NVR Logo
Home » Opinion » Editorial
In D.C., evasions on torture
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
It's a sad day in America when the nominee for attorney general cannot flatly declare that waterboarding is unconstitutional.

The interrogation technique simulates drowning and can cause excruciating mental and physical pain; it has been prosecuted in U.S. courts since the late 1800s and was regarded by every U.S. administration before this one as torture. Yet, when asked during his confirmation hearing whether waterboarding is unconstitutional, the best that former Judge Michael B. Mukasey could muster was "if waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional."
The fault for this evasion lies as much, if not more, with President Bush and Congress as it does with Mr. Mukasey. Mr. Bush authorized waterboarding in the past, most notably against al-Qaida leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If Mr. Mukasey now condemns the interrogation method as unconstitutional, he would probably be in conflict with Justice Department memoranda that implicitly endorse such techniques and that have been used by CIA interrogators and others to cloak their actions in legal legitimacy. The president could also be legally implicated for approving the method.

Democratic senators are demanding that Mr. Mukasey declare waterboarding illegal before they will vote to confirm him. But Congress has failed to pass laws that explicitly ban waterboarding and other acts that constitute either torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, a lesser category of abuse also banned by international treaty. Instead, legislators have repeatedly agreed to definitions of inhumane treatment that have allowed the abuse of foreign detainees to continue.
If Democratic senators are serious about eliminating the use of waterboarding and other abusive interrogation techniques, they should seek to mandate that all questioning of foreign detainees be governed by the Army's interrogation field manual, which was recently updated. Top military officials, who have repeatedly argued that torture yields unreliable information and could expose U.S. soldiers to mistreatment, say the techniques contained in the field manual provide all the tools needed to obtain intelligence even from difficult subjects.

Mr. Mukasey may have a way out of his predicament. He could respond to the Senate's questions by saying that waterboarding should be judged as unacceptable under statutes passed by Congress since 2005, despite the loopholes those laws contain. Though the administration has sought to preserve its prerogative to use waterboarding, the technique reportedly has not been employed since then. He also could renew his promise to review all Justice Department memos regarding detainee treatment and correct or eliminate those that don't comport with the law. Then the animus swirling around Capitol Hill and throughout the blogosphere toward the attorney general nominee could be redirected more properly: at an administration that condoned torture and a Congress that did too little to stop it.
(This editorial originally appeared in the Washington Post.)
93 comment(s)

Gabriel wrote on Oct 31, 2007 8:09 AM:

" IF waterboarding our captured enemy will get us information we can use to not only save our own troops, but KILL more of our enemy, then DO IT, and ignore those yellow belly democrats who are taking the French way out! "YES to waterboarding in my name!" "

steph wrote on Oct 31, 2007 9:12 AM:

" How about we keep our enemies guessing as to what happens if they don't cooperate? I understand that surrender of our enemies may come more readily if they are reasonably assured we will treat them well, but for the seriously hard-core terrorists and those who might shelter them, let's not give them the idea that they don't have to talk because all we'll do if they don't is offer a warm bed and a blankie so they can think about it. How about a little strategery, huhn? I think it's admirable that our military and intelligence officers consider what they are doing, but can we have the blow-hard politicians quit with the finger-pointing and accusations out in public? It's not good for our image. And it's not good for our people out in the field trying to protect us. Some arguments are better held behind closed doors. "

napablogger wrote on Oct 31, 2007 9:55 AM:

" This makes it obvious that the Bush administration is still torturing people and using waterboarding to do it. Mukasey doesn't want to get caught lying, so he starts out with the incredible assertion that he didn't know what waterboarding was. If you believe Bush when he says "we don't torture" then you probably believed Clinton when he said "I did not have sex with that woman". "

Kevin wrote on Oct 31, 2007 10:33 AM:

" Doesn't seem like its too hard to figure out: If it doesn't cause permanent physical damage, its not torture... "

mikeb wrote on Oct 31, 2007 11:11 AM:

" I think before you begin this arguement you have to first determine whether we are talking about the uniformed soldiers of a foreign country or terrorists not subject to, abiding by or covered by international agreements between countries on the treatment of captured soldiers. There is a big difference. "

PHarper wrote on Oct 31, 2007 12:10 PM:

" Something doesn't have to cause physical damage to be torture. It can cause psychological damage, emotional damage, and any number of problems in a person's life. There is nothing humane, moral, or right about torturing a person--if we have to resort to torture, then we are no better than the enemy we are fighting. "

Gunga Ga Lunga wrote on Oct 31, 2007 1:24 PM:

" To PH: What a load of righteous indignation. You're telling us that if a captured enemy with information critical to the survival of our troops or civilians does not what to talk, then we should just say "oh well"? And if we do slap him around little to get him to talk, then you say we're no better than they are? The same ones that are beheading our captured troops and civilians? Go sell this namby pamby "feel good" mush to someone else. "

Sickothis wrote on Oct 31, 2007 2:20 PM:

" C.I.A. trainees lasted an average of 7 seconds of waterboarding before they told their interrogators whatever they wanted to hear. Waterboarding is serious torture. Period. All of those advocating torturing anyone have no standing as American citizens. It is NOT what we, as Americans, do. What's the next step, waterboard murder suspects here based on a neighbor's claim? Waterboard YOU for disagreeing with a Government official? Disgusting, immoral, and illegal. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Oct 31, 2007 3:56 PM:

" I never thought I'd live to see the day during which Americans would openly support the use of torture. Then again, I never thought I'd see the day on which Americans would allow a President of the United States to engage in unconstitutional activities on a regular basis without holding him accountable. Those given the privilage of serving the public must vow to defend the Constitution and its protections of civil liberties. Anybody defending torture as a means to any end is unworthy of public office. Anybody who advocates torture as a means to any end is beneath my contempt. "

Tim wrote on Oct 31, 2007 4:18 PM:

" Hey Madison and sicko, If you had to waterboard a suspect that you knew kidnapped and buried your sister and she had 2 hours of air left before she died would you do it? If no....good for you for standing up to your high principles! but your sister is dead..but if you would do it, it shows anyone is capable of anything if the cost is great enough. "

JoePaniagua wrote on Oct 31, 2007 5:53 PM:

" Many good German citizens allowed not only torture but decimation of the so-called enemy (who were not soldiers) because they believed it was in the best interest of their nation. And we all know the outcome of that chapter of history. There will probably always be hard-core nationalists in this world. Perhaps we can only hope that this type of thinking does not become the majority here in the United States. Because if we go down this road surely karma will make us pay…just like it did in Germany 60 or so years ago. In fact, I thought we fought that war, in part, because those injustices disgusted us. I prefer to believe that the U.S. can defend itself without using such tactics. I prefer to believe that we are, and have been, one of the greatest nations in history because of our humanity. Torture is not humane. Waterboarding is torture. "

chris wrote on Oct 31, 2007 6:17 PM:

" A couple of things. First, if what we're doing to the enemy would cause outrage if it was done to captured Americans, then we shouldn't do it. That, I believe is the position of the military who are kind of concerned about the precedent we're setting for future conflicts. Secondly, torture is not that effective. If tortured enough, you'll confess to anything to get them to stop. Apparently, that's happened. We've lost all credibility when it comes to confronting truly brutal regimes, we just come across as hypocrites. The ends do not justify the means. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Oct 31, 2007 6:19 PM:

" I am an American citizen who believes in the rule of law. Treaties signed by presidents and ratified by the Senate become the supreme law of the land under Article VI of the Constitution. The use of waterboarding violates provisions of the UN Charter, the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals, and the Nuremburg Charter, Judgment and Principles. By refusing to support the use of waterboarding, I align my values with those of the Constitution and the civilized world. Hypothetical questions which assume that I might be unable to respond rationally and legally to particular situations are specious. The U.S. is a nation of laws, one in which those accused of crimes are guaranteed due process. The government does not get to violate its laws in order to achieve its ends. One's means are one's ends. To defend torture, under any circumstances, is to defend the indefensible. To assume that I could be convinced to join the ranks of those using torture is absurdly presumptuous. (My answer to Tim's question is, therefore, "NO!") "

Tim wrote on Oct 31, 2007 6:51 PM:

" Joe..do you really think torture is something new?? ALL participants of war in EVERY war ever fought have tortured..here is one quick quote: "Allied soldiers in Pacific and Asian theatres were guilty of the same "cruelty and callous disregard for civilized norms" as Japanese soldiers, according to historian Jeff Kingston, referring to the treatment of POWs, among other issues. Kingston quoted documentary film makers Jonathan Lewis and Ben Steele, who said: "the impression of the war as a history of Japanese savagery alone has been eroded by the growing body of evidence of Allied brutality. The issue here is less whether the two sides were as bad as each other, but whether they had more in common than was ever thought at the time.. We Americans are just like any other civilization in history....trying to survive as best as possible...and will do whatever it needs to do to survive..please take your blinders off. "

Bill wrote on Oct 31, 2007 7:42 PM:

" Israel once used the policy of “If it were certain” then torture could be used. They soon found that they were using it even when they were not certain and justifying it for cases it was never intended to cover. Once you go down this road it is difficult to recover, so much for moral equivalency. Because one has no visible permanent injury does not mean that trauma or extreme pain has not been caused. There are numerous scenarios of torture that may not cause permanent physical damage but there is no other word for them but torture. It is an uncertain universe. "

browns valley wrote on Oct 31, 2007 8:06 PM:

" If water boarding is merely an effective technique to get at the truth quickly and without harm why not make it standard practice for all police interrogations? Heck why not use it for job interviews? I would envision it to be a great way to interview candidates for attorney general or any public office. I can think of any number of Democrats or Republicans that would benefit from telling the truth. Safe effective efficient. A modest proposal indeed. "

JoePaniagua wrote on Oct 31, 2007 9:00 PM:

" Tim (whoever you are), I don’t doubt anything you quote. And, of course, torture is nothing new. I do not have blinders on. I know that this can be a cruel world. However, the question here is whether or not the U.S. uses torture (the president says we don’t presumably because it is un-American) and whether waterboarding constitutes torture, and whether we should officially condone its use as a nation. You seem to be saying that anything goes for our national interests. I am saying that if you impose no limits on a nation’s prescription for supremacy it could end up in horrific places that history has already shown us. I don’t want to go there. I hope others feel the same. We shall see. "

chris wrote on Oct 31, 2007 9:07 PM:

" So Tim. Are you comparing us to the Japanese and Nazis and saying that's OK? It's true, war is brutal and leads to brutality. That, however, doesn't meant that anyone thought that it was OK. AND, what happens on the battlefield is not the same thing that happens after the battle. I read an article in the Washington Post about the unit of soldiers whose job was to interrogate Nazi officers during WW2. They are reported disgusted at the tactics used by the current interrogators. These vets pride themselves on not ever having to resort to torture or any harsh methods. They used their wits and humane treatment. They said their best technique was playing chess with their prisoners. "

russ wrote on Oct 31, 2007 9:30 PM:

" Who is the judge of what is torture and what is not? If it is not torture, we should use it to interview Mrs. Clinton to determine her positions on the issues. "

napablogger wrote on Oct 31, 2007 10:06 PM:

" Tim, I am sure it has happened in some instances. The difference is that it was never officially sanctioned and taught to troops by the US government. Quite the opposite, you could be court martialed. And does anyone really believe that if Mukasy cannot say he is against waterboarding because he already knows his future boss is doing it, that other forms of torture are also not being done? Of course they are. No one knows if any of the torture Bush is doing is working because it is all classified and we have to take his and Cheney's word for it. We do know of several famous cases where supposedly big deal Al Qaeda terrorists were tortured and they lied about what they knew, causing all kinds of problems for the military. They later admitted they would have said anything to get the pain to stop. Torture rarely works, all it does is turn the torturers into evil people themselves, it becomes a sick addiction. This is a shame on the United States. "

Tim wrote on Oct 31, 2007 10:33 PM:

" Chris..as you can read I am not comparing us to anyone... this was a quote from historian Jeff Kingston...not me, It is what it is..my point is that people act as if this type of action is something new under the Bush admin... and they are soooo suprised!! For every act of torture under this administration I will show you proof of the military doing the same under previous administrations in time of war... torture during war time has been going on since time immemorial..I defy anyone to show proof when there was a war without torture by any country...In reality America is no different..you can wish and hope and pray that we are better than that but history will prove you wrong. Human nature is what it is. Madison....All I can say is good for you! "

chris wrote on Nov 1, 2007 6:37 AM:

" Tim, if you use someone else's opinion to make a point, you own that opinion. Claiming otherwise is dishonest. Yes, evil things happen in war. The point is whether you think it's OK. Historically speaking, the USA has never condoned this behavior. We have disavowed it and sought to prosecute the perpetrators. We have laws against torture because we (as a country) believe that torturing your enemy is wrong. Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan would did not see it that way. Is that the company you want to keep? The whole crux of the matter here is whether "waterboarding" is torture. If it is, then someone (Mr. Bush) has been braking the law. "

Rocco wrote on Nov 1, 2007 6:40 AM:

" Apart from MJH's assertions that he actually cares about civil liberties...I must say that this is the most intelligent volley of ideas I've read on the NVR blogs for quite some time. It just goes to show that for every complicated problem there's a simple solution...which is probably wrong. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 1, 2007 9:41 AM:

" To my thinking, Tim's most recent post is little more than a pathetic attempt to save face. Alas, I find his rhetorical backpedaling unconvincing. I suspect that Tim chose to quote Jeff Kingston because it suited his rhetorical purpose to do so. There are many, many other historians that could have been quoted, but Tim chose Jeff Kingston. Tim ought to take responsibility for the words used his post and not hide behind the words of Jeff Kingston. The long record of abusive behaviors committed by belligerents during times of war does not justify additional abusive behaviors today or tomorrow. The "They did it too!" excuse didn't work when I was a first grader. Why would adults think that an application of such fractured logic would be convincing when trying to justify the use of torture? Here's a quotation that Tim might consider: "With his will, or against his will, a man reveals himself with every word." (Ralph Waldo Emerson) "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 1, 2007 9:45 AM:

" "napablogger", has a point about sanctioning and allowing torture from the top levels of our government. When I was in the Navy boot camp we had training where they used Lt. Calley and the Mai Lai massacre as the example of what was not allowed. We were told to ask for orders in writing if we thought they might be illegal involving murder or torture. The officers above Lt. Calley were able to avoid punishment because Calley had no written orders to destroy Mai Lai and kill its inhabitants. There was only testimony of orders to 'waste' the place. Of course, nowadays... the officers actually have orders from George W. Bush to hide behind. That protects the officers, but the 'little enlisteds' involved with Abu Ghraib who trusted their command chain are in prison right now. ~Ruff "

Bill wrote on Nov 1, 2007 9:52 AM:

" Tim, no one challenges that evil exists it is merely that we do not wish to condone it. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 1, 2007 10:07 AM:

" "steph", I hope you never get any position of authority over prisoners of any kind. In WWII, the German soldiers ran towards the American and British lines because they didn't have to guess about how they would be received. The folks who did not surrender had to be killed, but the ones that were captured knew that surrendering was the road to being treated decently as the policy of the American government and military. You bring shame the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our flag and all the heroes who ever fought, the ones who died or were maimed under Old Glory by wanting to give sadists room to operate. You repeat the sly words of sociopaths who have no respect for human life or what America stands for. Please "stay the course", continue to demonstrate why Bushite Republicans and their enablers must be defeated in 2008. ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 1, 2007 1:45 PM:

" "Gabriel", if you really believe what you wrote as the very first post on this thread, then you have the name of an angel, and the heart of the fallen ones. When 'war broke out in heaven', your side with your strategy LOST! ~Ruff "

steph wrote on Nov 1, 2007 4:16 PM:

" Hmm, Ruff, you really have it bad for me, don't you. Did I say I was in favor of torture, or do you need to re-read my post? In fact, your point about WWII prisoners is a restatement of mine. Oh, and by the way, your wish is granted. Except in my own home, I have no authority over any prisoners, and have no ambitions of this sort. You have to wonder how it is I have any authority anywhere, huhn? Being a...what was it? ...Bushite Republican enabler. There you go with the name-calling again. "

steph wrote on Nov 1, 2007 4:47 PM:

" Let me state for the record that I want the US military to be a role model for strength, efficacy, efficiency--all good adjectives, including compassion and justice. I want the soldiers of our enemies to want to surrender to our military. I want our military to abide by the golden rule. I am totally opposed to torture as punishment, torture for the sadistic pleasure of any group or individual, or for forced confession. However, I will set up a hypothetical situation to demonstrate where I would not be opposed to water-boarding: if we captured al-Zawahiri, I would not be opposed to water boarding him in an attempt to ascertain the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden. Additionally, I would not be opposed to water boarding someone who knew where captured US servicemen were being held captive and tortured, or where a bomb was about to be detonated. That's my opinion, in spite of all Ruff's bloviating character assasination. If I'm wrong, please help me understand how I am wrong, and please use facts and reason, not insult and irrational incrimination. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with enabling Bush, anyway. There--you've engaged me again, wasn't that your intent? :) "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 1, 2007 5:38 PM:

" The last three sentences of steph's first post on this page ought to be read again. In those sentences she gives voice to the anti-democratic, un-American notion that those who finger-point, accuse or argue in public may hurt "our image." Poor steph. She couldn't be more wrong. It is our freedom of speech and the regular exercise of that freedom of speech that gives life to our constitutional, democratic form of government. The Founders risked their wealth, power, prestige and lives by openly speaking out on a variety of issues, and our nation's soldiers and elected representatives vow to defend our freedom to peacefully finger-point, accuse and argue in public. It's our openness that the world has envied and/or admired for so many years. To squelch open debate on any subject is to prevent citizens from performing as well-adjusted members of communities they seek to understand and wish to improve. "Some arguments are better held behind closed doors" might be good advice for squabbling parents wanting to protect their small children from unnecessary upset, but it's terrible advice for citizens who value their rights in a free country. The only antidote for offensive speech is more speech of elevated quality. Dissent is patriotic! Long live freedom of speech! Long live the U.S. Constitution! "

Bill wrote on Nov 1, 2007 6:16 PM:

" The slippery slope argument is well illustrated by the comments of when and where torture would, could or should be used. Instead of the standard premise of being absolutely certain of a person’s knowledge, as in the ticking bomb scenario, it is only necessary to have associative knowledge or imagined danger to invoke its use. Zawahiri obviously has knowledge of Osama and captured U.S. troops are going to suffer torture or worse. The type of torture is irrelevant, if you slip down one slope you are just as likely to slip down the other. "

steph wrote on Nov 1, 2007 6:24 PM:

" Is sleep deprivation considered torture? "

chris wrote on Nov 1, 2007 6:58 PM:

" Steph. The problem, as I see it, is that you can't be ethical on a part time basis (situational ethics). The bad guys don't play by the rules, that's what makes them evil. If we don't play by the rules, what's that make us? "

les wrote on Nov 1, 2007 8:12 PM:

" It is known by professional interrogators that torture provides unreliable results. I personally stand by John McCain that water-boarding, sleep depreviation and other methods of torture should not be used. What we do to the enemy will be done to our soldiers. We should take the high road on this subject. "

JoePaniagua wrote on Nov 1, 2007 8:21 PM:

" Steph (whoever you are) your point is not clear. You say you are against torture, yet you say you would support waterboarding. I’m assuming then that you have decided that waterboarding is not torture. Am I wrong? Since that is the question at hand then why don’t you just say that, in your opinion, waterboarding is not torture. My opinion differs because I have seen (as have many) reenactments of this method of questioning and I find it a disgusting and inhumane form of interrogation. Most people on this thread (and in this country) seem to feel the same. Indeed, many have struggled and sacrificed too much and too long in order to maintain the moral high ground for the United States that we owe it to them to find another way to defend ourselves than to succumb to the emotional response that many of us may feel. But please excuse me, perhaps I bloviate too much. "

russ wrote on Nov 1, 2007 8:51 PM:

" Aha, Ruff plays the Mai Lai card this time. If we do not waterboard, the Islamic terrorists will end jihad and love us. les, I disagree, I think we should err on the side of protecting Americans. Waterboarding broke Khalid Sheik Mohammed and he told us the truth about 911. "

steph wrote on Nov 1, 2007 9:59 PM:

