Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture

Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/wa...th&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 — President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, declined Thursday to say if he considered harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding, which simulates drowning, to constitute torture or to be illegal if used on terrorism suspects.

In His Own Words On the second day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Mukasey went further than he had the day before in arguing that the White House had constitutional authority to act beyond the limits of laws enacted by Congress, especially when it came to national defense.

He suggested that both the administration’s program of eavesdropping without warrants and its use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects, including waterboarding, might be acceptable under the Constitution even if they went beyond what the law technically allowed. Mr. Mukasey said the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress.

You realize this means they feel that this it is acceptable for US soldiers to be treated in these ways.
We are now the enemy.
You ARE your tactics.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Fuck the waterboards... this scares the hell out of me.

Mr. Mukasey said the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress.

WTF?

[BigV]

You didn't hear that before?

I was the only person whose head exploded?

(near quote, from memory--fuggedaboutit... skimmed this from slate.com)

Judge Mukasey's views on presidential power are also disqualifying. When asked about the secret surveillance program authorized by President Bush in plain violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, he responded that the Constitution authorizes the president to ignore or disobey statutory law when he thinks it necessary "to defend the country." When Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked whether the president could authorize illegal conduct his response was this lawyerly formulation:

[xoxoxoBruce]

Shoot the fucker... do it now. This asshole should not be allowed out on the street, let alone in office.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

As usual, trying to win the war gets short shrift with you guys. One thing I am certain of, Bruce, RKzen, V: none of you could win this war. You've not thought how, you know no method nor strategy that would succeed better, yet look how bloody willing you are to -- demonstrate that. I'd thought better of all of you.

[Happy Monkey]

We don't want Bush to win the war against the rule of law.

[Ibby]

UG, you're right; none of us could win it.
However, bush has proved to everyone in the world except the most die-hard, blind, resolute, blinkered republican fanatics, that he can't either.
Personally, i doubt that it CAN be won, beyond simply redefining failure as success.

[Undertoad]

It's being won right now, you're just not hearing anything about it.

[piercehawkeye45]

What is winning the war in Iraq? I seriously haven't heard a good definition.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What is winning the war in Iraq? I seriously haven't heard a good definition.

Which is only because your definition of a "good definition" is a) not mentioned, and b) not good for the Republic or shrinking the Non-Integrating Gap areas of the globe. I won't get into how often you've ignored my answer on this very point, and wholly without reason, except to say I think I've told you what victory in the Iraq campaign would be about three times. Somehow, you think you know better than that. I do not understand why you do.

Sure, I'm open to honest differences of opinion -- but where the hell are they?

[Undertoad]

The new definition is returning to civil society and rule of law by Iraqis, in order to keep most of the country out of the hands of Al Qaeda.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't know if the war is being won, but we've shown how quickly the natives settle down to a normal routine, if they perceive they are safe.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The new definition is returning to civil society and rule of law by Iraqis, in order to keep most of the country out of the hands of Al Qaeda.

How about...propping up the Iraqis so that they wouldn't even be threatened by the likes of al-Qaeda, somewhat like Saddam used to do.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The new definition is returning to civil society and rule of law by Iraqis, in order to keep most of the country out of the hands of Al Qaeda.

piercehawkeye45 has asked for the strategic objective. Keeping a country out of Al Qaeda's control is not a strategic objective just as 'search and destroy' and body counts were not strategic objectives.

Whereas creating a stable Iraq might be a strategic objective, details for that definition are required. That was an earliest point made even by Petraeus. We cannot win this war because we cannot accomplish the strategic objective. Or as one Captain so bluntly put it maybe one year ago: he could not win this war; he could only win battles.

That is the lesson from Nam. Americans won most every battle - and lost the war. American provided peace and safety in all major cities; and lost the war.

Also noted repeatedly was no phase four planning. What happens in the first six months following cessation of violence determines victory or defeat. Why? Again, what is the strategic objective - which is why phase four planning was so critical? What was in the second wave on D-Day? People to execute phase four planning.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What is winning the war in Iraq?

What is our strategic objective? Allies in WWII summarized that objective in a soundbyte called "unconditional surrender". What is that strategic objective in Iraq?

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I seriously haven't heard a good definition.

One need only review Nam where major tactical victories resulted in a lost war. Or in Israel's two largest invasions of Lebanon (especially the last one) where major tactical victories resulted in no strategic victory. Israel did not even get back the kidnapped soldier. So what was their strategic objective? Why did bombing cities even in the most northern parts of Lebanon contribute to a strategic objective?

What is the strategic objective in Iraq? What details define a victory? Why has America entered "Mission Accomplished" without even first defining a strategic objective? Without a strategic objective, then victory cannot be achieved. It’s basic military doctrine. Achieving security in the cities? America did that in Nam where no strategic objective also existed. In Nam, a corrupt puppet government also was being protected. Sound familiar?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

Keeping a country out of Al Qaeda's control is not a strategic objective

What about it is not strategic, and what about it is not an objective.

Also noted repeatedly

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz