Lawmakers grill Mukasey on waterboarding

[Heracles 417]

Speaking of torture. I noticed another one of those apparently pro-American movies coming out tomorrow. You know the type of film that gives America a great reputation overseas.

Rendition.

Apparently China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Al Qaeda, Syria etc give anyone they are interrogating tea and scones.

How about we send anyone who is disgusted with America's interrogation techniques to any one of the previous groups / nations, as a threat, and then we will compare whose techniques are worse..

[Peikko 1,575]

Rendition? That's too funny, seriously, hilarious. :lol:

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

How about we send anyone who is disgusted with America's interrogation techniques to any one of the previous groups / nations, as a threat, and then we will compare whose techniques are worse..

Notice your sleight-of-hand reference as America's interrogation techniques vs. the Bush Administration's interrogation techniques. First, Bush is not synonomous with the term America. Second, the interrogation techniques that Bush has endorsed don't jive with intelligence experts. So the question remains, whose expertise on interrogation has the Bush Administration adopted? Or are they just making it all up by themselves?

Edited October 18, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

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.

We are talking about two different things here. Whether Bush and Cheney think waterboarding is effective and allowed isn't the question here. The people that are charged with the interrogation of suspects will use what works and will not use what doesn't work. If waterboarding works and they have permission to use it then they will use it. If waterboarding isn't reliable they wouldn't use it whether they had permission or not.

[Jasman0717 9]

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.

Maybe it has something to do with our current leadership and I am not just pointing fingers at the administration

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Speaking of torture. I noticed another one of those apparently pro-American movies coming out tomorrow. You know the type of film that gives America a great reputation overseas.

Rendition.

Apparently China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Al Qaeda, Syria etc give anyone they are interrogating tea and scones.

How about we send anyone who is disgusted with America's interrogation techniques to any one of the previous groups / nations, as a threat, and then we will compare whose techniques are worse..

How about "its only a movie". Anyone who can't make that distinction really can't be helped.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That begs a question then, if it isn't effective or it give false results then why would we do it?

Well, the claim by an AQ operative that AQ received explosives and B&C training from Saddam was one of the main pillars of Bush's phony case for the war against Iraq. On the flip-side, the AQ operative that made that "confession" couldn't really elaborate on the details of this alleged arrangement which, as we know now and the DIA knew all along, did never really exist in the first place. Bush needed that connection, tough and they got him the "confession". The kind of intelligence this sort of barbaric nonsense has yielded has not really gotten us anywhere we want to be. It has made matters only worse.

ETA: The Senate ought not to approve any AG that doesn't clearly state that torture - as defined and understood in generally accepted human rights and other international conventions the US is a party to - will not be authorized, tolerated or covered up under his or her leadership.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Heracles 417]

How about we send anyone who is disgusted with America's interrogation techniques to any one of the previous groups / nations, as a threat, and then we will compare whose techniques are worse..

Notice your sleight-of-hand reference as America's interrogation techniques vs. the Bush Administration's interrogation techniques. First, Bush is not synonomous with the term America. Second, the interrogation techniques that Bush has endorsed don't jive with intelligence experts. So the question remains, whose expertise on interrogation has the Bush Administration adopted? Or are they just making it all up by themselves?

I did not realize every single responsibility falls on the president. Since the Bush administration's techniques are wrong, maybe liberal Americans can enlighten us on what they think are appropriate interrogation techniques.

[Heracles 417]

Speaking of torture. I noticed another one of those apparently pro-American movies coming out tomorrow. You know the type of film that gives America a great reputation overseas.

Rendition.

Apparently China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Al Qaeda, Syria etc give anyone they are interrogating tea and scones.

How about we send anyone who is disgusted with America's interrogation techniques to any one of the previous groups / nations, as a threat, and then we will compare whose techniques are worse..

How about "its only a movie". Anyone who can't make that distinction really can't be helped.

Maybe to some here but not to the people abroad who have a hatred for this nation. To them it is more fuel for their zealous hatred of this nation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Speaking of torture. I noticed another one of those apparently pro-American movies coming out tomorrow. You know the type of film that gives America a great reputation overseas.

Rendition.

Apparently China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Al Qaeda, Syria etc give anyone they are interrogating tea and scones.

How about we send anyone who is disgusted with America's interrogation techniques to any one of the previous groups / nations, as a threat, and then we will compare whose techniques are worse..

How about "its only a movie". Anyone who can't make that distinction really can't be helped.

Maybe to some here but not to the people abroad who have a hatred for this nation. To them it is more fuel for their zealous hatred of this nation.

Well you can hardly blame a movie for the simplistic views of ignorant and untraveled people...

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

How about we send anyone who is disgusted with America's interrogation techniques to any one of the previous groups / nations, as a threat, and then we will compare whose techniques are worse..

Notice your sleight-of-hand reference as America's interrogation techniques vs. the Bush Administration's interrogation techniques. First, Bush is not synonomous with the term America. Second, the interrogation techniques that Bush has endorsed don't jive with intelligence experts. So the question remains, whose expertise on interrogation has the Bush Administration adopted? Or are they just making it all up by themselves?

I did not realize every single responsibility falls on the president. Since the Bush administration's techniques are wrong, maybe liberal Americans can enlighten us on what they think are appropriate interrogation techniques.

Try to stay focused - nobody here has claimed that in this thread. As for the interrogation techniques and the detainment of unlawful combatants - who do you suppose is responsible?

Do a Google search on the detainee treatment bill and you'll understand who's making the calls with regard to the handling of unlawful combatants.

...

Taken as a whole, the law will give the president more power over terrorism suspects than he had before the Supreme Court decision this summer in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that undercut more than four years of White House policy. It does, however, grant detainees brought before military commissions limited protections initially opposed by the White House. The bill, which cleared a final procedural hurdle in the House on Friday and is likely to be signed into law next week by Mr. Bush, does not just allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions; it also strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation.

And it broadens the definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” to include not only those who fight the United States but also those who have “purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” The latter group could include those accused of providing financial or other indirect support to terrorists, human rights groups say. The designation can be made by any “competent tribunal” created by the president or secretary of defense.

In very specific ways, the bill is a rejoinder to the Hamdan ruling, in which several justices said the absence of Congressional authorization was a central flaw in the administration’s approach. The new bill solves that problem, legal experts said.

“The president should feel he has better authority and direction now,” said Douglas W. Kmiec, a conservative legal scholar at the Pepperdine University School of Law. “I think he can reasonably be confident that this statute answers the Supreme Court and puts him back in a position to prevent another attack, which is the goal of interrogation.”

....

Over all, the legislation reallocates power among the three branches of government, taking authority away from the judiciary and handing it to the president.

Bruce Ackerman, a critic of the administration and a professor of law and political science at Yale University, sharply criticized the bill but agreed that it strengthened the White House position. “The president walked away with a lot more than most people thought,” Mr. Ackerman said. He said the bill “further entrenches presidential power” and allows the administration to declare even an American citizen an unlawful combatant subject to indefinite detention.

“And it’s not only about these prisoners,” Mr. Ackerman said. “If Congress can strip courts of jurisdiction over cases because it fears their outcome, judicial independence is threatened.”

Even if the Supreme Court decides it has the power to hear challenges to the bill, the Bush administration has gained a crucial advantage. In adding a Congressional imprimatur to a comprehensive set of procedures and tactics, lawmakers explicitly endorsed measures that in other eras were achieved by executive fiat. Earlier Supreme Court decisions have suggested that the president and Congress acting together in the national security arena can be an all-but-unstoppable force.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30detain.html