" Mmm, no, I did not say I was against all torture. BTW, Joe, you're not the incessant Bloviator. Your arguments do not contain repetetive, ranting insults and name-calling, and I thank you for your civility. Some people here are making the case that we should not condone any torture at all, because it is a slippery slope, and while some torture may be justified (?) it may lead to unjustified torture? Others say that if we employ torture against our high-value captives, this leads to torture being used against us. I guess I'm having a hard time believing that's the primary motivation of our enemies, so I'm not buying that argument. I do understand that torture can beget false information--as a stall tactic, or to end suffering--and this false information can be dangerous or delaying of our desired end result. I will admit that waterboarding is cruel, and I would prefer that our CIA operatives use other techniques, such as sleep deprivation, if they have good reason to believe the person has valuable information that we need immediately. As for Madison's concern, it's legitimate. But can we agree that some things should be secret, like military strategy or intelligence? For those of you against torture, help me understand what you would do, for example, in the hypothetical case of the capture of al-Zawahiri, to get Bin Laden's location? Give me a good alternative. I would have thought sleep deprivation would be acceptable, but no? "

steph wrote on Nov 1, 2007 10:36 PM:

" Les, thank you for pointing to John McCain. I found a Truthout.org editorial in which he speaks rather eloqently and persuasively on the subject, as someone who endured great suffering at the hands of enemies who tortured him for years, and I found this: "Al Qaeda will never be influenced by international sensibilities or open to moral suasion. If ever the term 'sociopath' applied to anyone, it applies to them." But also this: "In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted. But I don't believe this scenario requires us to write into law an exception to our treaty and moral obligations that would permit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. To carve out legal exemptions to this basic principle of human rights risks opening the door to abuse as a matter of course, rather than a standard violated truly in extremis. It is far better to embrace a standard that might be violated in extraordinary circumstances than to lower our standards to accommodate a remote contingency, confusing personnel in the field and sending precisely the wrong message abroad about America's purposes and practices." It would seem to me that even John McCain understands that there will be extreme cases where extreme measures might be justified in retrospect. I guess I agree with him here, and with most of you, that as a matter of principle we should be against torture, since we are better than our enemies. It's a great editorial. I stand corrected. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 2, 2007 2:57 AM:

" "steph", your most recent post is much more morally straight than the one I criticized earlier. Some of my uncles served in Europe in WWII and liberated a concentration camp. They were horrified by the torture, starvation and murder they saw. Some people died when they were given food or water. So my family's military tradition is closer to 'Knights of the Round Table' than 'Waffen SS'... which American troops defeated without adopting their tactics. My daddy said that is doesn't matter what the other guy does, it's what you do that matters. It's galling to see the Bush chickenhawks dissembling and thus endangering our kids overseas. No American president worth spit would ever sign executive orders authorizing a policy which turns America's kids into sadists. Sadly, Mr. Bush is still defending the indefensible. And worse, the Congress outlawed torture again just months ago, and Bush did his little signing statement thing, and kept on doing what Congress forbade, and decent people hate, and lied to us about it. Impeach! ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 2, 2007 3:08 AM:

" "russ", why should I hide what my military training was after Mai Lai? Are you some kind of Mai Lai denier? Or, do you just fail to understand what honoring our Constitution and over 225 years of US military tradition since Gen. George Washington really means? Perhaps this might help - "We are the GOOD GUYS! The GOOD GUYS don't torture, we defeat the scumbags who torture!" Got it, now? ~Ruff "

Bill wrote on Nov 2, 2007 9:00 AM:

" No less a dignitary, liberal and civil libertarian icon than Alan Dershowitz while not advocating torture acknowledges that torture exists. He points out that it is illegal, it is beyond the law. He also suggests that if torture is to be used it must be through the legal system and he has proposed “torture warrants” to be issued by a judge in order to give torture the color of legality. Acknowledging that evil exists is no great stride for any mind but equivocating over the meaning of torture and the righteousness of its use is certainly a much more difficult thorn. Who we are as a people is exhibited in our acts, deeds and laws. If we consider ourselves better than our enemies than we must strive to be better than they are. Who will the inquisitor be with his water board in one hand and the electric prod in the other? What honorable people will claim him? My more simple Forrest Gump moment tells me that “Evil is as evil does,” extraordinary or not. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 2, 2007 12:58 PM:

" "Bill", you are falling for 'torture warrants' when the current Bushite Republicans won't even follow the law and get warrants to wiretap American citizens? Really, think that's a workable plan, eh? Cheney loves you! ~Ruff "

Bill wrote on Nov 2, 2007 2:32 PM:

" “Ruffy Tuffy” I doubt if Cheney is as in love with me as he is pleased with you. As one of the greater thespians out here in cyberspace you might take some of the criticism of the people who criticize your puffery. Like Steph and Sandra are fond of saying “read the post.” I set my sites on another out here and someone’s tiara gets bent, flattering them selves that I am referring to them. Your posts do more to degrade the debate than in hance it. What have you said to move the argument or convince. Bloviate? I will match my leftwing liberal libertarian credentials to yours any day. You do more harm to argument than good. Fancying yourself the shining knight doing battle might help you get through a talk session but you are never even amusing which is about where I go when drama queens start with there insults. "

Bill wrote on Nov 2, 2007 2:55 PM:

" Ok Mr. Censor the blood is up. If you did not post the last one do not post this one. Torture exists I do not condone it in any form. It is patent hypocrisy to be concerned with the current nominees responses to torture especially on a Democratic/Republican basis. Both major parties have turned a blind eye to its use. In the efforts to control other countries we have trained torturers on our soil and on the sovereign territory of others and all the presidents all the candidates of my lifetime from any political party have tacitly understood that it was being used. When I hear the democrats truly cry out against is use and truly stop its use I might consider rejoining a party that has left me. Until then I will continue casting my vote for the cartoon character of the moment. "

steph wrote on Nov 2, 2007 7:01 PM:

" Aw, Bill. Some people want this to be a Republican Bad, Democrat Good argument all the time. I could ignore this if the attacks didn't turn personal, as they do frequently. Perhaps it's time for me to give the people the benefit of the doubt, and rest assured they see it and discount it, as it's clear as day what is going on. BTW, I certainly think "torture warrants" are worthy of debate and an interesting idea I'd considered but not articulated. Ruff's argument that they are NOT used for wire tapping is not an effective argument against them. "

chris wrote on Nov 2, 2007 7:25 PM:

" It doesn't matter any more. The turncoat, cowards, Fienstien and Schummer are going to vote for Mukasey anyway. It's no wonder why the Democrats never really run the country. They pee their pants every time a Republican says they might be weak on security. I'm thoroughly disgusted! "

russ wrote on Nov 2, 2007 8:30 PM:

" Hey Ruff, stick to current times. What the heck does Mai Lai have to do with anything except show old anti-American sentiments?? You did not answer my question, who defines torture? Waterboarding? Hmmm, if it works, is used only when it will save American lives, and no one is permanently injured. Hmmm, no problem with me. >russ "

russ wrote on Nov 2, 2007 8:39 PM:

" PS_ Bush's Attorney General nominee, Mukasey, gets approval from the Senate with bi-partisan approval. the Democrats fold again. russ "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 3, 2007 8:55 AM:

" Yes, "chris", the DC Dems have caved in to the 'torture advocates' again. What is really sad is that Napa seems to have a very loud group of shameless torture advocates posting here. These elephants trumpet and bray about their 'patriotism', but betray the Constitution, every veteran, and everything America stands for. These fifth columnists want to pretend tht they don't advocate 'torture' when the US prosecuted Japanese and Germans for doing the same thing to our troops. Bushite Republicans and their apologists are hypocrites to the bone. ~Ruff "

chris wrote on Nov 3, 2007 9:00 AM:

" Yeah Russ. Let's conveniently forget that the military has considered waterboarding torture since the Spanish American War and has prosecuted soldiers for using it. Let's forget that we prosecuted enemy soldiers during WW2 for waterboarding American soldiers. And let's not bring up the fact that the US military has made an effort to make our military more ethical. That's all in the past. I constantly hear from you all about the "moral relativism" of liberals, but here is "situational ethics" it's not wrong if you can rationalize it. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 3, 2007 10:49 AM:

" Who defines torture? The International Red Cross has defined torture. The MedTerms medical dictionary defines torture. Webster's dictionary defines torture. Against any of the definitions of torture found in those works, waterboarding is torture. As early the 1760s, Cesare Beccaria, an Italian Enlightenment writer, wrote a treatise on why torture is a repugnant practice. The U.S. has signed several treaties that prohibit the use of interrogation methods such as waterboarding. The U.S. has tried, convicted and sentenced to prison, a number of war criminals who have engaged in the practice. During the Vietnam War, several American soldiers were punished for practicing waterboarding on Vietnamese prisoners. References to the My Lai Massacre in previous posts might be of value because that incident involved the torture of civilians by U.S. soldiers. Past injustices must not be forgotten, and the civilized among us must speak out loudly and often against the repeated injustices that have been committed by U.S. officials. Torture is evil. Torture is illegal. Torture ought not to be tolerated by civilized humans. "

Bill wrote on Nov 3, 2007 11:10 AM:

" Torture is too important an issue to be relegated to party politics. I am certain that there are Republicans as well as Democrats that condemn its use. It is when we equivocate and play semantic tricks to fool our selves into accepting it as a legitimate tool of justice that I must strongly object. We can not claim to be a republic of virtue and condone the use of torture. Arguments for its use may be genuine and compelling but it is still torture. I will not join Vladimir Lenin’s club where the ends justify the means. I realize that I will convince no one with my strident hyperbole but maybe just maybe through the slow movement of civil argument will bring other thoughts to light and some one might just read and understand. Oh! and Chris, torture still matters it did not evaporate with this confirmation its insidious presents permeates our policies and must not be dismissed. "

chris wrote on Nov 3, 2007 1:30 PM:

" I know it matters Bill. I'm just depressed, frustrated and disappointed that the people I vote for can be so shameless when it comes to Washington politics. This is a no brainer to me. Every chance the Democrats get to hold Bush and Company accountable, they back off. What are they afraid of? They would be taking a position most Americans agree with. If they have to lose I'd rather it be based on principles rather than because they have no spines. "

steph wrote on Nov 3, 2007 1:55 PM:

" John McCain: The enemies we fight today hold our liberal values in contempt, as they hold in contempt the international conventions that enshrine them. I know that. But we are better than them, and we are stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. It is indispensable to our success in this war that those we ask to fight it know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, and the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others-even our enemies. Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and the many terrible sacrifices that have been made in our defense, to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country's honor to prevail; that they are always-through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss-they are always, always, Americans, and different, better and stronger than those who would destroy us. "

Bill wrote on Nov 3, 2007 4:24 PM:

" Sweet campaign words but torture is still advocated by this administration and it is still illegal. Who we are must be judged by what we do not just our sentimental attachment to, and I note, liberal values. Chris, it is more common to claim a high moral ground based on absolute values as many evangelicals espouse but turn to relativism when fear moves the moment. They can not decide if there is truly an absolute value, and only decide there is when it meets their purpose. The new sainted morality is consequentialism an old philosophy of utilitarians. Democrats spend to much time “slapping” at values that do not exist because we think we must represent ourselves as some how more holy. "

white wrote on Nov 3, 2007 5:42 PM:

" GOOD GUYS? where are they? in the movies always US soldiers play as the most human people. The reality, US changed for bad, there are no more generosity, there are no more compassion, there are no more good guys. We want figth first or just in case or by "prevention". This is so sick. "

steph wrote on Nov 3, 2007 6:49 PM:

" Well, when we decry the fact that so-called rogue nations are seeking nuclear weapons, I want no moral equivalency. I believe it's ok for the United States of America to posess defensive weapons of mass destruction because we ARE the good guys. We are the best regime that humans ever created and lived by. If we won't refuse to torture our enemies then we are no better than them. I say "no" to moral equivalency. We must be better than Islamists who torture and kill with impunity. We are better, to be sure, but we need to strive to be above reproach of decent and reasonable people. I now believe those people are against a policy of using torture as a weapon--Democrat, Republican, Green, Independent, Libertarian, American. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 3, 2007 7:05 PM:

" "steph", your quote shows us that John McCain is a better man that all those Bushite Republicans who lied about him the Carolina primaries of 2000. The crew that 'won' have shown what immoral lying thugs will do when they are given power. The fact that nobody in high office paid with their jobs for Abu Ghraib, and the Republican Media like FAUX NOISE and Rush Limbaugh laughed off torture and murder has brought us to this sad state where the decent Republicans, independents and the Democratic Party base have been pushing their DC representatives to stand up and put an end to the "Parsing of Torture". Shame on everybody of any party who votes to continue giving sadists wiggle room to get away with torture under our flag. Nice quote, "steph", we can certainly agree on this. Let's continue to pay close attention to what is being done in our name. ~Ruff "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 4, 2007 8:06 AM:

" steph was permitted to post an extended quotation by John McCain. I hope that it's okay, therefore, to submit the following quotation of political pundit P. M. Carpenter: "Somewhere within the vertical configuration of Dante's nine circles of hell, there's a mezzanine level reserved for torture-adoring Republican pols to eternally consort with their simpatico brethren of Gestapo Funktionär, KGB apparatchiks and Pinochet's tenientes. Now under construction, word from below has it, is an annex to that subterranean hellhole, just a bit to the left and a little lower, newly and exclusively reserved for Democratic collaborators." "

steph wrote on Nov 4, 2007 8:33 AM:

" I guess we get the government we deserve. Americans want a third party, but Democrat and Republican career politicians have us fighting each other to their benefit. I really do believe most Americans agree on most ideas. Just think what we could accomplish with unbiased information and rational dialog. "

Kevin wrote on Nov 4, 2007 9:53 AM:

" I see that now, after their grandstanding and public chastising of Mukasy for not arbitrarily declaring waterboarding "torture", the Dems are FINALLY going to actually PASS A LAW making waterboarding illegal. If, as some posters have said, waterboarding is already illegal why is Congress going to pass this bill? "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 4, 2007 2:20 PM:

" "Kevin", have you no shame at all? Is ANYTHING done by the Bushite Republicans OUT OF BOUNDS for you? ANYTHING? So far you have defended every scummy thing that has been done under the American flag by the Bushites. Is it 'arbitrary' to say that America stands for something better than a tactic employed in the Inquisition, by the Gestapo, by Pol Pot, and many other professional sadists? Have you no bottom limit? Is there no lower circle of hell on earth you won't support if a Bushite says it's needed? This is more serious than burning trash in your backyard to punish 'Eco-Fascists', "kevin". You want the American flag to fly over gulags where humans are converted into beasts? I am talking about the torturers, not their victims. Surely, there is some scrap of humanity left in you, but then you seem comfortable with Bushites working the 'Dark Side' as Dick Cheney says. ~Ruff "

Bill wrote on Nov 4, 2007 3:07 PM:

" No if Kevin, is. It appears you need a law to confirm your absolute morality. Having trouble knowing right from wrong? "

steph wrote on Nov 4, 2007 6:23 PM:

" In defense of Kevin, Mukasey was asked specifically if waterboarding was unconstitutional. One could argue that this is rather arbitrary as there are other forms of torture that may be equally repugnant (Mukasey's term for waterboarding) and that were not specifically addressed. We all know what's going on here; if Mukasey says waterboarding is illegal then he's obligated to prosecute members of the Bush Administration (and Congress?) and CIA who authorized it--but why stop at waterboarding? Much as many Dems would like to see Bush hung for being Bush, I'm not sure this distraction is constructive or best for our country right now. We can debate this. Hurray to the Democrats for passing a law that most Americans will agree with, but why did it take so long--are they protecting someone? Is this politicizing? I think so. Both sides share guilt here. "

chris wrote on Nov 4, 2007 8:23 PM:

" Steph. Although I do think that the current democrat congress (they don't deserve democratic from me) is culpable here, I would like to point out that the issue of torture has been going on since the "War on Terror" began after 9/11. Most of that time the congress was run by the Republicans who were all too happy to give the President a free hand in the treatment of captured combatants. Need I remind anyone of Abu Graib? Anyone who thinks that was the result of a bad reservist unit and not the result of orders from their superiors, well I would like to interest you in this map I have of the Lost Silverado Silver Mine. I'll sell it to you real cheap... "

Bill wrote on Nov 4, 2007 8:32 PM:

" Kevin is a big boy and can defend himself quite well. You just can not semantically squirm out of what is right and what is wrong. The issue is water boarding is torture and torture is wrong. If you can not see that you need to do some heavy thinking about just what you mean when you use the words “American values.” "

steph wrote on Nov 4, 2007 11:07 PM:

" No, Bill, you're wrong. The issue is the legality of waterboarding and the implications of the legality/illegality. Unfortunately, there is a difference. Chris--As an American, I was and am horrified and ashamed of atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib by Americans. You'll get no argument from me. "

steph wrote on Nov 4, 2007 11:11 PM:

" What is legal is not always right and what is illegal is not always wrong. Unfortunately. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 5, 2007 6:30 AM:

" "steph", don't tell me that you are suddenly going to suffer a relapse after all those strong words against torture. You play the part of the 'independent' usually. And now, suddenly, "Kevin" has you backing up the torture advocates again? If you are what you say you are then couldn't you stand with the good guys more resolutely? ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 5, 2007 6:37 AM:

" I want to see everybody involved in torture tried in the USA. However, if they can not be tried in the USA, because of the legal shenanigans pulled in Washington,DC to give the sadists cover... then we should extradite them to countries with universal jurisdiction that will try them for war crimes. The US and NATO required that Slobodan Milosivik be tried at the Hague and he was convicted. If the USA can't handle dealing with torturers and sadists then the Hague can. The fact that the Republicans were all heated up against extradiion in the past leads me to believe that they were looking to coddle sadists 'in advance of need' which means premeditation. ~Ruff "

Bill wrote on Nov 5, 2007 12:33 PM:

" Uhh?? Pardon me but what is the legality/illegality? Did I miss something? Torture is now legal? Are you still squirming about Water boarding as torture? If I tie somebody up side down in a chair and smacked them around just hard enough not to leave any marks, dunked their heads in a toilet, deprived them of sleep kept them in the same position for hours at a time and made them sit in their own excrement while giving them enough water to exist between sessions would that be considered torture? Would any single one of theses not be torture so long as I left no permanent physical damage? Are there some semantically appropriate deviations I should add to make torture more accommodating? "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 5, 2007 4:12 PM:

" With the notable exception of "Kevin" people who present themselves as Independents, Republicans and Democrats have finally found something we can agree on. We don't want human beings tortured under our flag or in our name. It's too bad that our administration and Congress are not quite as straight forward and stalwart on the matter as decent Americans in Napa. Enough equivocation on bedrock American principles, we can argue about the other stuff all we want, but torture and caring for the wounded are pretty much 'settled' matters as far as most Napans go. ~Ruff "

Common Sense wrote on Nov 5, 2007 5:34 PM:

" Waterboarding may be brutal, it may be nasty, it may even be uncalled for. But it's not torture. It does not inflict physical pain or damage. It does not destroy the victim. Its sole purpose is to create a sense of terror by arousing deep instinctive reactions against drowning, instincts shared not only by almost all mammals, but almost all vertebrates who don't happen to be fish. It is effective, it is quick, it leaves no scars and should revolt no one's conscience. The sole person other than US pilot trainees we know to have been waterboarded is Khalid Sheik Muhhamed. Khalid broke within minutes (the practice involves wrapping the face in towels and then pouring on large quantities of water.) He was waterboarded for one reason alone: he was involved in the 9/11 attack, both preparation and execution, and authorities needed to know if any other such attacks were in store. what is being overlooked is that Khalid's case matches the one exception to the "no torture" rule almost universally granted by critics, including several Democratic presidential candidates: an emergency where the possibility exists that many lives may be threatened by terrorist action. Such a possibility existed in the case of Khalid Sheik Muhhamed. As a result he suffered a short, nasty interlude, and the possibility was laid to rest. "

chris wrote on Nov 5, 2007 7:12 PM:

" Again, CommonSense. If an enemy did that to captured Americans, you'd be screaming for their heads. Hey, how about this. We capture the Sheiks children and shoot them one at a time until he talks. That wouldn't leave a mark (on the Sheik). That wouldn't cause him permanent damage. Too messy, how about we just water board them? How about mock executions? Where do you draw the line? At whatever works? Pol Pot used water boarding. The Gestapo used water boarding. The Imperial Japanese Army used water boarding. Is that the company you want us to run with? If so, then we've lost. "

steph wrote on Nov 5, 2007 8:54 PM:

" Common Sense, I took John McCain's stance on waterboarding, that it's torture. He says, "For instance, there has been considerable press attention to a tactic called "waterboarding," where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth-causing the prisoner to believe he is being drowned. He isn't, of course; there is no intention to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating. The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her psyche in ways that may never heal. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture." I trust him to know. As for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, it's awfully hard to feel sorry for the man, it's true. But I think what many here are trying to say is that we as Americans need to have a strong, transparent policy against all torture, not necessarily for the bad guys' sakes, but for ours, for what it says about us as a nation and our morality. Last night I went looking for the proper spelling of "Abu Ghraib", and happened upon the Wikipedia article on the subject, and I must say, I had a hard time sleeping after I read about what we Americans sponsored there. I am deeply, deeply ashamed and saddened for what we did there--and what we didn't do about it. Americans need to be against torture. "

Bill wrote on Nov 5, 2007 9:12 PM:

" Ahh!! Actually it appears we have gone no place because we can not agree upon the term we are arguing about. One side sees waterboarding as a form of torture the other at best is uncertain or at worst feels it is a legitimate tool of interrogation. There is no meeting of the minds if we cannot agree upon definitions. I don’t think anyone expected that to happen. The local Republican hierarchy chooses to endorse what I consider a form of torture. Well so be it as I am not a part of either party’s hierarchy or club I can say that I will oppose any party that supports torture for any reason under any circumstances. Appoint which ever Torquemada you choose, use the color of the law to justify your use of it or twist the meaning of words as easily as the ex-president you abominate, I will remain unconvinced. Nor will I rely on any party that espouses a view of America that is shot through with obfuscation, sectarian dogma and a blatant disregard of human rights. It appears that the ends justifies the means and Lenin’s ethics trumps all. "

steph wrote on Nov 5, 2007 9:26 PM:

" Bill, if you re-read the article, and maybe some other articles on the Mukasey hearings, you'll understand that the impasse is about whether or not waterboarding is illegal. Mukasey proclaimed it repugnant, but the hearings stalled on whether or not it can be declared illegal. (These are lawyers doing what lawyers do.) In fact, according to the LA Times editorial today, Mukasey has noted that Congress has exempted the CIA from the strictures of the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation, including a ban on waterboarding. Therefore, he said, he would have to decide on his own -- after taking office -- whether a "particular technique" violated laws against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Congress might consider correcting this? Disagreement is noted, but I believe most people, including me, would agree to call waterboarding torture and agree to call it wrong, and our government and military should unequivocally call it wrong and refuse to use it in interrogation. That's my opinion. Should we prosecute whomever authorized waterboarding on Khalid Sheik Mohammed? We might have more difficulty gaining consensus here, given the subject of the torture. THAT is reason for the evasive answers during the confirmation hearing--this is why Mukasey won't say that waterboarding is *ILLEGAL* because then it would open the door to prosecution of CIA officials and maybe higher-ups in Congress and the military and certainly the Bush administration. Moving forward, would we like to see another Abu Ghraib-style disaster where mostly innocent people are subjected to torture, including (among other debatable techniques) waterboarding? ABSOLUTELY NOT. It's time to earn our reputation back as the good guys. After Abu Ghraib, we have a lot of work to do. "

Clever Nickname wrote on Nov 5, 2007 9:49 PM:

" 3 years ago the former U.S. Acting Assistant Attorney General Daviel Levin went through the exercise of waterboarding to determine once and for all if it was indeed torture. He determined it was, ethically, legally and practically. He turned in his findings to President Bush. He was swiftly fired, labeled as "untrustworthy." If Mukasey can't decide or won't admit it's torture, then he shouldn't be allowed in such a position of trust. I am saddened to see that some Napa citizens think any torture is acceptable. I can't tell who the good guys are anymore. Email Feinstein and let her know that we are watching her vote tomorrow. If we justify torture, what is our message to the rest of the world? How will OUR soldiers be treated? Who will be screaming bloody murder then? This is one, long, unending nightmare with 364 days left to survive this administration. "

Bill wrote on Nov 5, 2007 10:02 PM:

" Steph, my argument is with the use of torture not with the nominee. I am not concerned with whom or what offices grant exemption to use torture. My argument and senator McCain’s are the same. Mr. Mukasey is a venerable legal mind and confirmation hearings are a political ball game so I do not expect much real substance to come to the surface. The contention is that waterboarding is torture and one can not condone it in spite of sliding by the obvious questions. I am glad we can agree that waterboarding is torture and that torture is wrong even if we may differ deeply about other things. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 6, 2007 9:05 AM:

" The torture advocates and the sadists want some wiggle room to get away with doing exactly what the US government tried and put to death Germans and Japanese over. "Bill", says he "not concerned". with Mukasey's testimony. Mukasey said that if Bush authorizes torture that puts torture within 'the law', which is the same old line of bull we have heard since 9-11. This is giving Bush's sadists room to torture people if Bush says it is alright. Let's all remember that tyrants always have a 'national security emergency' to hide behind. "Sadists are as sadists do". ~Ruff "

Common Sense wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:24 AM:

" The left has drawn a vicious cartoon in which every individual involved in fighting the Jihadis from the Oval office on down is being portrayed as the equivalent of the Abu Ghraib guards: halfwit knuckle-draggers capable of going out of control without warning. This can endanger us in any number of ways - encouraging officials to back off when they should bear down, to hesitate when they should strike. As Judge Mukasey stated in his letter answering the Congressional imputations: "I would not want any statement of mine to provide our enemies with a window into the limits or contours of any interrogation program we may have in place and thereby assist them in training to resist the techniques we actually may use." Some people only respond to fear. That doesn't mean that we should use fear as a motivational tool for everyone, just for the select few who are uncooperative via other methods. The idea that you can calmly chat over tea with a terrorist fanatic and extract information that could save thousands of American lives is naive. It would, however, be a good attraction for Disneyland. "

russ wrote on Nov 6, 2007 1:23 PM:

" Ruff, your comments on torture are absurd. Please give me a faux link to your "quote" by Mukasey. Please explain how Bush can authorize torture. Bush cannot pass laws. Bush cannot change laws. Laws, however, are open to interpretation by the courts and changeable by the legislature. russ "

Bill wrote on Nov 6, 2007 2:04 PM:

