Mukasey won't weigh in on waterboarding

[Gunny]

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Tuesday he will refuse to publicly say whether the interrogation tactic known as waterboarding is illegal, digging in against critics who want the Bush administration to define it as torture.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy ahead of a hearing Wednesday, Mukasey said he has finished a review of Justice Department memos about the CIA's current methods of interrogating terror suspects and finds them to be lawful. He said waterboarding, which simulates drowning, currently is not used by the spy agency.

Since waterboarding is not part of what Mukasey described as a “limited set of methods” used by interrogators now, the attorney general said he would not rule on whether it is illegal.

more ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22904392/

There you have it. Not even in the inventory. So just what the Hell has all the whining been about?

 

[jillian]

There you have it. Not even in the inventory. So just what the Hell has all the whining been about?

C'mon, Gunny, if it isn't "in the inventory", why did the CIA destroy tapes of it doing exactly that?

What do we have, memories that last for like 30 seconds?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

C'mon, Gunny, if it isn't "in the inventory", why did the CIA destroy tapes of it doing exactly that?

What do we have, memories that last for like 30 seconds?

You mean tapes from 2002? Last I checked that was 2 elections ago. And back then was NOT an issue or asked to be determined to be torture.

Further while the TAPES were destroyed, detailed written logs of exactly what went on, what techniques were used, who was involved and what was done asked and answered WERE kept.

Further the implication that the CIA would do anything for this President flys in the face of the facts present since at least 2004. The Agency tried to influence, illegally, a national Presidential election. They have continued since then, rank and file, openly fighting with this President and his administration. Now as I recall the tapes were destroyed in 2005? WITHOUT approval or even a request sent to the White House.

 

[eots]

[

QUOTE=RetiredGySgt;644620]You mean tapes from 2002? Last I checked that was 2 elections ago. And back then was NOT an issue or asked to be determined to be torture

.

however it speaks to creditability

Further while the TAPES were destroyed, detailed written logs of exactly what went on, what techniques were used, who was involved and what was done asked and answered WERE kept

.

OK I'm pretty sure your not really this stupid...so this is now willful ignorance

Further the implication that the CIA would do anything for this President

bush is a TV character a puppet it wasnt done for him

flys in the face of the facts present since at least 2004. The Agency tried to influence, illegally, a national Presidential election. They have continued since then, rank and file, openly fighting with this President and his administration. Now as I recall the tapes were destroyed in 2005? WITHOUT approval or even a request sent to the White House.[/

do you have links for this !!??.. so what your saying is the CIA is involved in a conspiracy rankandfile that operates covertly and illegally outside the control of the president...iinteresting... and to what end..who do they really work for ? on who's behalf do they do this ?..can we trust any of them ?

 

[Gunny]

C'mon, Gunny, if it isn't "in the inventory", why did the CIA destroy tapes of it doing exactly that?

What do we have, memories that last for like 30 seconds?

It depends. One side of the coin apparaently has elephant memories when it comes to Republican administrations and 30 second memories when it comes to Democrat ones.

When Bill gets brought up as a comparison to the current administration since he IS the last Dem to hold office the response is ALWAYS "What's he got to do with this? He's not in office now."

It is not Mukasey's place to define torture. That would be SCOTUS unless otherwise specifically defined by the legislature.

As far as to why the tapes were destroyed, since no one has stated specifically "why," you only assume the reason. The fact is, they were destroyed against orders and the person or persons destroying them should be held accountable.

 

[rayboyusmc]

He still can't say if Waterboarding is torture unless it was done to him.

He tried to say that he couldn't see any way his boss would break the law until Specter (A Republican) reminded him of Bush admitting breaking the FISA law.

He tried to weasel out of that and suprisingly Specter told him in so many words to piss off.

As the new AG, I think he is finding out how deeply Bush and Cheney are into violating so many laws of our country. His only out is to stall until Bush leaves office.

John Dean, on Countdown this evening, stated that compared to what happened in the Nixon Whitehouse, what has happened under Bush's rule is a totally different level.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He still can't say if Waterboarding is torture unless it was done to him.

He tried to say that he couldn't see any way his boss would break the law until Specter (A Republican) reminded him of Bush admitting breaking the FISA law.

He tried to weasel out of that and suprisingly Specter told him in so many words to piss off.

As the new AG, I think he is finding out how deeply Bush and Cheney are into violating so many laws of our country. His only out is to stall until Bush leaves office.

John Dean, on Countdown this evening, stated that compared to what happened in the Nixon Whitehouse, what has happened under Bush's rule is a totally different level.

Sure thing. Remind us of the Impeachment process and why it is NO ONE in charge will even consider it. Or have you once again forgotten HOW our Government works and that since Jan 2007 the Democrats have been in control of said process?

I suggest you go reread the oath you took as a commissioned officer.

 

[Gunny]

He still can't say if Waterboarding is torture unless it was done to him.

He tried to say that he couldn't see any way his boss would break the law until Specter (A Republican) reminded him of Bush admitting breaking the FISA law.

He tried to weasel out of that and suprisingly Specter told him in so many words to piss off.

As the new AG, I think he is finding out how deeply Bush and Cheney are into violating so many laws of our country. His only out is to stall until Bush leaves office.

John Dean, on Countdown this evening, stated that compared to what happened in the Nixon Whitehouse, what has happened under Bush's rule is a totally different level.

Mukasey's job is law enforcement, not interpretting law.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Sure thing. Remind us of the Impeachment process and why it is NO ONE in charge will even consider it.

They don't have the frigging votes to get it started in the House. You know that. Also, Pelosi and Reid have sold out to the Bushter and the System.
Or have you once again forgotten HOW our Government works and that since Jan 2007 the Democrats have been in control of said process?

Once again, Gunny, in control in name only. You have to have a greater plurality of the votes to overide his veto and the loving lemmings.

I suggest you go reread the oath you took as a commissioned officer.

I suggest that you un-insert your brain housing group from your anal orifice, Gunny. I don't want to offend you, but your view of patriotism ain't the only valid one in the world.

I will defend my country and stand up for it, but if some of the assholes in charge are breaking the law, I will also challenge them. It's still a Democracy despite what your little puppet has tried to destroy.

We tried people from other countries in the past for waterboarding and found them guilty of torture.

Mukasey's job should also include honesty and transparency.

 

[rayboyusmc]

If he doesn't know what the law is, how can he inforce it. Sounds like a little semantics here.

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; (That means is there is a person or group of domestics that are trying to destroy the Constituion, I have a duty to oppose them.) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[/QUOTE]


Please show me where my posts have violated this. I don't see it say that I will follow the Criminal In Charge no matter what he does. Remember we hung people at Nurenburg for doing just that.

 

[Gunny]

If he doesn't know what the law is, how can he inforce it. Sounds like a little semantics here.

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; (That means is there is a person or group of domestics that are trying to destroy the Constituion, I have a duty to oppose them.) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[/QUOTE]


Please show me where my posts have violated this. I don't see it say that I will follow the Criminal In Charge no matter what he does. Remember we hung people at Nurenburg for doing just that.

The legislature makes law. The judiciary interprets law. Law enforcement enforces the law. In this case, the interpretation from the judiciary is missing.

I'm sure Mukasey feels absolutely no obligation whatsoever to enforce the opinions of the left. If the Supreme Court declares that waterboarding is indeed torture, then I guess it will be up to him to ensure the CIA doesn't do it.

But then, they already aren't doing it.