Mmmmmmph! Mmmmmmph!

(This is what "first" sounds like when you're getting waterboarded)

2 = racist against water, but tolerant of boards

My commencement speaker was Harry Reid, and his speech mostly regarded the "nuclear option" debate over the Republican threat to change the filibuster rules in the Senate. Because I'm right-of-center, I wasn't thrilled with it, but the majority of students didn't seem to mind because they agreed with Reid and voted Dem.

So sorry that all the Dems and libs down at UNC had to sit through a conservative legal defense of enhanced interrogation techniques -- welcome to my world.

I would probably let Mr. Mukasey pound my pet chimp Chompers in the ass if he asked nicely.

Jabroni

I can't tell what's worse: the anti-UNC hate, or the shameless DUke bashing (arguing that UNC is "worth it").

What the hell do you mean "What constitutes torture?"

I'm fairly certain that waterboarding has been considered torture since the Spanish Inquisition (give or take a few centuries).

Furthermore, seeing as how we have executed people who waterboarded Americans, it is a safe bet that waterboarding is torture.

Have fun at your federalist society meetings...

Honestly Lat, stop using the Royal We. It could be the most tired editorial flair in our langauge.

Forgive me if this sounds wild, but I'm wondering if the UNC students might be able to take some kind of legal action against either UNC or Mukasey. If the students relied on the promise of a commencement address not focused on torture -- say, their parents flew down to hear the speech, thinking it would be focused on the students and their experiences -- might they have a colorable reliance (ie, promissory estoppel) claim? Anyone with a strong understanding of Restatement 90 care to weigh in?

Hofstra had Harvey Levin from TMZ.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has the authority under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to determine what constitutes torture.

From their first hand accounts and review of our practices, they determined that we tortured.

This is not murky in the slightest. Just because people wanted to commit a crime, actually did commit the crime, and are unapologetic about committing the crime does not change the fact that they committed a crime.

One would hope that "substantive disagreements" would color our perceptions of torture advocates and apologists.

Where did these graduates get the idea that a commencement speech had to be a homage to them? There's a long tradition of commencement speeches addressing important issues of the day, e.g., Announcement of the Marshal Plan at Harvard and Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech at Fulton College. Mukasey's speech seems to address an important legal issue. Is that too much for the UNC law school community to handle? Sad.

NO MORE RESTATEMENT 90! I RELIED ON THIS AS BEING A SEMI-INTELLIGENT COMMENT THREAD AND I'M SUING YOU POSTER #9

Oh, wait. That was definitely not "reasonable" reliance. Stupid comments wasting my time.

And I was pissed off when Prof/Judge Goldstone gave the 2007 commencement speech at Fordham Law and he went on and on how we have to treat terrorists as ordinary criminals.

The point is a commencement speech should not be overly political one way or the other.

Although I do love pointing out how liberals are so open to a variety of veiwpoints as long as that variety is what they beleive in.

7,

Not all instances of waterboarding are created equal. As such, why should we then assume all instances of waterboarding are automatically, legally defined torture?

Democrats really need some new talking points on this issue.

Sounds interesting to me. I'd much hear something substantive from a major policy maker than hear a bunch of tripe about "going forth into the world" and "making the most out of your degree" yada yada yada.

11,

Why do you even assume the torture provisions of the Geneva Conventions even apply to unlawful enemy combatants in the first place?

Yes, Lat, I'm sure those in the audience who approve of torture were thrilled with the speaker and the subject dwelled upon on their happiest of all legal days.

Or, my apologies, those who don't approve of torture per se, but its OK if we do it when its really necessary (because we're the good guys, we were scared, and we really, really needed information to protect ourselves, and we wouldn't do that sort of thing unless we really had to, the Constitution's not a suicided pact after all, right?) but its always bad if others do it, especially to us (because they're the bad guys, Nazis, Japanese, Red Chinese, Soviets, terrorists, and others who are just evildoers who love to torture).

Gee, I wonder if other countries will copy these rationalizations for years to come while torturing our poor servicemen, their own citizens, and god knows who else?

When I think of all the lasting harm the Bush Administration has done to this country and the world, it just kills me. And to think there are STILL apologists for them.

12,

Actually, torturing people is a long settled and very basic legal issue. For precedent, please see the U.S. convicting japanese soldier Asano to 15 years hard labor for waterboarding American service men.

Just to ruin the surprise for you, when they were torturing people the Japanese had a valid concern that an identifiable enemy would use a weapon of mass destruction on them.

That defense did Asano no good. The Geneva convention specifically disallows a defense of "torture is effective" against charges of torture.

Please state for me the unsettled legal issue identified in Mukasey's speech.

12,

Actually, torturing people is a long settled and very basic legal issue. For precedent, please see the U.S. convicting japanese soldier Asano to 15 years hard labor for waterboarding American service men.

Just to ruin the surprise for you, when they were torturing people the Japanese had a valid concern that an identifiable enemy would use a weapon of mass destruction on them.

That defense did Asano no good. The Geneva convention specifically disallows a defense of "torture is effective" against charges of torture.

Please state for me the unsettled legal issue identified in Mukasey's speech.

9 = TTT 1L. Are you serious? Section 90 is of no significants.

I'd rather contend with family Corrino politics on Salusa Secundus that sit through a lecture on torture from Mukasey.

~Prince Farad'n

P.S. Wensicia is a major league bitch.

Well, it could be worse. At least torture is a controversial, interesting topic. At *my* commencement speech, we had much the same thing happen, only instead of Mukasey covering his ass on torture, it was Senator Paul Sarbanes explaining and defending Sarbanes-Oxley. Not only was it mildly insulting to sit through a speech at a law school graduation that didn't acknowledge the graduates at all, but come on, Sarbanes-Oxley? Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Stupid liberals.

I WANT MORE RESTATEMENT

PS: where the hell is UNC? I've never heard of it.

20,

Torture being illegal is well established. This misses the point, and has become a Democrat tactic of shifting the ground of the debate. Realize that the actual debate is not whether or not torture is illegal -- it irrefutably is -- but whether certain interrogative techniques amount to legally defined torture. Simply by pointing out that waterboarding has been, in some instances, prosecuted as torture, does not mean all waterboarding is torture. It means *those instances* of waterboarding were torture.

For example, the Japanese used saltwater in their waterboarding sessions. That causes intense pain and can lead to death. Vastly different from the waterboarding that took place in Gitmo. As such, the two different types of waterboarding, in those two separate degrees, might (*might*) not both be torture, as legally defined.

I am going to fill the under-cave of my graduation gown with flatulence.

If I don't like the speaker, I will release the plume of digesting hangover on the mass of my unemployed colleagues.

UVA had Ralph Lauren speak about the virtues of popping ones collar. The place went nuts.

27 is probably the best comment of the day. Well played, sir.

Stupid statists

Are"watersports" considered torture in Texas?

Well done, 28.

I was at the speech and it was perfectly fine. A school such as UNC should be really pleased that someone like Mukasey came at all. As for the people that walked out - how rude! Don't come back!

Come to think of it I think I saw a uniformly overweight family leave during the speech. I figured it was to go to Mickey Ds or for donuts or whatever. Jackasses.

9- The Restatement 90 stick got old a long time ago, its the worst stick on here. I'd rather listen to PE or learn what some people used to do at some other people's high school than read another recycled Restatement 90 comment.

7 - Are you trying to assert that the US has executed people who were convicted only of waterboarding when you say:

"Furthermore, seeing as how we have executed people who waterboarded Americans, it is a safe bet that waterboarding is torture."

If so, please point to some evidence that the US has executed people whose only offense was waterboarding.

If not, please beg forgiveness for your rather sloppy logic.

So, the new Vault comes out in August. But when did it go to print? Will they have considered things like Latham's Lathaming? Or will that only be evaluated for 2011?

Answers please.

a lot of these unc idiots dont seem to realize that commencement speeches are often places where important public figures discuss matters of great public import. it's not all about you, clowns. and the law professor who wore an armband should be fired.

34 again, stick = schtick

Sounds like Mukasey just pulled out his old Boston College Law School speech and did a little find/replace action on the school name.

19 - it would be helpful if you (and others who cite the Japanese soldier case) would engage in a little intellectual honesty and acknowledge the relevant and important distinctions between "Japanese" waterboarding and the technique employed by U.S. soldiers in three confirmed cases. Otherwise, you are just parroting talking points already discarded by most serious thinkers on this subject. There is a case to be made against waterboarding, but you aren't making it.

Mukasey's speech was terrible. I wanted to fake a seizure just to get out of my own graduation.

35,

The US executed several Japanese at the end of WWII for, ding ding ding, waterboarding.

-Not 7

Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew. Pelosi knew.

43 - sounds like you've constructed a sound legal defense. I'm sure you could get a "not guilty" verdict with that.

"[Y]ou are just parroting talking points already discarded by most serious thinkers on this subject."

Pray tell, what "serious thinkers" are you referring to? You?

The entire argument is disgusting: "Our form of waterboarding was slightly less unpleasant than that other form of waterboarding." It stinks of intellectually dishonest and legalistic thinking, and, frankly, puts the entire legal profession into disrepute.

42 - I see you are having a hard time keeping up so let me try to take it down a few levels so that you can follow along.

7 was using the same faulty logic that Paul Begala and the rest of the hate-America-first crowd is using. It goes something like this: the US executed several Japanese officers. The Japanese officers were found to have waterboarded prisoners. Therefore waterboarding is torture.

Problem is, it doesn't work that way because the inconvenient truth is that each of those Japanese officers were found to have committed multiple acts of what would be clearly determined to be war crimes (i.e. burying civilians alive, using them for bayonet practice, etc.) and so the case of the executed Japanese soldiers does not support the conclusions that you think it does.

But thank you for joining in on the debate and please let me know if you found any typos above.

35

Agreed. Pelosi Knew. And napolitina would be a disaster in the supreme court. Adios human rights, hello panicked profiling

43 -
Not only did she know she was concerned that they were not doing enough.

It's ironic - the whole purpose of the 9/11 comission was to show how the government failed to prevent an attack. But taking real steps that have a high likelihood of preventing an attack is illegal and surely if we asked the terrorists nicely and gave them a lawyer they will tell us all about their plans to kill us. Liberals try to have it both ways - don't torture but if terror hits it was your failure in intelligence gathering.

the idea that all torture is illegal is not well founded. Torture for the sake of torture is illegal, just as killing for the sake of killing is illegal. But just as murder committed in self-defense, torture committed to save the lives of thousands needs a far more serious look.

If you torture every terrorist, that is clearly wrong. But if there is a terrorist of significant value (high ranking) that likely has information about future terrorist attacks that may kill hundred, if not thousands, to not do everything you can short of killing or permanently maiming that person is immoral.

the idea that all torture is illegal is not well founded. Torture for the sake of torture is illegal, just as killing for the sake of killing is illegal. But just as murder committed in self-defense, torture committed to save the lives of thousands needs a far more serious look.

If you torture every terrorist, that is clearly wrong. But if there is a terrorist of significant value (high ranking) that likely has information about future terrorist attacks that may kill hundred, if not thousands, to not do everything you can short of killing or permanently maiming that person is immoral.

Is Texas prestigious?

The worst commencement speaker ever was Nicholas Scoppetta at the Fordham Law '02 graduation. He was the NYC fire chief and apparently attended Brooklyn law.

44 -- Just pointing out the most grotesque of liberal hypocrisy. I will leave it to you law students to worry about sound legal defenses, and to consider your own hypocrisy (say if your momma was about to be blown to bits by a bomb and government waterboarding would save her). Oh yeah, one more thing -- PELOSI KNEW AND ACQUIESCED.

The worst commencement speaker ever was Nicholas Scoppetta at the Fordham Law '02 graduation. He was the NYC fire chief and apparently attended Brooklyn law.

44 -- Just pointing out the most grotesque of liberal hypocrisy. I will leave it to you law students to worry about sound legal defenses, and to consider your own hypocrisy (say if your momma was about to be blown to bits by a bomb and government waterboarding would save her). Oh yeah, one more thing -- PELOSI KNEW AND ACQUIESCED.

Andrew Giuliani

"the idea that all torture is illegal is not well founded. Torture for the sake of torture is illegal, just as killing for the sake of killing is illegal. But just as murder committed in self-defense, torture committed to save the lives of thousands needs a far more serious look. "

That's not what the UN Convention Against Torture says. Maybe you should read it.

Pelosi's non-denial denial during today's press conference is laughable -- apparently she was not the right person in congress to complain about waterboarding. But 7 years later and after Bush is out of office, she wants to raise a stink about it.