" Let me see how can I civilly respond to Napa’s wanabe answer to the flip side of Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly. Shall I cherry pick two words from some of his posts at random? Should I suggest that he is appearing to be more of a reactionary 5th columnist? Or suggest that he should not only apply to a better drama institute to sharpen his method thespian portrayal. Or, figure out who he is really mad at, my unconcern for who ever the next Torquemada might be or his jonesin’ over slippery lawyers and the likes of Feinstein and Schumer. Mukasey was always Schumer’s buddy so He was always a “Schuummer” in. That’s the way politics works. Get used to it or find a better game and quit trying to hang onto Geraldo’s mustache. Save us from your holy homilies, your supposed military and international expertise arming bomb sites from 50,00 feet or wherever. Many of have fathers and families associated with WWII and claim no special expertise or insight from that association and many know the jungle is also cold at night as any atomic savvy ace from your altitude and attitude. For some our military expertise encompasses the relief of peeing ones pants in the cold jungle night from fear and for the temporary warmth it allows wishing we hadn’t done it because maybe now the enemy can smell us. Hope the censor doesn’t find this too “Ruff,” off topic or obtuse. Bow Wow! "

steph wrote on Nov 6, 2007 10:12 PM:

" Common Sense, I can fully appreciate your concern about being too soft, and equivocating in the face of a determined threat. We are fighting people who seem to have no civility, no morals, no decency. I do feel at times that the left has a Blame-America-first mentality. I, like you, want a strong and determined military and CIA to protect my family and friends and all who stand for decency. And that's key, don't you think? The part about decency? Don't you think we can be strong and effective and moral? What makes you proud to be an American? Don't you think we should work hard to win the hearts and minds of our friends and for-now enemies? Don't you think we DO have lessons to learn from Abu Ghraib? Do you not see how damaging Abu Ghraib was to our reputation in the world? Do you think it was an isolated instance? I suggest you read the truth about Abu Ghraib. This was not some wacky practically a fraternity hazing party that was represented among the right wing who knew how bad it was and who wanted to minimize the horror of it all. There were rapes and all other manners of sadism taking place in the name of the United States of America, against mostly innocent human beings. Do you not want to distance yourself from this? I sure as heck do. We must take a stance against what is morally repugnant, as Americans. The Army has its Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation--nobody is saying we have to go easy on the bad guys. I will stand with you in defense of my country when that happens. "

steph wrote on Nov 6, 2007 10:19 PM:

" It's up to Congress to act. According to Schumer, Mukasey “made clear to me [in private] that, were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the President would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.” Of course, that leaves rendition. But it's a start. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 7, 2007 7:02 AM:

" "russ", you can't have it both ways my friend. Either Bush is some 'unitary executive' in some freakish stretch of Article II of our Constitution who can authorize breaking the laws Congress passed because he is 'Commander-in-Chief' when a war has not been declared. There has only been an authorization to use military force against terrorists and those nations harboring them, not a "Declaration of War". Or, Bush is a lawbreaker already. Mr. Mukasey's 'private reassurances' don't mean squat anymore that 'testimony' when not made under oath. It's amazing to me how readily the folks of authoritarian bent accept the trappings of FAUX democracy over our real Constitutional rights. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 7, 2007 7:30 AM:

" "Bill", off hand I'd say your expertise at jungle warfare would make you a 'go-to guy' for questions about jungle warfare, just like the kids of my generation who fought in Vietnam. And my expertise at nuclear warfare means I would have a good insight on nuclear proliferation threats. Nuclear war is about the cold calculated automated destruction of entire nations, melting and remelting cities, and leaving radioactive crater lakes where underground shelters hid, all the while hoping that your nation does not become ash drifting on the poisoned wind. And praying that that poisoned wind is not going to shift and blow your way. Terrorists can't do that, Iraq couldn't do that and Iran can't do that. Pakistan can't do that to the USA. If you want to say that your service makes you more of an expert on nuclear war issues than mine... we'll just have to continue to disagree... won't we? However, thanks for the complement about "being the flip side of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Lielly" because the flip-side opposite of Ann and Bill would mean I am telling the truth, which is what I do and those two ... not so much. They specialize in truthiness, not truth. ~Ruff "

Bill wrote on Nov 7, 2007 12:17 PM:

" No, "Ruff" you hang too much stuff out the back end you only mirror those you despise.We are not kids of your generation any more in fact we never were "Kids." The most ruthless S.O.B. in the world is an immortal 18 or 19 year old. We were not kids then we are not Kids now. Torture is to be despised exactly because it is torture. I am no go to guy about any thing but my personal arguments. Everyone out here can invent any expertise for their avatar but it is useless unless it is couched in terms of logic and not the dripping sentimentallity or name calling exibited in many of your posts. Al Franken's only saving grace is his humor but smarmy thoughtless accusations convince only the choir you preach to. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 7, 2007 2:27 PM:

" "Bill", keep trying to make this about me... OK? If you want to call me a liar, go right ahead, but the audience will decide who's arguments to believe. I've started including near-links to information to back up my points and so far, the Republican enablers still do not. I don't expect Republican-enablers to like me... I'd be worried if they did. But people who appreciate truth over slogans will know the difference. ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 7, 2007 2:57 PM:

" russ wrote on Nov 6, 2007 1:23 PM: " Ruff, your comments on torture are absurd. Please give me a faux link to your "quote" by Mukasey. " __ Glad you asked, "russ"! Although near-links are not faux links, bub!__ First 'google is your friend' (if you want the truth that is)... I googled "transcript mukasey" and came up with the following transcript with agrees with what I personally saw during the hearings. I am including a TinyURL to keep the near-link short: tinyurl.com/2otqy7 __ I am quoting a short snip to fit in the 300 word limit here, but you can follow the near-link for everything. __ Quote __ LEAHY: Can a president authorize illegal conduct? Can the president -- can a president put somebody above the law by authorizing illegal conduct? MUKASEY: The only way for me to respond to that in the abstract is to say that if by illegal you mean contrary to a statute, but within the authority of the president to defend the country, the president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law. Can the president put somebody above the law? No. The president doesn't stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution. It starts with the Constitution. LEAHY: We'll go back -- we'll go back to this. I'm troubled by your answer. I see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. __ Unquote. __ No wonder the Bushies hates the internets! ~Ruff "

russ wrote on Nov 8, 2007 2:02 PM:

" Ruff, thank you for the quote from Mukasey. Here is your quote that I challenged "Mukasey said that if Bush authorizes torture that puts torture within 'the law'" Mukasey did not mention torture in the quote. His language was very careful, not ranting. No need to make a big deal of "faux link". I used faux in the context of "simulated or resembling", perfectly proper. Sorry if you were offended. I stand pat. russ "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 10, 2007 9:18 AM:

" "russ", as the good book says: "Trust not in princes -- in a son of man, For he hath no deliverance." Gonna 'stand pat' on 'a son of man' instead of standing up for what is right before the cock crows three times, are ya? ~Ruff "

Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Back to top
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley
Copyright © 2008 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy