home

Waterboarding Special Airing Now on Current TV

Bump and Update (10/31): The show starts at 10:00 pm ET. It's Channel 107 on Comcast, check their website for other cable systems.

Original post (10/30)

Maybe someone will tell Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey to watch Current TV tomorrow night at 10:00 pm ET.

On Wednesday, October 31st at 10pm ET/PT, Current TV gives viewers a real look at what Waterboarding entails when two ex-Survival, Escape, Resistance and Evasion (SERE) instructors administer a controversial interrogation technique to Current Vanguard Journalist Kaj Larsen.

More...

SERE is a U.S. military program that provides military personnel, Department of Defense civilians and contractors with training in the Code of Conduct, survival skills, evading capture, recovery and dealing with captivity.

I didn't think I got Current TV, but sure enough, it's channel 107 on Comcast and you can also get it on Dish and other services.

Ken at Progress Now has a good post on the Mukasey-torture issue, and I thank him for reminding me about what I wrote in 2004 about the role of the Attorney General in the context of Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft.

Many people think the role of Attorney General is simply to be the nation's "top cop," the chief criminal law enforcer. But it is much more. The role of the Attorney General is to serve as America's lawyer, in civil as well as criminal matters. He is not the President's lawyer. He is our lawyer.

< Hillary Embraces Spitzer License Plan | Final Words on the "Pile On" >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Just remember (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:15:42 PM EST
    to use a spotter when you do it to yourself, Jim.

    Accidents do happen.

    Irrational comments become you. (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 07:11:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yes, and no. (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:36:44 PM EST
    all cabinet members technically are "our" employees. however, and this is a big however, they all serve at the pleasure of the president. though the president appoints them, with the "advice and consent of congress", only he/she can fire them at will, not congress and not the courts.

    in that sense, they are the president's employees; they report directly to him/her, not congress or the courts. aside from legislation, congress has no direct authority or control over members of the president's cabinet; they can't just call the secty. of the treasury in and say "you will do this", they must pass a law requiring it. the president can do that.

    the president has the authority to exercise "dominion and control" over his cabinet, the very essence of an employer/employee relationship.

    Mukasey on Use of the Rack and Thumb Screws (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by john horse on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 11:26:35 PM EST
    (satire alert)
    In response to retired Rear Adm John Hutson's statement that "Other than perhaps the rack and thumbscrews, waterboarding is the most iconic example of torture in history," Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey said that he had not yet formed an opinion on whether the use of the rack and thumbscrews constituted torture. "I don't know what's involved in the technique," Mukasey said though he added he felt that these seemed a bit "over the line" and "repugnant".  As to its legality, however, he wrote that he would have to know "the actual facts and circumstances" of its application before he could form an opinion.

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by glanton on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 11:32:58 PM EST
    As to its legality, however, he wrote that he would have to know "the actual facts and circumstances" of its application before he could form an opinion.

    He would also like to find out if it's being done by those in power, before issuing a statement on it.

    [ Parent ]

    heh (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:11:04 PM EST
    And as our lawyer he should enforce the laws that Congress has passed.

    It is not his job to define torture, no more than it is his job to define fraud. That is the job of Congress.

    ooops (none / 0) (#5)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 06:17:10 PM EST
    from the DOJ website:
    The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested.

    It looks like he does interpret law after all. At least everyone in Washington thinks he does and expects him to.

    [ Parent ]

    heh (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 07:10:20 PM EST
    What he does is give advice.

    Advice is non-binding.

    Ask your attorney.

    [ Parent ]

    A legal opinion (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 09:33:24 PM EST
    from the AG allows things to happen. It is more than simply "advice." Jeesh, I mean you can't torture without permission even in America.

    [ Parent ]
    A "legal" opinon?? (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:21:25 AM EST
    It may be an opinion, and it may be legal, but it is not a "legal opinion."

    Plainer. It could be an opinion that's not legal.

    Let Congress get off its collective behinds and pass some laws rather than posturing.

    [ Parent ]

    pathetic (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:25:03 PM EST
    semantic dodges when what you need to do is realize you got it wrong, again.

    [ Parent ]
    One more time (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:08:47 PM EST
    It is the SC who interprets our laws.

