So we don't like Mukasey because he won't say waterboarding's torture?

[Basileus Basileon]

Okay, yeah, so Schumer and Feinstein sorta stabbed us in the back on that one, and we're rightly pissed at them for it. But can anyone tell me why we aren't pushing Congress to simply declare waterboarding to be torture and be done with it?

[shraby]

1. I can see it now..Congress passes a law that

says waterboarding is illegal and Bush vetoes it. Makes sense to me especially when waterboarding has been illegal for a long long time.

[Basileus Basileon]

2. So DU isn't pushing for waterboarding to be illegalized

because they're worried Bush will veto it? I suppose that actually sort of makes sense; if the veto were to be sustained, that would suggest that waterboarding was, in fact, legal.

[aquart]

4. Waterboarding is torture. Torture is illegal. Waterboarding is illegal.

[Basileus Basileon]

5. Then it shouldn't be a big deal to pass legislation removing any "doubt" as to that.

[FredScuttle]

35. sure, right after we pass legislation that affirms the sky is blue and water is wet

n/t

[Basileus Basileon]

39. We go to war with the President we have, not the President we wish we had.

If the executive branch insists that waterboarding is not torture, and attempts to hide in interpretation of the word "excessive," then would it not be a good idea to remove that legal spiderhole?

[FredScuttle]

43. Not through meaningless and repetitive legislation

Get on the floors of both houses of Congress and start reading from the various international and federal laws quoted in this thread.

The Administration is already acting illegally. The effort should be focused on holding them accountable, not playing their game.

[Basileus Basileon]

45. And in which one was waterboarding declared torture?

[FredScuttle]

48. Ahem

waterboarding is torture. By any definition, by any interpretation, by any text of torture definitions throughout the world. Waterboarding doesn't need to be listed explicitly, any more than any other technique, for it to be considered torture.

Except to the Resident and his torture pimps.

[Basileus Basileon]

50. "Except to the Resident and his torture pimps."

Who just so happen to be the ones in power. Hence, it does need to be listed explicitly.

[FredScuttle]

51. No, Bush and Cheney need to be removed from office

n/t

[Basileus Basileon]

55. Okay, but assuming that doesn't happen,

because we don't have the votes to convict and remove nor will we ever, let's talk reality.

[FredScuttle]

61. Reality is that the executive branch has broken the law

and the Democratic-controlled Congress refuses to hold Administration officials responsible thus far. Passing silly (in my estimation) legislation that says "this crime which is already a crime will hereforth be considered a crime....so say us" is a waste of time, paper and effort.

[Basileus Basileon]

63. Okay, fine. I'm sure they'll stop now that a DUer has said they've broken the law.

Now, see, I would think that having Congress kick out the one legal argument remaining for it from under them would be slightly more effective, but that's just me.

[FredScuttle]

72. "One" legal argument? It's THE legal argument!

Congress does not need to waste it's time passing legislation to outlaw something that's already illegal. Besides, it would focus attention on the GOP torture apologists who would filibuster against declaring waterboarding torture, as if there was any question or debate.

[Basileus Basileon]

76. Um, yes. That's what "the one" means. The only.

If Congress "doesn't need to waste its time," well--how would you stop waterboarding? Impeachment won't work; there aren't the votes to convict and remove. So how do you end it? Do you think declaring that it should end on the internet will stop it?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

71. THEY ARE WAR CRIMINALS!!! TORTURE IS A WAR CRIME!!!

FUCK THEM!!!

NO ADDITIONAL LAWS ARE NECESSARY!!!

WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE, A WAR CRIME, A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY BY ANY AND EVERY DEFINITION!!!

Why are you carrying their water? HMMMM?

Are you saying that, since they are "in power", the laws against war crimes and crimes against humanity does NOT apply to them?

Who made that rule?

Oh,...that's right,...we live in a "unitary executive", now. The rule of law applies when the "unitary executive" says it does.

You are advocating that position, apparently,...a dictatorship called, by the dictatorship, a "unitary executive.

Why are you doing that? What is your objective, here?

[Basileus Basileon]

75. Yes, I can see how

"Hey, this is an abhorrent practice that needs to be stopped, so given their predilection for pretending loopholes in the law exist and using those to cover their actions, how can we ensure that torture is stopped?" is carrying their water.

Outrage alone won't end waterboarding.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

83. Yet, you are operating from a position ASSUMING the "unitary executive" is an accepted,....

,...practice. Why make that assumption?