The worst commencement speaker ever was Nicholas Scoppetta at the Fordham Law '02 graduation. He was the NYC fire chief and apparently attended Brooklyn law.

In Kahless' name, what it this pathetic human obsession with torture? On Khitomer, all we need to do is place a prisoner in a cell with a proud Klingon warrior, who merely has to look askance at the coward before he confesses all that he knows!

57,

The Torture Convention is not a self-executing treaty. Who says it applies to unlawful enemy combatants we've captured?

19 - What is the point of the following statement you made:

"Actually, torturing people is a long settled and very basic legal issue. For precedent, please see the U.S. convicting japanese soldier Asano to 15 years hard labor for waterboarding American service men."

I assume your first sentence means that it is "long settled" that waterboarding is torture. However, you then site to one case of one Japanese soldier being convicted for 15 years for waterboarding. You must by now know that Asano was found to have committed several other war crimes, including beating and kicking prisoners and burning them with cigarettes. In addition, the "water crime" that he committed was far different from the EIT performed at Gitmo in that Asano actually forced water down the nose and throats of his prisoners.

You either know the whole story about Asano and intentionally try to mislead people or you don't know the whole story and simply tout the Ted Kennedy talking points without thinking for yourself. Either way, I feel sorry for you. Thanks in advance for helping me find typos in the above.

I find these arguments that not all waterboarding is torture so amusing. Try telling that to Sheriff James Parker.
Who is James Parker? He was a Texas sheriff who, in 1983, was prosecuted, along with three of his deputies, by the Reagan Justice Department, for waterboarding men arrested for alleged drug offenses. During the trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott Woodward said the men who were subjected to waterboarding were not “model citizens” but they were still “victims” of torture. “We make no bones about it. The victims of these crimes are criminals,” Woodward said, according to a copy of the trial transcript. One of the “victims” was Vernell Harkless, who was convicted of burglary in 1977. Gregg Magee, a deputy sheriff who testified against Sheriff Parker and three of the deputies said he witnessed Harkless being handcuffed to a chair by Parker and then getting “the water treatment.” “A towel was draped over his head,” Magee said, according to court documents. “He was pulled back in the chair and water was poured over the towel.” Harkless said he thought he was “going to be strangled to death,” adding: “I couldn't breathe.” One of the defendants, Deputy Floyd Allen Baker, said during the trial that he thought torture to be an immoral act but he was unaware that it was illegal. His attorneys cited the “Nuremberg defense,” that Baker was acting on orders from his superiors when he subjected prisoners to waterboarding. Baker, along with the others, was convicted. As to Parker, he admitted that he had operated a “marijuana trap” on U.S. Highway 59, arrested suspects, and, according to court documents, subjected “prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions.
This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning,” the complaint said, which referred to the technique as “water torture.”

Rumor has it that the speaker selection had to do with the political aspirations and far right views of the student charged with selection.

45 - I certainly don't agree with your characterization of my comment ... I am sorry that you consider this issue not worthy of debate... that any disagreement with you on this point brings the entire legal industry into disrepute, as you say... The Japanese comparison is not valid for many reasons, some noted in prior comments. Please review them.

53 - yes, I'm sure it's very grotesque that the liberals knew that the President's administration was engaging in criminal conduct.

I'm sure knowledge of criminal conduct is much, much worse than criminal conduct. Nice job shifting the blame.

I don't apply the rules of a civil society/world to a group of terrorists that do not follow or acknowledge these rules.

The day the UN files war crimes charges against bin laden and the Taliban and seriously joins the fight, then the UN can lecture on the steps taken to protect innocent U.S. civilians from further terrorist acts.

66 -- completely missing the point. It is not shifting blame but saying that if Bush and Co. is going down then so should everyone else. This exposes Congress' huffing and puffing to be more about politics than criminal conduct.

What Republican torture apologists don't realize is that this issue will further marginalize their party unless and until they make a clean break from a pro torture agenda.

Republicans remind me of little children with a splinter that cry and hide when someone tries to use a needle to remove it. If you want to leave that splinter in your party and let it get infected, please do. Enjoy your 30 seat minority in the senate.

America isn't perfect. Get over it. Yes, we enslaved people. Yes, we were responsible for Japanese internment. Yes, we tortured.

Loving America is about recognizing her faults and correcting them. Blind obedience to ineffective doctrine, well, we've seen what the electorate thinks of that.

