Lawmakers grill Mukasey on waterboarding

[almaty 19]

WASHINGTON - In an intense exchange Thursday with three Democrats, President Bush's nominee for attorney general left the door open for allowing a terrorism-era interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

Michael Mukasey, a retired federal judge, issued highly-conditioned statements that so-called waterboarding violates the Constitution only if it is defined as torture.

The answer is unclear.

In an executive order this summer, Bush allowed the use of some harsh interrogation techniques but his administration refused to say whether waterboarding was among them. Congress has banned waterboarding as part of a detainee treatment law.

During Thursday's proceedings, Senate Democratic Whip ####### Durbin probed for Mukasey's opinion.

"I'm hoping that you can at least look at this one technique and say: that clearly constitutes torture, it should not be the policy of the United States to engage in waterboarding," said the Illinois Democrat.

"It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else," Mukasey replied.

Under subsequent questioning by Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Mukasey said the practice of waterboarding, if defined as torture, can't be permitted by the president.

"If it is torture as defined by the Constitution, or defined by constitutional standards, it can't be authorized," Mukasey said.

Judiciary Committee members, most lawyers themselves, have little tolerance for parsing after earlier hearings in which then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on dozens of occasions either did not answer questions or blamed a faulty memory for not answering them.

"Is waterboarding constitutional?" pressed Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. "It either is or it isn't."

Mukasey again demurred, saying he doesn't know what's involved in the technique.

"If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional," the nominee replied.

"I'm very disappointed in that answer," Whitehouse said. "I think it's purely semantics."

The president himself has repeatedly said "We don't torture" and argued that intense interrogations are sometimes necessary to elicit information about terrorist plots.

The White House suggested Thursday that Mukasey's answers were vague because he does not know the specifics of the program.

"Judge Mukasey is not in a position to discuss interrogation techniques which are necessarily classified," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "He would only be read-in to classified programs after being confirmed."

So far, Mukasey has told senators he will reject any White House meddling in Justice Department matters and resign if his legal or ethical concerns about administration policy are ignored. He also said he's resistant to passing a law shielding reporters from being forced to reveal their sources, saying it would be much easier to fix internal Justice Department practice if need be.

Majority Democrats, aided by some Republicans, have urged passage of a media shield because they say it would protect reporters and government whistleblowers who reveal improper or illegal official activity. Fifty news outlets, including The Associated Press, support the legislation.

The Bush administration has issued a veto threat, saying that subpoenas for reporters are relatively rare and that a shield would make it harder to track down leakers of classified information.

Mukasey said that he has reservations about the legislation because it sets too high a legal threshold for prosecutors to meet to overcome the shield. Proving that the disclosure is needed to prevent an attack is difficult in advance, the nominee said Wednesday.

The measure also pending defines a journalist too broadly and might inadvertently protect, for example, bloggers who are also spies or terrorists, Mukasey said.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have yet to find any credible testimony from experts on interrogation who say that waterboarding and other forms of torture are effective means in getting reliable confessions. What a dark stain this will be on our history as a nation.

[pedroh 21]

I have yet to find any credible testimony from experts on interrogation who say that waterboarding and other forms of torture are effective means in getting reliable confessions. What a dark stain this will be on our history as a nation.

last year one fbi dude was in the daily show, and he said that torture is not effective at all.. you can torture some dude and he will say he caused the chicago fires or killed jfk if you want to..

and agreed with that last comment.. of course, all 'for the greater good and security of this nation'.. 'it's a small price to pay'

[almaty 19]

true

[GaryC 7]

I have yet to find any credible testimony from experts on interrogation who say that waterboarding and other forms of torture are effective means in getting reliable confessions. What a dark stain this will be on our history as a nation.

That begs a question then, if it isn't effective or it give false results then why would we do it? Do you think that the main goal is to satisfy someones sadist urges?

Either we do it because it works or we don't do it because it doesn't work. Unless of course you think we do it to get our jollies.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have yet to find any credible testimony from experts on interrogation who say that waterboarding and other forms of torture are effective means in getting reliable confessions. What a dark stain this will be on our history as a nation.

That begs a question then, if it isn't effective or it give false results then why would we do it? Do you think that the main goal is to satisfy someones sadist urges?