    The AG can issue all of the opinions he wants. Some may be legal, some may not.

    But his job is run the DOJ and, sometimes, advise the President. The DOJ supposedly enforces the laws passed by Congress and held to be legal by the SC.

    If the DOJ can show that a law has been broken, they can arrest and bring to court.

    The Judicial Branch can then choose to let the person be tried, or cut him loose.

    You only want Mukasey to declare waterboarding torture because it suits your politics to attack the war. I can think of several areas in which you would be very unhappy if the AG declared something illegal.

    Stop you double standards and try some logic.

    BTW - The President has several other lawyers who also advise him.

    [ Parent ]

    oh brother (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:17:49 PM EST
    get a clue, will you?

    Read the torture memos and stop torturing me with your inanities.

    [ Parent ]

    hehe (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:10:01 AM EST
    It looks like he does interpret law after all. At least everyone in Washington thinks he does and expects him to.

    Will someone have the Supreme Court call home??

    [ Parent ]

    read (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:24:04 PM EST
    the torture memos.
    The opinion sought is the basis for a change in practice.

    This is simply how it works.

    Try hard, you can figure it out.

    [ Parent ]

    Try harder (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:09:56 PM EST
    Let Congress do its job.

    [ Parent ]
    hehe (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    If you believe everything that's on a website, stay away from LGF's...

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    The law is clear (none / 0) (#40)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 02:32:04 PM EST
    even if Mukasey is not. Bush is breaking the law for his own political ends, ends you support and law breaking you encourage. Mukasey ought not be confirmed: Bush ought to be impeached.

    In a frighteningly lucid and surgical essay The Vanishing Point geographer Derek Gregory describes the war on terror as a "war on law", or a "war through law" - through the suspension of law. While emergency is the state's tactic it is ultimately the law itself that is the most critical site of political struggle, he contends. If I recall correctly, Derek explains how Guantanamo Bay was established as a purposefully ambiguous political space camouflaged in the folds of legal uncertainty.
    ----
    The Bush Administration's ambiguation of the clarity of the prohibition on torture speakes directly to its abysmal moral character. That you want to pretend such a policy on their part doesn't exist is simply counter to the evidence. Read the torture memos, which, you will note, were not written by the SC.

    [ Parent ]

    Just curious (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 05:11:45 PM EST
    why do you describe Derek Gregory as a "geographer" as if that gave him any special insight?? Shall I call up some thoughts on pro gun airline pilots and their thoughts on terrorism??

    So far in this thread all I have seen is comments that the law is clear. Plus, the Tokyo trials, etc.

    This is all BS of the big steaming stinky piles of it.

    If the law is clear, make it clearer. If the Tokyo trials were based on law, why isn't the question, will you enforce that law??

    The answer is that it must not be law, and the Demos don't want to be clear because it doesn't suit their purpose, just as it doesn't suit the Left's purpose.  A reasonable person could resolve all of this quickly and simply.

    If Congress makes waterboarding illegal, will you enforce the law?

    That's the $64.00 question. Not what he "thinks."

    [ Parent ]

    Not his job to define it, (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 12:27:26 PM EST
    just enable it.

    Get on board the torture train.

    [ Parent ]

    If Congress thinks it is torture, (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:12:43 AM EST
    all they have to do is pass a law.

    But that would stop all the political posturing and dodging... no way they will ever do that.

    Tell me jondee, do you think placing panties on the heads of terrorists being questioned is torture??

    [ Parent ]

    posturing (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Jen M on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:31:09 AM EST
    yeah, you would think that.

    [ Parent ]
    Is that your answer? (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:55:28 AM EST
    If so, please explain.

    You either think it does, or it does not.

    The basic problem here is that the Left sees this totally as criminal justice issue. They also see it as a potentially political issue they can use to attack the war. If left up to some on the Left, there would a lawyer/political (Think old Soviet Union)education officer with each platoon.

    "You have the right to remain silent....."

    "Don't touch that Koran!"

    "All cultures are equal."

    The Right sees this as a military matter, but not one that brings in the GC.

    Sleep deprivation, temperature swings, panties on the head, fake menstrual blood, aggressive sexual movements to me are not torture.