So, all you Dittoheads and FoxNews junkies, please keep using the same tactics that the voters have rejected.

Remember when the Democrats got their asses kicked on gun control, and then kept pushing for gun control anyway? How did that work out for us?

Good luck (you guys are going to need it with clowns like Cheney, Steele, Palin, Sanford and Jindal as your "heavy hitters")

68 - Are you slow? Did you just now realize that most of what congress does is just political huffing and puffing? It's been like that with both political parties for decades.

Welcome to the obvious.

This is what I said six years ago:

Official proclamation, June 2003:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
June 26, 2003

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture

Today, on the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the United States declares its strong solidarity with torture victims across the world. Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere. We are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law.

Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit. Beating, burning, rape, and electric shock are some of the grisly tools such regimes use to terrorize their own citizens. These despicable crimes cannot be tolerated by a world committed to justice....
The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy. I further urge governments to join America and others in supporting torture victims' treatment centers, contributing to the UN Fund for the Victims of Torture, and supporting the efforts of non-governmental organizations to end torture and assist its victims.

No people, no matter where they reside, should have to live in fear of their own government. Nowhere should the midnight knock foreshadow a nightmare of state-commissioned crime. The suffering of torture victims must end, and the United States calls on all governments to assume this great mission.

Ted Bundy, the serial killer, went to law school and learned about promissory estoppel.

Teb Bundy served as his own defense attorney.

Ted Bundy was put to death.

Therefore, the U.S. has executed people for their reliance on their legal education to their detriment.

When the saving the lives of innocent americans conflicts with the right of a terrorist to withhold information without being tortured, I think the latter should give way. The ACLU and other terrorist sympathizers love terrorists and hate america.

When saving the lives of innocent americans conflicts with the right of a terrorist to withhold information without being tortured, I think the latter should give way. The ACLU and other terrorist sympathizers love terrorists and hate america.

69,

Quite the opposite of your prediction that the GOP will be further marginalized if it continues to endorse interrogation techniques you call torture, a slight majority of Americans approve of this "torture" when polled.

See, e.g., http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

69. Winning one election does not mean the voters have spoken for all eternity. That is the exact same hippie bullshit liberals were saying after Carter was elected.

66 -- Its not about shifting the blame. I dont care about the blame. Its that Pelosi and her crew are now out to ruin the lives of the Justice Department lawyers who gave the legal advice to score political points, despite the fact that she knew and acquiesced. That is reprehensible.

PELOSI KNEW.

"[A] source close to Pelosi said the House speaker was told in February 2003 by her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, that waterboarding was used on Zubaydah...."

"The source said Pelosi didn't object when she learned that waterboarding was being used because she had not been personally briefed about it -- only her aide had been told."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/pelosi.waterboarding/index.html

How can Lat be a Republican? He realizes they hate the ghey, right?
Maybe this is what he considers charmingly eccentric.

I like this little aside by Lat: "But what exactly constitutes "torture"?"

Yeah, real metaphysical there, dude. Like, what's the meaning of life? I mean (tokes on joint) who's to say what's good or bad?

Not to harsh your vibe but simulated drowning sure as shit sounds like torture to me.

79. We don't hate gays. We just think they are not real people.

65 - Your comments have been read and reviewed. I'm sorry that you disagree with my characterization, but it's accurate, especially if your main argument is that "Asano actually forced water down the nose and throats of his prisoners." As the American technique did, in fact, involve some amount of water entering the prisoners' noses and throats, you'll have to excuse me if I find your statements without merit.

80,

But it doesn't, necessarily, to me. Who's correct?

Damn the Bush administration! How DARE they protect us! It just chaps me raw how Bush and his cronies did everything they could to make sure there was no repeat of 9/11!

I mean, they WATERBOARDED, a method that causes no actual injury, much less death, but that makes the terrorist really, really afraid. They lied to the terrorists about putting stinging insects into confined areas!! They pushed the terrorists against a wall!!!! What kind of barbarians did we elect that would do these things to the terrorists?!

Thank you Obama, thank you. Just remember, when thousands of Americans die because of intelligence that we didn't obtain because of the chilling effect of your actions, the blame will rest squarely on your shoulders. Sleep tight.

84 -

You're welcome.

