Mukasey on Torture

[Michael Tee]

Q:  <<Well, that depends, I'd like to know why you brought that up [that Clinton introduced the practice of extraordinary rendition]  if not in defence of Bush.>>

A:  <<Context>>

Sorry, BT.  No sale.  There are plenty of random factoids about torture and extraordinary rendition.  "Context" would have explained any one of them.  THIS one, while being context, also happens to be something that will take the steam out of any Democratic attacks on Bush's torture policy and possibly legitimize it to some extent by making Bush appear less of an extraordinary villain, and more like his (superficially) amiable predecessor.  I might be a suspicious and cynical son of a bitch, but I'm going to stick with my original assessment of the situation - - that remark was inserted for the purpose of defending Bush on his torture policy.  Otherwise I'd have to be too much of a believer in coincidence to think that of all the possible remarks one could have inserted for "context," THIS ONE happened to be one which lets Bush off the hook somewhat and with some people by associating the policy with Clinton.

BTW, do you intend to answer my related question, are you in favour of BOTH of them being prosecuted for crimes against humanity by virtue of their creation and/or execution of the policy?

[BT]

THIS one, while being context, also happens to be something that will take the steam out of any Democratic attacks on Bush's torture policy and possibly legitimize it to some extent by making Bush appear less of an extraordinary villain, and more like his (superficially) amiable predecessor.

You know Mikey, one of the things i like about you is you are honest.

Thank you for admitting this is not about torture or humane practices, it is all about Bush.

Would that other left leaning posters in this thread were so honest.

[Michael Tee]

<<Thank you for admitting this is not about torture or humane practices, it is all about Bush.>>

LOL.  THAT'S what I admitted?  Where'd I do that? Aren't YOU the one defending Bush by defending torture?

I was the one who would be happy with BOTH Bush and Clinton prosecuted for crimes against humanity.  YOU are the one who still hasn't answered, despite having pointed out that it was Clinton who introduced the practice of extraordinary rendition, whether the two of them should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

For the record, I'm for the prosecution, and if found guilty, the execution, of all persons guilty of torture or practices that promote torture such as extraordinary rendition.  That includes, IMHO, both Bush and Clinton.  BT, OTOH, still hasn't let us know where he stands on that one.

[BT]

LOL.  THAT'S what I admitted?  Where'd I do that?

Sure you did. You seemed upset that i mentioned Clinton's hand in the creation of the rendition  program because it lessened the tarnish you were painting on Bush.

Oh and BTW. I never defended torture. You seem to be factually challenged on that tidbit.

[sirs]

I would think everyone else in the group can see through the trick, but just in case not, let me remind you what the accusation really is: "As long as no reports have surfaced from Amerikkka's secret torture chambers about it, he'' probably be able to admit that YES, that IS torture"

Notice NO reference to 3rd parties, NO reference to "extroirdinary rendition", the accusation, as it's always been from the start were these nebulous American secret torture chambers.  So, we went from that, all the way down to

That the U.S. delivers prisoners to be tortured in third country torture chambers.

Which of course is completely subjective as it relates to "to be tortured", with little else to substantiate it the accusation other than throwing around the term rendition, which again is simply our country delivering suspected terrorists back to their own countries

Seems simple enough.   

Well, at least that we can agree on

Want to debate it?

depends if you can put down your anyone-that-disagrees-with-me-is-a-tortureloving-fascist, BDS blinders for a nanosecond

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh and BTW. I never defended torture. You seem to be factually challenged on that tidbit.>>

If you inserted Clinton's role in this discussion of American complicity in torture, it could only have been to take some of the opprobrium off the current administration, which is a torture administration.  By lessening the guilt by spreading it around, you are defending the torturers and thereby enabling them to commit more torture.  That's defending torture.

 You attack torture by going after the torturers.  You defend torture by shielding the torturers.  As far as I can tell, you were doing the latter.

[BT]

By lessening the guilt by spreading it around, you are defending the torturers and thereby enabling them to commit more torture.  That's defending torture.

Nonsense.

Was the introduction historical content concerning Japanese prosecutions after wwii also an attempt to deflect from the current administration?

Seems to me the lesson to take away from that incident is that we better win the war because the victors write the history.

[Plane]

LOL.  THAT'S what I admitted?  Where'd I do that?

Sure you did. You seemed upset that i mentioned Clinton's hand in the creation of the rendition  program because it lessened the tarnish you were painting on Bush.

Oh and BTW. I never defended torture. You seem to be factually challenged on that tidbit.

I thought the point was whether torture is worse or more common under the Bush adminmistration than other previous administrations.


Is it?

[Michael Tee]

<<Was the introduction historical content concerning Japanese prosecutions after wwii also an attempt to deflect from the current administration?>>

Of course not.  It had a specific point to make, that American courts had held commanders liable for wartime acts of torture and murder committed by men under their command.  The argument was that the same legal principle on which American courts had hung Japanese commanders ought to be applied to American commanders in the same position as the executed Japs.

Your introduction of Clinton's responsibility in the extraordinary rendition scandal, apart from the meaningless rationale of "context" (which could apply equally well to any one of a thousand factoids regarding rendition or torture) having no other apparent purpose, could only have been introduced for the purpose of diffusing the blame or legitimizing torture among hard-core Clintonites by showing that Bill was into it as well as Bush.  Either way, it is supporting torture.

[Plane]

"...the same legal principle on which American courts had hung Japanese commanders ought to be applied to American commanders in the same position as the executed Japs."

Very good , what was he least crime by which a Jpaneese Officer was Condemmened?

[BT]

If Clinton and his CIA came up with the rendition program, other factoids would not be germane the discussion.

Fact is i don't have a problem with rendition.
Different folks have different standards. Who are we to tell them how to handle internal affairs.

And apparently Clinton felt the same way.

Was he right? Who knows? Did the ends justify the means? Time will tell.

Is terrorism a real problem that requires a real response?

Depends on your perspective.

Oner argument that simply isn't true is that we are better than this. Our history tells a different story. From the lynchings that cropped up in another thread, to the carnage that is broadcast daily masquerading as news at 11, to our conquest of the west, we  are a bloody people and have been that way since day one.

 

[Lanya]

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:AzkQQR6JOHUJ:www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf+WW2+Japanese+officer+condemned+for+water+torture&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Waterboarding is torture. 

[BT]

Interesting that the subject of the trial was not charged with torture nor was he held responsible for the water dunking that his underlings performed.