Either we do it because it works or we don't do it because it doesn't work. Unless of course you think we do it to get our jollies.

That's a haphazard assumption at best. I've read plenty of testimony from intelligence and law enforcement interrogators and I have yet to read anyone say that torture is an effective method...in fact I've read the opposite...it leads to false testimonies.

[GaryC 7]

I have yet to find any credible testimony from experts on interrogation who say that waterboarding and other forms of torture are effective means in getting reliable confessions. What a dark stain this will be on our history as a nation.

That begs a question then, if it isn't effective or it give false results then why would we do it? Do you think that the main goal is to satisfy someones sadist urges?

Either we do it because it works or we don't do it because it doesn't work. Unless of course you think we do it to get our jollies.

That's a haphazard assumption at best. I've read plenty of testimony from intelligence and law enforcement interrogators and I have yet to read anyone say that torture is an effective method...in fact I've read the opposite...it leads to false testimonies.

Then why would we do it?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have yet to find any credible testimony from experts on interrogation who say that waterboarding and other forms of torture are effective means in getting reliable confessions. What a dark stain this will be on our history as a nation.

That begs a question then, if it isn't effective or it give false results then why would we do it? Do you think that the main goal is to satisfy someones sadist urges?

Either we do it because it works or we don't do it because it doesn't work. Unless of course you think we do it to get our jollies.

That's a haphazard assumption at best. I've read plenty of testimony from intelligence and law enforcement interrogators and I have yet to read anyone say that torture is an effective method...in fact I've read the opposite...it leads to false testimonies.

Then why would we do it?

Gary, why did the Soviets do it? Why does our government do lots of ineffective and stupid things? I don't follow your logic that the government wouldn't do something if it wasn't effective.

[GaryC 7]

I have yet to find any credible testimony from experts on interrogation who say that waterboarding and other forms of torture are effective means in getting reliable confessions. What a dark stain this will be on our history as a nation.

That begs a question then, if it isn't effective or it give false results then why would we do it? Do you think that the main goal is to satisfy someones sadist urges?

Either we do it because it works or we don't do it because it doesn't work. Unless of course you think we do it to get our jollies.

That's a haphazard assumption at best. I've read plenty of testimony from intelligence and law enforcement interrogators and I have yet to read anyone say that torture is an effective method...in fact I've read the opposite...it leads to false testimonies.

Then why would we do it?

Gary, why did the Soviets do it? Why does our government do lots of ineffective and stupid things? I don't follow your logic that the government wouldn't do something if it wasn't effective.

Don't try to compare the USSR and the USA Steven. We really don't want to start that.

If the goal is to gain knowledge then it makes no sense to do something that cannot be trusted. In fact it would "poison the well" if we did something that does not yeald good results. I don't follow your logic that we would shoot ourselves in the foot by relying on something that would send us in the wrong direction.

Edited October 18, 2007 by GaryC

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have yet to find any credible testimony from experts on interrogation who say that waterboarding and other forms of torture are effective means in getting reliable confessions. What a dark stain this will be on our history as a nation.

That begs a question then, if it isn't effective or it give false results then why would we do it? Do you think that the main goal is to satisfy someones sadist urges?

Either we do it because it works or we don't do it because it doesn't work. Unless of course you think we do it to get our jollies.

That's a haphazard assumption at best. I've read plenty of testimony from intelligence and law enforcement interrogators and I have yet to read anyone say that torture is an effective method...in fact I've read the opposite...it leads to false testimonies.

Then why would we do it?

Gary, why did the Soviets do it? Why does our government do lots of ineffective and stupid things? I don't follow your logic that the government wouldn't do something if it wasn't effective.

Don't try to compare the USSR and the USA Steven. We really don't want to start that.

If the goal is to gain knowledge then it makes no sense to do something that cannot be trusted. If fact it would "poison the well" if we did something that does not yeald good results. I don't follow your logic that we would shoot ourselves in the foot by relying on something that would send us in the wrong direction.

Gary, are you now saying that the Fed Gov't only does things that are effective?

Edited October 18, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

I have yet to find any credible testimony from experts on interrogation who say that waterboarding and other forms of torture are effective means in getting reliable confessions. What a dark stain this will be on our history as a nation.

That begs a question then, if it isn't effective or it give false results then why would we do it? Do you think that the main goal is to satisfy someones sadist urges?

Either we do it because it works or we don't do it because it doesn't work. Unless of course you think we do it to get our jollies.

That's a haphazard assumption at best. I've read plenty of testimony from intelligence and law enforcement interrogators and I have yet to read anyone say that torture is an effective method...in fact I've read the opposite...it leads to false testimonies.

Then why would we do it?

Gary, why did the Soviets do it? Why does our government do lots of ineffective and stupid things? I don't follow your logic that the government wouldn't do something if it wasn't effective.

Don't try to compare the USSR and the USA Steven. We really don't want to start that.

If the goal is to gain knowledge then it makes no sense to do something that cannot be trusted. If fact it would "poison the well" if we did something that does not yield good results. I don't follow your logic that we would shoot ourselves in the foot by relying on something that would send us in the wrong direction.

Gary, are you now saying that the Fed Govt only does things that are effective?

We are not talking about policy, we are talking about the agents on the ground that are preforming the interrogations. If they get nothing but unreliable information from a certain way of interrogating why would they continue to use it? Even if they had permission to do it they wouldn't if it didn't work. That really makes no sense at all.

Think of it this way. In your job you write code for graphics. If you tried something that didn't work would you continue to do it?

Edited October 18, 2007 by GaryC

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm.... So basically what he's saying is:

It may or may not be torture. If it is then we don't do it, but that's not to say that we don't - because we may, and if we do we're not sure that it is or isn't definitely torture. Perhaps. Maybe. P.S. I need to shave my balls.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes it is policy and why in this case are you insisting on ignoring expert testimony on this issue? Again, you are assuming that ineptitude of the Fed. Gov't (which you bring up on many issues here) doesn't extend to the actual interrogators and the methods they use. You seem to be cherry picking what you deem as government ineptitude on some issues, but turn a blind eye to the possibility of ineptitude in this case - with the faulty logic that they wouldn't use interrogation techniques that didn't work.

(see below)

....

Interrogation Research Is Lacking, Report Says

There is almost no scientific evidence to back up the U.S. intelligence community's use of controversial interrogation techniques in the fight against terrorism, and experts believe some painful and coercive approaches could hinder the ability to get good information, according to a new report from an intelligence advisory group.

The 374-page report from the Intelligence Science Board examines several aspects of broad interrogation methods and approaches, and it finds that no significant scientific research has been conducted in more than four decades about the effectiveness of many techniques the U.S. military and intelligence groups use regularly. Intelligence experts wrote that a lack of research could explain why abuse has been alleged at U.S. facilities in Afghanistan, Cuba and Iraq.

...

In it, experts find that popular culture and ad hoc experimentation have fueled the use of aggressive and sometimes physical interrogation techniques to get those captured on the battlefields to talk, even if there is no evidence to support the tactics' effectiveness. The board, which advises the director of national intelligence, recommends studying the matter.

...

The Army's new field manual on intelligence, approved in September, specifically bans some of the most aggressive techniques -- such as "waterboarding," beatings, sensory deprivation and depriving a detainee of food -- and draws clear boundaries for all military personnel who participate in interrogations. Army officials abandoned more coercive techniques because of the abuse scandals and evidence that Army and contract interrogators had developed approaches in the field based on vague guidance.

...

"The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information," wrote Col. Steven M. Kleinman, who has served as the Pentagon's senior intelligence officer for special survival training.

Kleinman wrote that intelligence gathered with coercion is sometimes inaccurate or false, noting that isolation, a tactic U.S. officials have used regularly, causes "profound emotional, psychological, and physical discomfort" and can "significantly and negatively impact the ability of the source to recall information accurately."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7011501204.html

[GaryC 7]

Yes it is policy and why in this case are you insisting on ignoring expert testimony on this issue? Again, you are assuming that ineptitude of the Fed. Gov't (which you bring up on many issues here) doesn't extend to the actual interrogators and the methods they use. You seem to be cherry picking what you deem as government ineptitude on some issues, but turn a blind eye to the possibility of ineptitude in this case - with the faulty logic that they wouldn't use interrogation techniques that didn't work.

(see below)

....

Interrogation Research Is Lacking, Report Says

There is almost no scientific evidence to back up the U.S. intelligence community's use of controversial interrogation techniques in the fight against terrorism, and experts believe some painful and coercive approaches could hinder the ability to get good information, according to a new report from an intelligence advisory group.

The 374-page report from the Intelligence Science Board examines several aspects of broad interrogation methods and approaches, and it finds that no significant scientific research has been conducted in more than four decades about the effectiveness of many techniques the U.S. military and intelligence groups use regularly. Intelligence experts wrote that a lack of research could explain why abuse has been alleged at U.S. facilities in Afghanistan, Cuba and Iraq.

...

In it, experts find that popular culture and ad hoc experimentation have fueled the use of aggressive and sometimes physical interrogation techniques to get those captured on the battlefields to talk, even if there is no evidence to support the tactics' effectiveness. The board, which advises the director of national intelligence, recommends studying the matter.

...

The Army's new field manual on intelligence, approved in September, specifically bans some of the most aggressive techniques -- such as "waterboarding," beatings, sensory deprivation and depriving a detainee of food -- and draws clear boundaries for all military personnel who participate in interrogations. Army officials abandoned more coercive techniques because of the abuse scandals and evidence that Army and contract interrogators had developed approaches in the field based on vague guidance.

...

"The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information," wrote Col. Steven M. Kleinman, who has served as the Pentagon's senior intelligence officer for special survival training.

Kleinman wrote that intelligence gathered with coercion is sometimes inaccurate or false, noting that isolation, a tactic U.S. officials have used regularly, causes "profound emotional, psychological, and physical discomfort" and can "significantly and negatively impact the ability of the source to recall information accurately."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7011501204.html

The people that are using it and then following up on the information gained know. They wouldn't continue to use something that gave them false information regardless of whether it was offically allowed or not.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes it is policy and why in this case are you insisting on ignoring expert testimony on this issue? Again, you are assuming that ineptitude of the Fed. Gov't (which you bring up on many issues here) doesn't extend to the actual interrogators and the methods they use. You seem to be cherry picking what you deem as government ineptitude on some issues, but turn a blind eye to the possibility of ineptitude in this case - with the faulty logic that they wouldn't use interrogation techniques that didn't work.

(see below)

....

Interrogation Research Is Lacking, Report Says

There is almost no scientific evidence to back up the U.S. intelligence community's use of controversial interrogation techniques in the fight against terrorism, and experts believe some painful and coercive approaches could hinder the ability to get good information, according to a new report from an intelligence advisory group.

The 374-page report from the Intelligence Science Board examines several aspects of broad interrogation methods and approaches, and it finds that no significant scientific research has been conducted in more than four decades about the effectiveness of many techniques the U.S. military and intelligence groups use regularly. Intelligence experts wrote that a lack of research could explain why abuse has been alleged at U.S. facilities in Afghanistan, Cuba and Iraq.

...

In it, experts find that popular culture and ad hoc experimentation have fueled the use of aggressive and sometimes physical interrogation techniques to get those captured on the battlefields to talk, even if there is no evidence to support the tactics' effectiveness. The board, which advises the director of national intelligence, recommends studying the matter.

...

The Army's new field manual on intelligence, approved in September, specifically bans some of the most aggressive techniques -- such as "waterboarding," beatings, sensory deprivation and depriving a detainee of food -- and draws clear boundaries for all military personnel who participate in interrogations. Army officials abandoned more coercive techniques because of the abuse scandals and evidence that Army and contract interrogators had developed approaches in the field based on vague guidance.

...

"The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information," wrote Col. Steven M. Kleinman, who has served as the Pentagon's senior intelligence officer for special survival training.

Kleinman wrote that intelligence gathered with coercion is sometimes inaccurate or false, noting that isolation, a tactic U.S. officials have used regularly, causes "profound emotional, psychological, and physical discomfort" and can "significantly and negatively impact the ability of the source to recall information accurately."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7011501204.html

The people that are using it and then following up on the information gained know. They wouldn't continue to use something that gave them false information regardless of whether it was offically allowed or not.

Okay...I'm gonna just walk away from this one, Gary. Your seemingly uncanny ability to cherry pick what you otherwise deem as governmental ineptitude is peculiar, especially in light of expert testimony.