Laughs at 69 as liberals breed themselves out of existence....

"What kind of barbarians did we elect that would do these things to the terrorists?!"

I expected that our elected leaders would not engage in torture and would, instead, rely on the skills and expertise of talented men like Ali Soufan, who happened to do his job pretty well...without resorting to torture. Thanks for contributing.

Dubya - is it still ARE country?

This is why I hate commencement speakers. They ALWAYS make it about them. Newsflash: It ain't your day. It's the graduates' day.

All commencement speeches should consist of: You made it. Congratulations. Good luck. Now get your diplomas and go celebrate.

It's not like anyone remembers any of the blather anyway.

So, what exactly is the boundary for "torture?" I mean, talk about a loaded term. I gotta say, I've read the memos, I've read quite a bit about waterboarding, and it doesn't sound any worse than certain dental procedures.

83/90--if making someone think they are drowning doesn't constitute torture, what does?

making them actually drown.

91,

I'll concede that ripping someone's cock off with a pair of pliers is torture, if you concede that throwing someone up against a breakaway wall is not. We can work inward from these outer points.

Making them actually drown is manslaughter, or, depending upon your intent, murder.
Making them think that you are going to drown them, or that you are trying to drown them, when actual drowning is neither your intent nor the result, is torture.

How am I the first to understand that this whole speech about torture, and how we justify it to ourselves, was an extended metaphor for working in biglaw.

I guess no grads were lucky enough to have a job, so it must have slipped past them all.

Well done sir!

"Not to harsh your vibe but simulated drowning sure as shit sounds like torture to me."

"But it doesn't, necessarily, to me. Who's correct?"

Is that your answer? How about we not force ourselves to make that decision, drawing a bright line rule, and rely on the nonviolent and effective methods previously used the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to deal with the problem?

The torture outrage is a little over done. There's a difference between ripping someone's fingernails off, pouring boiling water on them, etc. (i.e. obvious torture) and the sort of stuff the Bush administration condoned. Waterboarding is very close to the line, and probably closer than we should feel comfortable getting. But it's not clearly and blatantly over the line, and it's pretty clear that a real effort was made not to go clearly and blatantly over the line.

In a war time situation (where our army actively and intentionally kills and blows people up all the time), I can sleep at night if a handful of people who are neither killed nor maimed, are occasionally put into uncomfortable situations in a good faith effort to prevent U.S. soldiers and citizens from getting killed or maimed.

96 - sure...cause that worked well on 9/10.

The amount of comments put up here by defenders of "enhanced interrogation" is beyond disgusting. I am so g-d sick and tired of hearing the "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario that I am about to lose my lunch. Listen, you scared little Rethuglican rabbits: Torture is WRONG...end of story. No defense, no rationalization, no excuses...and as for Ms. Pelosi, it appears that she has been lied to and about repeatedly, by the villains who now wish to cover up their criminal acts. Have you no sense of decency, at long last, sir? Apparently not....and P.S. Where is your proof that these despicable acts gained any actionable intelligence or prevented further attacks? What's that?? Crickets.....I thought so, you sadistic animals. You should all go to a very special Hell, after a long, debilitating, painful illness. Go listen to Rush, and Glenn Beck, and O'Reilly...I love the sound of your remaining brain cells melting.

28 wins

Waterboarding was wrong. BUT PELOSI KNEW, and now she can't lie fast enough to cover her tracks. It would be amusing if it werent so sad for the country.

99,

I don't understand the outrage. A really high percentage of the waterboarding "victims" were high profile al quaida. If the U.S. caught sight of these guys in a satellite image peaking out of a cave, we could shoot a cruise missile in there, kill them and their entire family (or maybe just grievously injure) and nobody would even blink an eye. That's perfectly acceptable.

But if the U.S. instead risks soldier's lives to capture these guys unharmed for the purpose of getting intelligence out of them, there's international outcry over simulated drowning in a controlled environment. It's amazing. Incinerating a target along with his family is fine, but when it comes to simulated drowning, it's just WRONG. Does that make any sense?

102,

You dont get it. 99 would happily let al quaeda kill his momma so long as he does not have to face difficult moral questions.

64 -- Seconded.
33 -- Why, Matt, is that you? How very self-serving.