Is that what you want people to accept?

It seems to me you are pushing a notion that the residents want,...but an idea outright rejected by any body within a democratic sense of being.

Why are you doing that?

[Basileus Basileon]

84. I'm not assuming a unitary executive.

I'm assuming a lawless executive that has overstepped its bounds and needs to be curtailed by Congress. Why are you pretending that doesn't exist?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

92. In that case, prosecution is in order. A "lawless" executive committing crimes DESERVES,...

,...to be charged and prosecuted.

Why you are advocating the unnecessary enactment of laws is beyond me UNLESS *heh* you are pretending laws don't exist to cover the war crimes and crimes against humanity this residency has committed.

Is that what you are advocating?

[Basileus Basileon]

96. By whom?

[riderinthestorm]

103. By the Congress. It's their duty to impeach those in the executive branch who break laws

And this Admin has clearly broken the law as regards torture, which is already prohibited in the US.

So many crimes to pick from and yet our Congress does nothing.

[shraby]

6. Absolutely! Waterboarding is torture, pure and

simple. Anyone who tries to suggest otherwise is half a bubble off.

[Basileus Basileon]

11. The Executive branch disagrees.

We could resolve the disagreement in a matter of days with a vote.

[DCKit]

14. They can say anything they want, but as KO pointed out tonight....

When they break the law, they should go to prison.

Torture - water boarding, specifically - is torture and already against the law.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

77. You are positioning from a "unitary executive",...a DICTATORSHIP. Why are you doing that?

Why are you pushing the "unitary executive' AKA DICTATOR meme?

Why?

Why try to convince others to surrender to that?

Is that what you want? Is that what you settle for and, incredibly, want everyone else to settle for?

[Basileus Basileon]

79. No, I'm the only one here attempting to limit the power of the executive

by recognizing that it has overstepped its limits and forcing it back under control.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

87. You are advocating from a position ASSUMING the executive can't commit crimes,...

,...by virtue of being the executive.

THAT POSITION EXPANDS THE POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE.

Your position is fucked up, totally,...and I'll bet you are here for something other than purposes strengthening democracy.

[Basileus Basileon]

94. Not at all.

The executive can and does commit crimes. The problem is that this particular crime cannot be stopped through standard legal means, as the crime takes place outside jurisdiction of American civil courts, and going after Bush/Cheney's role would first require impeachment, which is not a possibility at this point.

[riderinthestorm]

112. So you dismiss the real lawful method of prosecution (impeachment)

and instead want Congress to play right into the Rethugs' hands by trying to parse waterboarding, giving this Admin it's real opening to find the loophole to continue perpetuating this crime?

WTF?

[truebrit71]

106. ...because it would be like passing a resolution saying water is wet...

...and besides, the giggling murderer in the WH would simply attach a signing statement to it saying he'll do whatever the fuck he wants anyway...

A complete waste of time...

KO was right, it is going to be a VERY long year!

[gateley]

3. Biden introduced legislation in July:

In July, Sen. Biden introduced the National Security with Justice Act to reform United States policies on the apprehension, detention, treatment and transfer of suspected terrorists. The legislation, among other things, unambiguously prohibits any United States personnel, including members of our intelligence services, from torturing and mistreating detainees. Specifically, Senator Biden’s bill closes this loophole by prohibiting all officers and agents of the United States from using techniques of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

JULY! What the hell happens to these proposals once they're introduced?

Here's more info on the bill and statements by Biden:

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=285038&

[Basileus Basileon]

9. Looks like it died in the Judiciary committee.

Might have just been pushed aside for later; don't really know.

Latest Major Action: 7/25/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01876:

[Hissyspit]

7. So you want Mukasey to be AG?

[Basileus Basileon]

10. Yes, I think that's a pretty fair reading of my OP,

in which I say absolutely nothing supporting that idea whatsoever, call Schumer and Feinstein backstabbers for supporting Mukasey, and ask why Congress hasn't explicitly banned waterboarding.

[B Calm]

8. We prosecuted the Japanese in WW2 for war crimes for waterboarding!

[Basileus Basileon]

12. Good. We have precedent. Stick it in one of the "Whereas" statements.

Make it harder for the Republicans to claim it's invalid.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Becuase it is already ilegal

it is called the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Land Warfare

Oh and I forgot the Genocide standard, as well as the torture laws passed in 1996 iirc

[magellan]

22. Thank you.

The lack of ability to reason is appalling. We don't need laws where law already exists. What we need is a government that adheres to the law instead of circumventing it with word games whenever it sees fit.

[blondeatlast]

24. Also prohibited by the Eighth Amendment--strictly US law.

I can't believe someone on DU actually had to ask the question.

[Basileus Basileon]

29. Torture is. That's not the question.

Why has Congress not declared waterboarding to be torture?

[magellan]

89. Because it isn't necessary

Like this argument you're making.

[Basileus Basileon]

98. Given the fact that waterboarding is ongoing, it is.

[magellan]

102. No, what's needed is for the EXISTING law to be enforced

Torture hasn't been a difficult concept to define and prosecute for centuries. That you would suggest it suddenly is speaks volumes on how far the bar has been lowered on this country's core values.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. What part of it is not permited under national and international law

that we are signatories to are you purposely missing?

By the way, until THIS administration this wasn't even an argument

US Troops were court martialed in the Philipines in 1902 for using the "water cure"

Get informed for god sakes!

[riderinthestorm]

108. Congress doesn't need to declare waterboarding as torture

Waterboarding already is defined as torture, and is covered by existing laws as several have already pointed out to you on this thread.

What is needed is for Congress to prosecute the criminality by this Admin via impeachment. Otherwise "waterboarding" will be parsed to death and this Admin will find a way around it - angle of the board, length of time suffocating etc. etc. will be parsed out until there is an out.

Waterboarding is already torture. It is prohibited already by existing laws. Congress needs to do it's job and prosecute.

[Swamp Rat]

15. NPR: A Punishable Offense

(snip)

A Punishable Offense

In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

"All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

(snip)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834

[Swamp Rat]

16. Ltr. to Sen. Leahy from Rear Admirals Guter and Hutson, Major General Fugh, Brigadier General Brahms

November 2, 2007

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Leahy,

In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under United States and international law. We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America’s history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well- established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88

[zabet]

17. I cannot speak for

every poster on DU but, what really is my main issue is with Mukasey
waffling at the question. Being a nominee you would think he would know the
laws, and be able to answer a simple yes or no question. He 'should' be a
man of principle and conviction, which he has proved he is not - he will be another
lackey for bushco.

[B Calm]

18. He should at the very least appoint a special prosecutor to look

into war crimes done by the Bush Crime Family!

[VP505]

25. Lets not forget

that Mukasey also seems to support the extreme and dangerous theories of executive power that Bu$h has. That one ought to disqualify him, IMO.

[MadHound]

19. Umm, there are already plenty of laws on the books that do just this, at all levels of government.

What Schumer and Feinstein and the rest of the spineless Dems are failing to do is enforce those laws. Thus, they are continuing to aid and abet this criminal administration. We don't need more laws, what we need is for our so called leaders to stand up and enforce the laws we already have.

[Basileus Basileon]

28. Waterboarding in particular? I don't recall seeing any of those. nt

[MadHound]

32. From what I've read and heard, torture and waterboarding in particular

Have been illegal for a century or more now. Just because the law is old doesn't mean that it is invalid. Time to dust it off and use it.

[Basileus Basileon]

33. Torture has, in many forms. Torture is clearly illegal.

I do not believe waterboarding has ever been specifically declared by Congress to be torture. I believe it is torture, but my opinion carries no legal weight. I believe in most courts it would be found torture, but those are only hypotheticals. A law explicitly declaring it to be torture (as Biden has proposed) would clear up the 'confusion' that Bush has created.

[MadHound]

Here's an interesting piece

"Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines." <http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870>

[Basileus Basileon]

65. Yes. The Bush Administration's argument is a bogus one.

But it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong, because as long as they can maintain a thin cover of legality, they will continue the practice.

[blondeatlast]

20. It's already prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

They don't need to do anything--but ENFORCING it would be really helpful, I'll grant.

[Basileus Basileon]

31. Torture is. That's not the question.

The question is why Congress has not made it legally clear that waterboarding is torture in America.

[Kingshakabobo]

56. And what do we do when they start pouring coca-cola down prisoner's sinuses instead of water?

.....or place plastic bags over their heads and call it "a pollution vacation"?

[lumpy]

74. For pete's sake why don't you ask Congress?

gahhhh

[Spazito]

91. LOL, this is the exact talking point the reubs just LOVE...

To bring a bill forward on this is the repubs fondest wish, imo, and the end result would be a defeat of the bill or, more likely, a filibuster of it which then gives the repubs the back-up for continuing to pretend they are not breaking domestic AND international law.

[Basileus Basileon]

95. Yes, it is a talking point they love. I would like to remove it from their inventory.

[Spazito]

99. Hmmm, you would remove it by doing exactly what they want? Wow!

Total disconnect there, imo.

[Basileus Basileon]

100. "Exactly what they want?"

:eyes:

[in_cog_ni_to]

21. How would we be done with it? Bush has signed over 700 Signing Statements

making those laws he chooses not to follow...MEANINGLESS. How would Waterboarding Laws be any different?

[paulk]

23. because the current situation is a wonderful chance for DU

to engage in it's favorite pastime, trashing Democrats.

Plying victim is apparently more satisfying than actually doing something - like writing your Senator in support of the bill just introduced by Biden, which does what you suggest.

[librechik]

26. no, because he won't respect the law that obviously already exists

against torture, beginning with the Geneva Conventions, a treaty we signed which is law.

He'd rather give the President latitude to break the law when he feels necessary, and in our country we don't give the president that power. he has to obey they law just like everyone, even in wartime, or be held to account.

Bush won't do that, and Mukasey will help him.

If they get away with it, the whole basis of our free and law abiding country is corrupt.

[Basileus Basileon]

30. So what law declares waterboarding to be torture? nt

[librechik]

34. Beginning with the most important one, the Geneva Conventions

a treaty (law) which we signed, Article 3 which outlaws :

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; "

In US Law, in particluar the War Crimes Act of 1996 makes the Geneva Conventions US Law.

and a federal US statute:

18 USC Sec. 2340A
01/05/99



TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 113C - TORTURE



HEADING

Sec. 2340A. Torture



STATUTE

(a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if -

(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
offender.

snip

And much more.

Theres' a good summary here:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

And i would be very surprised if Mukasey doesn't know all about it, but is merely determined to keep the Prez from being prosecuted.

[Basileus Basileon]

36. That bans "cruel treatment" and "torture,"

which are open to interpretation. One can make the case that waterboarding is neither of those. It would be wrong, but until successfully challenged in court (which it will never be) it provides enough of a legal cover that the practice will continue.

Where is the law declaring waterboarding to be torture? If none exists, why are we not demanding that Congress pass one?

[librechik]

42. Kennedy just introduced one.

but it is merely a clarification of the already existing law against cruel and degrading treatment.

Obviously for people who want to parse mercy and humanity.

[Basileus Basileon]

46. Good. nt

[librechik]

37. in re "waterboarding" not being specifically outlawed

Any reasonable person would know that torture is outlawed and obviously waterboarding is torture. To argue that since waterboarding is not specifically mentioned therefore is not covered by the general rule of law against torture is despicable and irrelevant. But I'm sure many people would leap on this defense, simply because there is no real defense to the assertion that waterboarding is not specifically outlawed, therefore it must not be torture.

We can then go to case law, and talk about all the individuals who have been prosecuted for waterboarding. Many, to be sure.

Some might still try to defend it -- but not any reasonable persons.

[Basileus Basileon]

44. The problem is "any reasonable person."

We are clearly not dealing with "any reasonable person," we are dealing with the Bush administration. And so long as we simply say "oh, well, it's pretty obviously torture," they can continue to say "no it isn't," and keep doing it.

The only way to prevent its use to treat them like the loophole-wormers they are, and ban it. At the moment, it is de facto not legally torture in America, by virtue of the fact that there are no explicit rulings on its practice by Americans, and the fact that it is being practiced openly.

Is it torture? Clearly yes. Is our belief that it is torture going to stop it? No, because that thin veil of legality still exists. Why the opposition to lifting that veil?

[librechik]

52. we are dealing with judges, and juries of ordinary citizens. Can you reasonably suggest

that even if a dozen people witness a murder, and there is no reasonable doubt about the guilty party, that merely because there is no specific law against chopping somebody's head off, only a law against murder, that therefore there is no crime?

I don't think so. There is merely a madness, a parallel universe of doubt and depravity, which has enfolded us all in its many veils, so that reason itself seems unreasonable. That's when we need a moral compass. I have one. Juries have one.

The worst case scenario frame you use is only productive of terror, not solutions.

[Basileus Basileon]

58. And who is bringing this to trial?

I must have missed that one. Who are the plaintiffs? What is the jurisdiction?

