torture under Sadaam, and they had expected the Americans to torture them. When you were nice to them, it took them off guard. After a hot shower and a good meal, they would give you info in exchange for you treating their family the same way.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:11 am#20. I don’t even know where to start….
For more info on waterboarding and a handy graphic
October 26th, 2007 at 11:13 amhttp://tshirtinsurgency.com/gitmo-shirt
Hits,
I suspect that you may be Al-Qaeda. Just to be safe, lets set your wife on fire and you can watch her burn. Then I will cut out your eyes so that is the last thing you remember seeing. If you go ahead and give me the name of the next US target that Al-Qaeda is planning to attack, I won’t drill holes in your hands.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:13 amdesaparecido,
You could start with an intellectual debate of your position.
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:14 amVOLUNTEERS
October 26th, 2007 at 11:15 amHey, how about if those who support waterboarding, volunteer to be waterboarded, to show that it’s no big thang, eh? And supporters of torture should themselves volunteer to be tortured. Or are they all such pussies that they can’t take it?
Chris L,
If you believe I can reveal a threat directed towards you that you perceive as imminent and/or real, your actions towards me are justifiable, from your perspective – I will still strike you down, but that’s an irrelevant point for now.
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:17 amIn other words #20, if a muslim’s survival may depend on torturing a U.S. soldier, it’s acceptable? Oh right.. didn’t think so. Care to re-think/re-state your argument?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:17 amLet’s see if McCain is a true hypocrite with a “yes vote” for Mukasey.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:18 amhits sez:
Wow…so many things wrong with this…where should I start?
First of all, torture is morally wrong. PERIOD. It’s not conditionally wrong dependent upon the circumstances. It’s 100% WRONG, even if it were to reliably yield 100% correct information (which it most does not). This sort of pernicious moral relativism runs completely counter to the concepts this country was founded upon. If you really think torture is acceptable, hits, perhaps you ought to move to a nation with a more…flexible…moral framework…like China.
Second, all those knowledgeable in the field state unequivocally that torture is not a reliable means of extracting intelligence. Your weasel words regarding the “one nugget of good information” means nothing if it can’t be differentiated from the rest of the things the victim is babbling in an attempt to stop the torture.
Third, unfortunately, our torture program is under strict supervision, and is done by “trained folks”…folks who studied S.E.R.E. techniques in order to “reverse-engineer” them for use on detainees. The problem isn’t that the torturers are inept and unsupervised…it’s quite the reverse.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:18 amdesaparecido,
You have to clarify your frame of reference. From the Muslim’s perspective, his/her actions are entirely justified. From my point of view, however, not so much. Learn to appreciate the power of frames of reference.
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:19 amEvidently, our illustrious mentally-challenged troll (hits) has never heard of the Geneva Conventions on Torture. For the record, this is something we supported and signed on to….which the Bush Crime Cabal conveniently forgets. The international community is definitely NOT forgetting so they’re going after Rummy right now. The moment Bush/Cheney step out of office officially, the war crime tribunal will begin.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:20 amWhen I was a kid in the 70’s – 80’s, there was this country called the Soviet Union. I remember my father, a Vietnam vet, railing against them and the communists. I remember the stories he used to tell me about the Soviets, how people would be held in secret prisons for years on end, completely innocent. He said they tortured people, and held illegal tribunals where people were executed by a firing squad. He also said thet their nearest ally to the US, was a country called Cuba.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:20 amHits: How about a “frame of reference” called the Geneva Conventions?? Ever hear of that frame of reference?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:20 amTripMaster Monkey,
I don’t understand the word “moral”. Any time I see third order concepts like morality interspersed in an argument, I would urge you to try and explain those terms to me first. Here’s what I do understand – intelligence and survival.
Thank you
October 26th, 2007 at 11:21 amHits
hits sez:
Moral relativism at its most depraved, folks. Everyone give “hits” a big hand.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:22 amIf you believe I can reveal a threat directed towards you that you perceive as imminent and/or real, your actions towards me are justifiable, from your perspective – I will still strike you down, but that’s an irrelevant point for now.
Hits
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 11:17 am
#
Well, I do believe that. Why not? And after 8 years in the Army, and 3 operational deployments, I’m not worried about you “striking me down”. So, where is that lovely wife of yours?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:22 amVeritas,
The Geneva Conventions are severely sub-optimal from the perspective of its indiviual entities/countries. At a global level, it makes for good general guidelines, but it breaks down for individuals and specific circumstances. One cannot fit a grand unifying theory of everything to explain every specific situation. Such exercises fail dismally
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:23 amTripMaster Monkey,
When challenged to explain a third order concept, you respond with a forth order argument? How arcane.
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:24 amChris L,
Your military experience should no doubt help you. Do well in life. My wife is indeed lovely and doing great.
Thank you
October 26th, 2007 at 11:25 amHits
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 11:23 am
This is Jake posting by another name. He has nothing to contribute to the discussion, and is here merely to distract and disrupt. He will always parrot the extreme right-wing talking points, no matter how insane, as he does not have an opinion of his own.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:27 amhits sez:
That much is obvious.
No.
If you’re going to have the gall to sit there and claim not to understand what is meant by “morality”, I’m certainly not going to waste my time attempting to teach you how to be a human being.
Considering the fundamentally (not to mention dangerously) poor judgements you’ve endorsed, I have my doubts about both of those.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:27 amThat clarifies things, Hitz. Obviously torture is ok if you don’t believe in morality. I’ll go with that.
But if everyone’s frame of reference holds equal weight, then what the feck are we talking about?
I mean hey, if my frame of reference says all white people deserve to die because they’re evil, that’s just my frame of reference and if I kill them because I acted upon my frame of reference.. no big deal.. I mean, morality is just a frame of reference.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:28 amChris L,
You have the opportunity to not be influenced by my opinions
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:28 amhits sez:
Yes, hits, I suppose “moral relativism” would indeed be an “arcane” concept to a creature incapable of understanding the simple concept of “morality”…much as a salamander would consider a fork “arcane”.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:30 amI asked one of the ISG guys about this. He said that they were used to torture under Sadaam, and they had expected the Americans to torture them. When you were nice to them, it took them off guard. After a hot shower and a good meal, they would give you info in exchange for you treating their family the same way.
Comment by Chris L — October 26, 2007 @ 11:11 am
British intelligence agents reported similar results when dealing with IRA detainees. They gave prisoners a meal and a cup of tea and just started talking with them. Soon the prisoners were volunteering vital information without even realizing it.
Treating human beings like human beings – what a concept!
October 26th, 2007 at 11:32 amTripMaster Monkey,
Morality is an extremely layered concept, and usually breaks down under even the slightest of pokes. Why, your definition of morality may be quite different from that of a friend who identifies with your positions. I understand your desire to not get into definitions here
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:32 amChris L sez:
Awwww…I thought we were all supposed to pretend we didn’t know, so Shakey didn’t flee again.
Oh well…cat’s out of the bag now…
October 26th, 2007 at 11:32 amThe Geneva Conventions are severely sub-optimal from the perspective of its indiviual entities/countries. At a global level, it makes for good general guidelines, but it breaks down for individuals and specific circumstances. One cannot fit a grand unifying theory of everything to explain every specific situation. Such exercises fail dismally
Hits
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Yeah, Hits, I expect we could argue the exact same about the Bible and Christianity, eh…?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:32 amI don’t understand the word “moralâ€.
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 11:21 am
No kidding.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:33 amdesaparecido,
When you say “everyone’s frame of reference holds equal weight”, you are pre-supposing the presence of a superior entity that makes that judgement. I cannot go there without deeper and more intelligent arguments from your side.
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:33 amTripMaster Monkey,
I am still waiting to be enlightened to the concept of morality. I have no qualms about being a salamander in front of your gigantic intellect. The condition you need to meet, of course, is to enlighten me
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:35 amIf you believe I can reveal a threat directed towards you that you perceive as imminent and/or real, your actions towards me are justifiable, from your perspective – I will still strike you down, but that’s an irrelevant point for now.
Hits
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Again hits talks like he would stand up and defend himself if he perceives a threat. It’s totally untrue. According to GWB Saddam posed an imminent threat to the U.S. Did hits join the military to protect his country, his family, his life? Nope. He hid in his mother’s basement and typed on the internet. Now Iran poses an even greater threat according to GWB. Is hits moved to defend himself? Nope. More typing. It could be because hits is 14 and ineligible for the armed forces but much more likely that he’s just a chickenhawk.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:36 amLeftside Annie,
Absolutely. The Bible and Christianity do not have the last word on anything.
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:36 amDave C,
That’s correct – I do not intend to join the military, as long as there are able folks like Chris here who are willing to do that job for me.
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:38 amhits sez:
Interesting…sounds like you understand morality more than you’re letting on, Shakey.
Citing a hypothetical instance of small differences and them attempting to use that citation to justify torture is morally reprehensible.
I’m sure you do, although it’s not for the reasons you’re attempting to imply. I’m sure everyone else does too.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:39 amThat’s correct – I do not intend to join the military, as long as there are able folks like Chris here who are willing to do that job for me.
Hits
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 11:38 am
No surprise there. So you’re in fact a coward. I guarantee you if there was a draft in the U.S. the support for the current or any future preemptive war would be near zero. Guys like hits are willing to support a war that they don’t have to participate in. He talks about how he will attack when he feels threatened but really he means he’ll hide under the bed and hope that some strong men will handle the situation for him. He is the posterboy for the Chickenhawks in the Republican party.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:40 amHits
Taken to its logical conclusion, your philosophy seeks to destroy everyone who is not You.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:40 amI am still waiting to be enlightened to the concept of morality. I have no qualms about being a salamander in front of your gigantic intellect. The condition you need to meet, of course, is to enlighten me
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 11:35 am
I’ll give you mine. I take my moral cues from many sources, but the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good starting point:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Actions that support these rights are moral. Actions that violate these rights are immoral.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:41 amhits sez:
You’re in for a long wait.
I doubt you have “qualms” about anything.
I “need to meet” no such condition. Res ipsa loquitur.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:41 amTaken to its logical conclusion, your philosophy seeks to destroy everyone who is not You.
Comment by Luis M — October 26, 2007 @ 11:40 am
But it’s a philosophy only. hits won’t be “destroying” anything but the stack of pancakes his mommy puts in front of him on Saturday mornings.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:43 amWho decides what person should be tortured? What legal grounds do they stand on? When these questions are left in the shadows it leaves accountability in the dark.
We are a nation of laws. These laws need to be followed by all. There aren’t new rules for terrorists. There’s only the desire for a power grab under the guise of fear. Torture does not produce actionable intelligence.
This administration is scared to define “torture” and practices that would fall under the definition of torture because they know they are acting outside of the law. Not for our safety, but for their ideological desire to push a contorted view.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:44 amMoral relativism at its most depraved, folks. Everyone give “hits†a big hand.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 26, 2007 @ 11:22 am
And not only that, but he conflates Muslims with terrorism in an effort to perpetuate bigotry. I guess that’s “moral” in his book.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:44 amDave C,
Again, I have no qualms about letting fitter people fight for me, as long as they are willing. If none of those folks are available, or I lose faith in their ability to protect me, I will rise myself
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:47 amLuis M,
Or integrate eveyone and everything into one intelligent and harmonious entity
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:47 amtoasterhead,
Thanks for your attempt. Have you, by chance, read through the elements described in that link of yours?
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:48 amAgain, I have no qualms about letting fitter people fight for me, as long as they are willing. If none of those folks are available, or I lose faith in their ability to protect me, I will rise myself
Hits
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 11:47 am
Ok, I see. You’re not just a chickenhawk, you’re lazy, out of shape & a coward. Something tells me that you would never lose enough faith in your country’s ability to protect you that you’d have to get off your fat ass and protect yourself. Convenient. From previous discussions you’ve show that you’re against poor people getting social assistance from your govt. They can work for themselves and fend for themselves… why should they live off of your earnings? This same thing can be said of you. You’re able to defend yourself, help out in the defense of your country. But you don’t. You’re happy to sit at home and let others do work that you could be doing. It’s socialism that you espouse. But only when you personally benefit.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:51 amlmjp1 sez:
Naaah…”Jake” (and all the derivatives thereof) will do just fine. Don’t let the coward run away from his past.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:51 amTripMaster Monkey,
You are correct – but only from your limited perspective
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:52 amDave C,
As a matter of fact, I happen to love pancakes. However, I don’t eat them in stacks – not good for the heart, and hence, not consistent with my desire to live
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:53 ammissmolly,
I do not have a “moral” in my book. I do have “intelligent”
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:53 amDave C,
You are absolutely free to let your imagination run wild – one of the perks of being alive and human(?). Good luck with that
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 11:54 amThanks for your attempt. Have you, by chance, read through the elements described in that link of yours?
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Many times.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:55 am“hits” sez:
Sheesh, Jake…that made even less sense than usual. You’re actually getting worse at this.
Seeing as how Shakey has been flummoxed again, I’m going to take this opportunity to grab some lunch. Hopefully, Jakers will be back on his feet again by the time I return.
Folks, don’t treat Jake too roughly in my absence…remember, he honestly can’t help himself.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:55 amOr integrate eveyone and everything into one intelligent and harmonious entity
Hits
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 11:47 am
One people, one empire, one leader?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:56 amDave C,
You are absolutely free to let your imagination run wild – one of the perks of being alive and human(?). Good luck with that
Hits
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 11:54 am
It takes absolutely no imagination to compare your unwillingness to serve in the military with people unwilling to work for a living. You both feel that you should reap the benefits while others do the work. So socialism works for you though you despise it. That explains a lot about your posts… they scream self-loathing.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:59 amThanks for your attempt. Have you, by chance, read through the elements described in that link of yours?
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 11:48 am
You might want to pay attention to a few key articles:
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:02 pmIn Iowa Wednesday, GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani followed Bush Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey in playing dumb on the subject of torture. It should come as no surprise that Giuliani would argue that whether waterboarding violates the Geneva Convention depends on what the definition of “torture” is. Even less surprising is that the same man who in May endorsed “every method they could think of” would now jokingly claim that he was a victim of torture himself.
For the details, see:
October 26th, 2007 at 12:03 pm“Giuliani Flip-Flops on Waterboarding, Jokes About Torture.”
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Notice how this article makes no exception for “people we arbitrarily decide might be terrorists.” No one means no one.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:04 pmWhy not just hold a waterboarding interrogation with WH staff ? Considering the odor suggesting treasonous offenses, it is definitely important for us to get to the truth.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:11 pmIt should come as no surprise that Giuliani would argue that whether waterboarding violates the Geneva Convention depends on what the definition of “torture†is.”
Comment by AngryOne — October 26, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Unfortunately, I don’t believe in employing torture on anybody. If I did, then I would suggest that anybody who’s fuzzy on the definition of torture be subjected to the “interrogation techniques” up for debate until they are clear on the term.
I suspect that anybody who has ever been on the receiving end, such as McCain, has a different perspective from the political bloviators.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:13 pmThe interesting fact is that torture has always been proven to accomplish one of two things:
1) Get the person being tortured to agree to anything at all just to get the torture to stop. They’ll lie their a$$es off, just so you stop torturing them. Result: No uselful data at all.
2) The death of the person being tortured, because they didn’t give any info and you had to keep torturing until they died. Result: No uselful data at all.
All the US would have to say is: torturing works, because we got info from prisinor A and stopped the attack at .
Has anyone at all heard of any positive information being acquired at all from any US torture methods? Anyone? Anyone at all?!?!?
The fact of the matter is that torture does one thing, and one thing only. It proves that the US is just as sadistic an depraved as al Quaeda. Nothing more, nothing less.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:19 pm#90 – “No one means no one.” Comment by toasterhead — October 26, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
You’re not factoring the selective definition used by the current administration: Pres. Bush is the decider! He’s already decided that he’s never done anything wrong in any way, shape, or form!
How can anyone argue with the pernicious, twisted logic of Pres. Bush?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:22 pmHas anyone at all heard of any positive information being acquired at all from any US torture methods? Anyone? Anyone at all?!?!?
Comment by Democrat Soldier — October 26, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
I think it happened on 24 once. That counts, right?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:32 pmAnyone who has been in the military and gone through SERE training KNOWS waterboarding is torture.
I suggest that any of these politicians that suggest otherwise should be required to endure the POW camp portion of SERE.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pmHow can anyone argue with the pernicious, twisted logic of Pres. Bush?
Comment by Democrat Soldier — October 26, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Very quietly, thanks to the Military Commissions Act.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pmThis basically describes Hit’s problem with not understanding the concept of “moral,” and his emphasis on his own survival. As for his placing “intelligence” as the only other concept he considers preeminent, it simply further underlines his sociopathy with a strong dose of narcissism.
“We can then recall that primates, both nonhuman and human, most often engage in a-social behaviors when they are subjected to stress, and particularly to prolonged stress. Under these circumstances, we hunker down and engage in self-interested survival patterns, the default behavior of all creatures, and these often take forms that are antithetical to pro-sociality. One way to stack the deck in favor of morality, therefore, is to ameliorate the conditions wherein humans find themselves physically or emotionally impoverished, threatened,defeated, abused, humiliated, lonely, or insecure. Such conditions foster the dehumanization and demonization of those identified as the “cause†of our frustrations, allowing them to become targets of exclusion and brutality(11). Such conditions also render humans vulnerable to rigid fundamentalisms — many carrying a morality label— that activate our fear and greed in their promises of deliverance.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:6Hm1qEiUVnQJ:www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/TAD%2520WEB%2520ARCHIVE/TAD30-3/TAD30-3-pg6-21-pdf.pdf+third+order+concept+and+morality&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
October 26th, 2007 at 12:36 pmI see the little pants wetter Hits is back on line trying to justify his stance on terror. Let us look at this degenerates offerings today:
1. Hits admits that torture will not work in most instances but will on that rare occasion provide that nugget of information that is actionable. How cute Hits. Having been in he military and having been in law enforcement (as a prosecutor) I always want my people following up two dozen false leads because we used a tactic that would guarantee that the vast majority of leads were unreliable. OH, IDIOT HITS, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH LEADS ARE WHICH?
2. Hits is not a moral relativist, he is a survivalist. Read his post. He only understands intelligence and survival. Apparently, anything else goes. However, that is what leads to a lack of civilization. The theory that only self interest matters. By the way Hits, you may understand intelligence, but you certainly don’t have it.
3. We all know the Hits is a coward, he has admitted that he would break every civilized convention to torture for his survival. He will even break those conventions to gain that very rare nugget of intelligence that may have some value. I call that desperation from a little bed wetter.
4. My real take on Hits, the coward, is that he is frightened and scared.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:44 pmTorture actually gives him the feeling of power and control that he actually lacks.
Hits, from the standpoint of survival, you don’t.
Everybody dies.
Any argument founded on survival is ulltimately a miserable and pointless failure.
Animals will fight for survival because they have no concept of the future.
Even without a belief in personal immortality, a human being can throw away his life for an ideal, a group, a family–and part of that is the knowledge that death will come for him anyway.
Some religious people tend to assert that morality is only possible due to a belief in God, but that’s not true. Thhe Stoics were supremely moral, but it was based on the concept that immoral and dishonorable actions made a life ugly and repulsive, while a moral and honorable life was a beautiful thing, an brought the deepest and profoundest joy to the intellect and the emotions, and was worth it even if darkness swallowed that joy, and that life, eternally.
Survival is trivial, hits. Ugly acts in the name of survival makes the remaining years you gain ugly. and you may die tomorrow.
Here is another formulation of the argument against torture: by torturing a helpless person, you make your life uglier than theirs. To put it another way, by torturing someone, you make yourself lower than your victim, and if you are acting as a representatve of a group, you make that group uglier and less worthy of survival that those whom you torture.
It becomes dramatically worse when the imminent survival of millions is not at stake–and worse still when you torture innocents. As a nation, we have done both. And we continue to do both.
An ‘intelligent’ soldier, concerned with survival may desert during a fight, leaving his comrades to die. And if that is ugly, so what? all that ‘honor’ stuff is just an esthetic judgment. True, but his fellow soldiers will exercise their esthetic sense by blowing his guts out and sticking his head on a pike.
You may be incredulous, but te survival of America is not absolutely important. America is a wonderful venture embodying the best ideals of mankind. But if we cease to be that–if we descend from Marcus Aurelius to Commodus and Heliogabalus–in short, if we act without honor–then the life of America becomes ugly too, and unworthy of support.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:46 pmThis shits guy looks suspicious. There’s something really creepy and inhuman about him. I sounds like he doesn’t care who suffers as long as he’s personally safe. That’s the kind of psychopath who is likely to do something dangerous. He needs enhanced interrogation immediately. We’ll tape it so he can watch himself later because he thinks it’s such a good idea.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:46 pmI wasn’t presupposing shite hitz. I was restating your claim. Mr. I have read tiny bits of college level philosphy and now I use the word “presuppose” to sound learned. please raise up off these N-u-Teez.
Obviously morality doesn’t “exist” outside of us. And I don’t “presuppose” that it does. We have to come to an agreement about what it is. Your position just weazles out of the question with very cheap, sophomoric relativism.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:47 pmHey, its would be the Ultimate Traitor. He only believes in his own survival. he believes that anyone would crack because he is projecting his own cravenly weakness on others. He would sell out his country and his family in half a second if confronted by torture. What a coward.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:50 pmI don’t understand the word “moralâ€. Any time I see third order concepts like morality interspersed in an argument, I would urge you to try and explain those terms to me first. Here’s what I do understand – intelligence and survival.
Thank you
Hits
Hits,
October 26th, 2007 at 4:06 pmI don’t understand the word “intelligence”. Anytime I see it employed as justification for an individual’s own sense of their superior thought I wonder how they wish to define the term. Based on neuroanatomy the cetacean brain is far more complex thus I quess these creatures are more intelligent than you or I. As to survival do you mean this in an evolutionary history context or a persoanl one?