99 - Since you clearly cannot keep up using logic or arguments that come anywhere close to making sense (i.e. I don't think anyone is saying that "Torture is RIGHT"), let me try something that seems to pass for debate on Kos and the other left-wing sites you normally frequent: OMG, STFU. You. Are. The. Biggest. Fail. Ever.

Making someone have sex with the Baron Harkonnen is torture, especially after he rips off your chest plug and revels in the stream as you die.

Ever since humans have attempted to organize society and societal interactions around a set of laws, the question has arisen as to whether it is appropriate to break the law for a noble purpose. It is the question of whether it is okay for someone to steal a loaf of bread to feed their starving children. Or can someone commit murder in order to put a terminally ill patient out of his or her misery. While philosophers dating back to Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato have wrestled with this question, the response from the government and the law enforcement community has almost universally been that regardless of the reason, a crime has been committed. The response has been that the circumstances of the crime may be taken into account in the decision of whether to press charges, or the jury may consider the circumstances in determining guilt or innocence, or a judge may take the circumstances into account when determining the punishment. That being said, just as a person who steals a loaf of bread for the starving children should not expect to go scot free, those involved in the treatment of the detainees should also not expect their conduct to be dismissed if the law was broken. The question becomes whether the treatment at issue was against US law at the time it was administered? The secondary question is who determines whether the treatment at issue was against the law? The answer to both questions is a court of law. Any other way leads down the slippery slope to anarchy.

Gee 107, I hope the terrorists dont blow up your momma while you are reading Foucault.

>>>Waterboarding is not clearly and blatantly over the line

Yes it is. It's way the fuck over the line, on the "Torture" side. If it were happening to our guys, there would be none of this hand-wringing legalistic bullshit about whether it constitutes torture.

109, youre right. Its not happening to our guys. Just ask Daniel Pearl. I am sure he would have preferred waterboarding to beheading at the hands of KSM.

Do we have legal tools to prevent terrorism?

Lawyers are so full of themselves that they think that they can do something to terrorists? Soldiers with M-16's can't even beat these Taliban idiots and you think a lawyer, with and oversized sense of entitlement, will do anything to terrorism???

Screw lawyers! Go to mediators and arbitrators! Save your money from these d-bags.

Who picked Mukasey? I heard 3L Matt Modell was responsible.

110: cute. The problem is this shit increases the number of Daniel Pearl by radicalizing people in the mideast. Just like Daniel Pearl's beheading has radicalized people here and given them license to justify torture. We gotta rise above that. I'm not taking moral cues from an Al Queda cell for christ's sake.

Speaking as a liberal, I think the torture issue consumes too much of our focus and is generally an unfruitful debate. I blame the hype on the media (all outlets, all of which I watch/read) for having nothing else to blather about. We have much bigger problems, but this topic seems sufficiently inflammatory.

I admit I was once an overly idealistic & whiny moronic liberal. While I still proudly consider myself liberal and vote Dem, I have come to realize with a little education & experience that America is, without a doubt, the greatest country on the planet. (cue music). I am proud to be an American and I am proud of our ideals. We step in when no other nation has the balls or even gives a shit (no im not talking about iraq. we all know that was a big mistake).

Travel around the world and see how people from other nations behave and see what they do to their people and tell me you wouldn't want to be an American any day. I'm not just talking about the luxuries we enjoy. I'm talking about our character, generosity, morality, and ingenuity. If you don't recognize this now, you will.

As for torture, specifically waterboarding. We have prosecuted communists, terrorists, and tyrants for using this technique. When we were prosecuting them, we considered it torture, and as such, it weighed into their sentencing.

It is hypocritical to try and bend the rules for a few misguided neo-cons who you KNOW used to get swirlies in high school and now are living out their biggest revenge fantasies. It diminishes the credibility of America and it puts a target on our back - That's safety, folks! We should rise above this on moral grounds, too, and hold ourselves to a higher standard than Pol Pot. We are the most technologically advanced nation in the world. I don't buy the need for techniques from the dark ages when it puts our country's credibility and safety at risk. America shouldn't torture if we don't want our people to be tortured. And just because they do doesn’t mean we should stoop to their level.

That's my opinion, but I also don't think this should be an issue dominating the news every day. Who cares if Pelosi knew? I care about the ones who ordered it, if I care at all. Investigate, dole out punishment to the higher-ups if necessary, move on.

As for the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" and other cute little names, they always make me chuckle. Oh look, I'm typing on a Elevated-Button-Shelf and looking at my Pixelated-Info-Viewer while sitting on a Posterior-Support-Apparatus wearing a nice Body-Covering-Costume from Brooks Brothers. You can put whatever name on it you want, it doesn’t change what it is. I thought you Republicans were too smart for that! Hell, I thought Americans were too smart for such classic double-speak. Next time you get pulled over tell the cop you’re not “inebriated,” you’re “smashed,” and since it doesn’t say “smashed” in the statute, he should let you go. See if he follows your logic.

Lastly, I support the President's recent decision to NOT release additional pictures of detainees in various "stress positions." I respect his ability to change his position on this issue in light of the information he now has access to as president, and not cave to every demand of the extreme left. I admire his discerning independence. I am disappointed in the ACLU for making such a stink (Although this doesn’t mean I think they “Hate America and Love Terrorists.” Nice logic, you children.). ACLU’s overly idealistic and misguided agenda to prosecute the people in the pictures is outweighed by the risks (yes I am aware this is a bushy argument, but here, it's right). Releasing the pictures would absolutely give propaganda material to extremists and it would jeopardize our security. The Abu Graib pics were enough. ACLU has done and has the ability to do some important work, but I think they should re-think their priorities on this one.

Who picked Mukasey? I heard 3L Matt Modell was responsible.

102 quoted: "Incinerating a target along with his family is fine, but when it comes to simulated drowning, it's just WRONG. Does that make any sense?"

I think it does -- the difference is whether you are in combat or are a prisoner of war. If this was WWII for example, you would be apt to shoot and kill at as many Nazis as you could on the battlefield, but once you won the battle, shooting them would be bad. So would mistreating them.

1. How can anyone possibly think that deliberately causing extreme pain and the fear of death is torture? That's just sillly. Torture is when a) the person doing it is not American; b) the recipient is american; and c)you use salt water, or make them ingest some. How can you liberal idiots not realize this? Uh, last I checked fox news, no one said anything about salt water. Hello??????

2. Even if it is torture, clearly it is ok to torture people -- even if they have not been tried or convicted of anything -- if you think that torturing them will yield information that will help us. I mean, come on, by definition we want that information!

3. Anyone who disagrees is a sissy America-hater that is unwilling to make tough choices to protect freedom. Because I've got news for you people - sometimes doing whatever you want to get whatever you want is tough. So just grow up.

Alan Dershowitz spoke at my commencement and basically told us we were all morons and totally screwed for becoming lawyers.

The worst speaker at a commencement EVER was E.L. Doctorow at NYU where he read an entire chapter from one of his books. It was so boring, I can't even remember which book it was.

i still can't believe Frasier's dad is the freakin' Attorney General.

Mukasey's speech was TTTorture to sit through.

Mukasey's speech was a little long, but really good. A lot of my friends were indifferent about him ahead of time and said they enjoyed the speech in general. The only ones that seemed to complain were the ones that came in wearing those tacky arm bands protesting his visit.

And almost everyone clapped, and a decent number of the families even gave him a standing ovation.

121 = Bullshit

A lot of the self-identified Republicans in the graduating class have voiced displeasure with Mukasey's speech because (1) it focused on him rather than us and (2) it was boring as all fuck.

Most of the people criticizing Mukasey over this (at least at UNC) aren't doing so because of politics or belief for or against torture. They're doing so because the speech had nothing to do with commencement and put people in vegetative states due to boredom.

I concur, 121 = bullshit. I was there at the UNC commencement (my husband was in the graduating class, I am not a lawyer or law student). I can tell you the following: Regardless of whether you agree with Mukasey's opinions, the speech was exceptionally long (25+ minutes), drowned in legalese and legal details that would be incomprehensible to the non-lawyers, and was therefore extremely boring. The subject matter was also completely unsuited to a graduation. I can tell you that the majority of conversation at my house afterwards (among the 10+ family members who had attended the ceremony) was about how Mukasey was such an ass for using this occasion as his personal platform.

There were a fair number of orange armbands among the grads and the audience in protest. There were also people who gave him a standing ovation. But most people were in between, no armbands but also no clapping or just polite (thank god it's over) clapping. 121 saying that "almost everyone clapped" is absolutely wrong. Not where I was sitting.