Good. I like him

Figgity Fizurst!

If the Democrat Congress wants to ban waterboarding, they can pass a law.

I think 11:56 is the one who's disgusting.

Me? Disgusting?

11:56(a) - Mukasey's unwillingness to address waterboarding is repugnant, no matter his religious beliefs and/or support for Israel.

I can't believe people don't understand the Dems opposing him are just trying to appease their far left constituents. No one finds Mukasey dishonest, unethical, or in any other way unqualified (as opposed to the last AG). He simply does not want to throw the DOJ under the bus right before taking over. It's absurd to expect him to say anything else.

If these Dems really care so much about waterboarding (they dont) then just pass an explicit law.

12:20, Mukasey did address water-boarding; he did not address the LEGALITY of water-boarding because the issues are extraordinary complex and would require far more research than the time he was given afforded.

The Dems wanted him to make a political statement by prematurely condemning the practice. Of course, he didn't take the bait. This shows his independence and commitment to the rule of law rather than political causes.

In a more just world, Schumer and Feinstein would be politically waterboarded for voting him out of committee. What good is a democratic congress if all they do is capitulate to the president?

It's good to know that we've got an AG who is willing to condemn a practice as horrible and barbaric, but thinks so little of the United States that he's unsure whether it's ok for the government to do it to uncharged american citizens handed over to military authorities. That makes me feel really safe.

Am I missing something? Why is waterboarding an issue but surfing is not?

12:48 - why should you feel unsafe? are you planning on blowing something up, pray tell?

LOL@"Mukasey did address water-boarding; he did not address the LEGALITY of water-boarding because the issues are extraordinary complex and would require far more research than the time he was given afforded."

Truly amazing.

Does this have something to do with aqua girl?

CIA's definition of waterboarding:
"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."

12:48, how exactly are the "issues" here extraordinarily complex? What does Mukasay need to know? How inclined the board is? How much water is poured over the prisoner's face? How terrifying is the prisoner's fear of drowning? How instant are his pleas?

Are the answers to any of these questions needed to show that waterboarding = torture?

Waterboarding is clearly torture, but the attempted hatchet job on Mukasey was unwarranted and politically stupid. As noted above, he obviously can't call the president a war criminal in his confirmation hearings, and the Dems should have realized, but apparently did not, that if they were somehow successful in blocking Mukasey they would succeed only in keeping a well-qualified candidate out of the job and make room for a political hack in the mold of Gonzales who was sure to follow as Bush's second choice.

congress is considering and will likely pass such a law; if congress does, mukasey has he said will enforce it, even against king george.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/opinion/06schumer.html

do you people read real news, or only sensationalist blogs?

Waterboarding has been illegal for over a century. Does this Admin need personalized legislation?

Mukasey's confirmation was never really in doubt. This was just the press hyping some drama.

"Waterboarding has been illegal for over a century." What legislation and/or decision[s] support this statement, 2:03?

(Hint... there aren't any!)

@2:10

No 'waterboarding' by US military: defense chief

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that "waterboarding," simulated drowning that is branded torture by critics, is not authorized for the military as an interrogation technique.

"It's not a permitted technique in the army field manual and therefore no member of the US military is allowed to do it," Gates told reporters, referring to the practice that has sparked controversy over the legality of interrogation methods.

"From the military standpoint, I wouldn't expect military personnel to be involved in waterboarding," added the new chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen.

"It's important for us to maintain a high ground with respect to activities involving detainees."

@2:10

No 'waterboarding' by US military: defense chief

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that "waterboarding," simulated drowning that is branded torture by critics, is not authorized for the military as an interrogation technique.

"It's not a permitted technique in the army field manual and therefore no member of the US military is allowed to do it," Gates told reporters, referring to the practice that has sparked controversy over the legality of interrogation methods.

"From the military standpoint, I wouldn't expect military personnel to be involved in waterboarding," added the new chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen.

"It's important for us to maintain a high ground with respect to activities involving detainees."

You're all a bunch of pansies. Sure, water-boarding isn't pleasant, but it's not torture. In what world is "simulated drowning" (SIMULATED, i.e., not actual) akin to chopping off someone's appendages?

I think everyone would agree that "war" is personally repugnant, and personally abhorrent. But most people would agree that it is necessary in some circumstances. That is why Mukasey's answer was worthless. If he tells Bush and Cheney that he finds waterboarding "personally repugnant" and "abhorrent", but does not tell them it is illegal -- then is there any chance in the world they will stop?

I think everyone would agree that "war" is personally repugnant, and personally abhorrent. But most people would agree that it is necessary in some circumstances. That is why Mukasey's answer was worthless. If he tells Bush and Cheney that he finds waterboarding "personally repugnant" and "abhorrent", but does not tell them it is illegal -- then is there any chance in the world they will stop?

I would love to know how liberals expect to obtain any useful information from committed terrorists bent on destroying America. Perhaps we should just tell Khalid Sheikh Mohammed about the errors of his ways and hope that by being nice he will come to realize that he was on the wrong side all along?

Waterboarding is precisely the kind of interrogation tactic that we should use against foreign terrorists. On the one hand, not only does it not (unlike traditional forms of torture) cause any permanent physical damage, it does not even cause any physical pain whatsoever. As such, there are no serious concerns that waterboarding can be deemed "barbaric" or "cruel", let alone torture (though I would not say that it is unreasonable to say that is is repugnant to some degree). In fact, U.S. media figures have occasionally volunteered to experience waterboarding, and you obviously wouldn't see anyone in his right mind volunteering to experience actual torture. Despite not causing physical pain, waterboarding is reportedly a good way to get information. I am all in favor of minimizing abusive treatment as much as possible, and if there is another way to get good information from terrorists that is even milder than waterboarding, I am all for it.

3:28: You raise a good point that I did not know until recently. No one in the Bush administration would disagree with you on this; waterboarding, in the rare instances when it is used, is done by civilians and not military officials.

4:17: Your comment is based on the assumption that Bush and Cheney are downright evil and want to waterboard for the sake of it. Of course, "there is a chance [that] they will stop"; like any decent person in their position, they will only call for doing what they think is necessary or helpful to get actual information.