[librechik]

62. The World Court should prosecute Bush, Rummy and Cheney for War Crimes

And they should be impeached and prosecuted for violating the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Unfortunately, since they whole of Congress is afraid of being weaterboarded, they all act like slaves to the Leader instead of independent and strong Americans.

Like I said, the system is corrupt.

And you are running out of steam. Childish "Yes But" games only go so far.

Perhaps you are right. We are ruled by tantrum-throwing children. Why not waste time with juvenile circular debates?

[Basileus Basileon]

81. Can't. America isn't a member of the ICC.

Now what?

[riderinthestorm]

110. It's Congress' responsibility to prosecute this Admin

via impeachment for it's war crimes (that even you admit, they are performing).

There are already laws in place, Congress needs to do it's job and prosecute.

[mmonk]

27. We don't like him because like congress,

he won't stop or account for illegal activity by the executive branch.

[FredScuttle]

38. NEWSFLASH: Just because "waterboarding" isn't explicitily mentioned in US or International law

doesn't mean it's not torture. Waterboarding is Torture. Torture is Illegal. Waterboarding is Illegal. No New Legislation Needed.

Putting someone in a woodchipper and pulverizing them down to a fine sawdust isn't explicitly mentioned in any federal or state criminal code, but you can damn sure you'll be prosecuted for Murder One.

[Basileus Basileon]

40. Oh, okay. Then the practice has stopped, right?

Oh, no, it hasn't, because the Executive branch is declaring a different interpretation of the law than most people have, and there is no legal recourse to correcting this save explicitly defining waterboarding as torture.

[FredScuttle]

47. "no legal recourse"?

[Basileus Basileon]

49. While that would be nice, that isn't the issue at hand.

One could do that for absolutely any issue.

[FredScuttle]

57. Not really

"high crimes and misdemeanors" is the standard for a charge of impeachment to meet. I'd say violating international and federal laws on torture rises way above that level....at least more so than, say, getting a blowjob in the Oval Office.

[DS1]

41. I'd say it's at the very least 'unusual punishment'

:shrug:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

53. I'd push for prosecution of war crimes. Laws already exist on torture.

Waterboarding is, without ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER, torture.

Now, why the FUCK are you calling into question whether or not waterboarding is torture?

:grr:

[Basileus Basileon]

59. Because the President is operating under the legal argument that it is not.

The only way to stop it is to declare waterboarding to be torture. Huffing about how it's "OBVIOUSLY" torture does not stop it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. This strikes me as a really dumb argument.

Waterboarding's already illegal, but it doesn't count because the laws regarding torture don't specifically describe waterboarding?

Did you think that through?

[Basileus Basileon]

60. I believe waterboarding to be torture. You do as well.

The President believes that the wording of our torture laws allow waterboarding to exist. Therefore, although we may all agree it is illegal, and though it would be found illegal in any court, it is still going to continue because of that forced ambiguity.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. LOL

"The President believes that the wording of our torture laws allow waterboarding to exist."

No he doesn't.

[Basileus Basileon]

67. I'm sorry, let me reword that.

"Although everyone in it knows better, the White House has presented the legal opinion that the wording of our torture laws allow waterboarding to exist. This provides enough of a cover that waterboarding continues."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. ROFL.

They also said Iraq had WMDs.

Do you believe everything they say?

[Basileus Basileon]

70. Please demonstrate where I say that I believe them.

Their argument, as I have repeatedly stated, is bogus. It is also reasonable-sounding enough to enough people that the Bush administration continues doing it. A simple one-page amendment to our current torture laws would be enough to prevent that.

Why are you so strongly opposed to that?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. You think it's reasonable sounding?

:rofl:

[Basileus Basileon]

78. Yes, clearly when I say

"reasonable-sounding to enough people," I mean "I totally believe this." Because explaining how they're lying and how to stop them means I believe their lies.

:eyes:

[FredScuttle]

80. TRANSLATION: Even though I oppose the Admministration's views on torture, I

I will parrot all their talking points and lobby for a meaningless piece of legislation that will be the easiest veto of Bunnypants' tenure.

[Basileus Basileon]

82. Apparently saying

"Hey, these are their talking points and this is how to counter them" is now "parroting their talking points."

Apparently hiding our head under the sand and hoping he'll decide to just stop torturing on his own is a much better strategy.

[FredScuttle]

88. Why do we need a primer in their talking points?

We know what their talking points are: Waterboarding is not illegal, at least the way we do it. Plus, 9/11!

No one here is advocating ignoring the Administration's actions...in fact, quite a lot of us are fully behind impeachment and are lobbying our Congresspeople to do just that. Passing meaningless pieces of legislation that will muddy the issue and give the chance for torture apologists in the GOP to "debate" this as if it were a legitimate question is daft.

[Basileus Basileon]

97. And how do you propose ending the practice?

Note that impeachment is not a possibility given the makeup of the Congress.

[FredScuttle]

104. Impeachment

Just because you've declared it off the table doesn't make it so. Thus, the word "possibility" - the condition or fact of being possible.

[FredScuttle]

66. You've got to understand that "The President doesn't think it's torture" is not a valid defense

Congress needs to call the Administration on the carpet and hold them accountable for breaking the law

[Basileus Basileon]

69. Not legally, no.

But it does provide enough of a cover of legality that its practice is not stopped.

For proof: Waterboarding happens.

[FredScuttle]

85. So you're in agreement with the Nixon Doctrine?

"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal"

[Basileus Basileon]

86. I believe a variant of it is being applied by the current President,

in which he proposes that the President has authority to interpret law how he sees fit. I also believe the only way to stop this harmful doctrine is to emphatically and explicitly interpret the law for him.

[FredScuttle]

90. Are we now going to define every potential torture technique for him?

I look forward to the House bills on titty-twisting, noogies, wet willies, Indian burns and the dreaded Rear Admiral

[Basileus Basileon]

93. No, I would word it so that

any form of coercion relying on fear, pain, or threat of pain be considered torture. Include as examples all forms of torture known.

[FredScuttle]

107. ....which is what the current laws provide...

n/t

[DefenseLawyer]

101. I think you have a point.

Yes, the others are correct in saying that obviously water boarding is already illegal under current law but a clear and unambiguous law declaring water boarding to be illegal would put the Mukasey word play to rest at least. I'm not sure what the downside is. My guess is there are too many chickenshit democrats who still think being against torture makes them "soft on terror", so there probably aren't the votes to get it passed.

[Stinky The Clown]

109. I have now heard this from two people .... you and Pat Buchanan

The refutation I heard was simple and elegant. I'm not sure I can state it as well, but here goes:

You can't pass a law outlawing ever possible torture practice. We have a torture statute that outlaws it. We have a definition of it. Waterboarding has always been included in that definition. To all for the passage of another law is to divert from the fact that it was and is unlawful and the perps who did it broke the law.

[DefenseLawyer]

114. That does little for the guy being waterboarded

The fact is they have used waterboarding and probably continue to use it, by twisting the current law and being cute with the language. You wouldn't have to change current law, simply a clause to the current law which says "this shall include waterboarding" and a definitional statute which defines waterboarding with enough specificity to cover the practice. It isn't the be all and end all of the problem of torture, but it would certainly end the stupid "debate" about "is waterboarding torture?".

[wiggs]

111. There's more not to like than waterboarding. Congress should be interested in

what he thinks about rendition, politicization of justice dept, firings, abuse of power of executive branch, executive priviledge, nsa spying, unitary executive, other enhanced interrogation techniques, etc..

The starting point should be that this administration has pushed really bad candidates at all levels of government. We know this. Nominees need to be stellar and clearly have the best interests of the country, constitution, and public as priorities. It is not clear this guy fits this description and he shouldn't be moved forward until it is clear.

Many have allowed the debate over a very important position to become narrowed and dumbed down to one single issue that is easily made gray.

[JVS]

113. They'll switch to milk-boarding or coffee boarding

[B Calm]

115. WW2 War Crimes Pacfic Theater / Defendant:Asano, Yukio

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

Reviewing Authority Recommendations:

Reviewing Authority:

Prosecution Arguments:

Defense Arguments:

Judge Advocate's Recommendations:

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm

[B Calm]

116. Verdict for Bush and Cheney: 15 FUCKING YEARS

[Basileus Basileon]

117. Apparently Sens. Kennedy, Biden, and Reid do not think it is such a terrible idea.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/11/after_confirmin.php

[AuntPatsy]

118. I don't particularly like him simply because Bush does, after experiencing

all those that Bush has put on the table before him how could that one issue even be held as the only reason?

Bottom line, the legacy of his presidency had proven time after time that trusting any one of his choices is borderline suicide.