    Water boarding? A tough one. I would say it is not, but would restrict its use only for those times when it can be demonstrated the prisoner can be expected to have important information and/or it is time sensitive.

    BTW - The old "people will say anything" to prevent being tortured is true, but misleading. A skilled interrogation team, especially when aided by fear of torture, even if it is never used, and the various techniques above, can keep questioning and cross referencing the answers until the truth comes out.

    [ Parent ]

    why answer (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Jen M on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:34:01 AM EST
    its not standing on principle to you

    its grandstanding.

    Principles and ethics don't enter the argument.

    Humans know what torture is. You seek to defend its use.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:22:05 PM EST
    I seek only to point out that in one case the Demos want the AG to declare something illegal, while in others they didn't want him to declare some legal.

    It is called hypocrisy.

    A very human trait.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe it's called having specific (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 03:34:28 PM EST
    principals.

    And no, Im not going to explain what those are to you.

    [ Parent ]

    How do they know (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 03:32:19 PM EST
    when "the truth comes out"; or, is that just a euphemism for the last thing he said before he died or became completely delerious?

    [ Parent ]
    Congress has already done its job (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Al on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:24:56 AM EST
    all they have to do is pass a law.

    They already did that. That's why it becomes important what the Attorney General considers to be torture, because it must be prosecuted.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:34:26 AM EST
    Obviously the law is ineffective.

    Now it is up to Congress to fix a problem.

    Why do they hate being specific??

    [ Parent ]

    its innefective (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Jen M on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:35:56 AM EST
    because are government ignores the laws and people like you enthusiastically cheer.

    Those who seek a laudry list want to know what form of torture they CAN use.

    You want a laundry list.

    [ Parent ]

    What part of (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Al on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:31:43 PM EST
    "torture is a crime" don't you find clear enough? It is not up to Congress to list all possible forms in which a human being may be tortured. It's up to the justice system to charge people who have carried out waterboarding or acts of a similar nature and make their case in court.

    There is in fact a precedent regarding waterboarding. In 1947, a Japanese officer was sentenced to 15 years hard labor for waterboarding American prisoners.

    [ Parent ]

    No... they do NOT (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Michael Gass on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    have to "define it" or "pass a law".  It is ALREADY ESTABLISHED and HAS BEEN established.

    In the Tokyo War Crimes Trials, which were patterned after the Nuremburg Trials, we tried people for using water torture, ie, waterboarding, as torturers.

    This was settled as, not only American law, but International law, until Gonzo and Bush decided it wasn't.

    [ Parent ]

    If that is the case (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:18:02 PM EST
    then why doesn't the Demos merely ask the AG nominee if he will enforce this existing law?

    I mean, if it is actually a law, there is no debate as to what anyone "thinks," the debate must be, what will someone do?

    This is politics, pure and simple.

    Get over it.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh yeah! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:45:11 PM EST
    then why doesn't the Demos merely ask the AG nominee if he will enforce this existing law?

    Like THAT ever worked with the criminals in the White House.  They don't answer subpoenas, they refuse to turn over documents, and the AG refuses to prosecute people unless they are Democrats.

    Haven't seen any newspapers for the last few years Jim?

    [ Parent ]

    Another bit of nonsense (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 05:16:05 PM EST
    Repack. Supposedly what is going on here is the Senate exercising its advise and consent function.

    So your comment is juts a bit of nasty fluff. The question is simple, straightforward and only requires some Demo with a smidgen of common sense to ask it.

    Instead, like you do here, they play games.

    [ Parent ]

    I know you love that (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 03:27:51 PM EST
    panties-on-the-head example -- a little too much if you ask me, but thats between you and your consenting adult friends.

    And when have they ever stopped at just panties on the head? How do yo beat someone to death with a pair of panties; and how do a aforementioned panties morph into halogen bulbs found lodged in the victims rectum (not to give you any ideas)?

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I really don't want (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 05:23:57 PM EST
    to go into your love life, so I'll leave the S&M out....

    But really, it is such a simple question, and as I stated....

    Sleep deprivation, temperature swings, panties on the head, fake menstrual blood, aggressive sexual movements to me are not torture.

    "panties on the head" falls into a broad range of actions that are definitely not "torture." Your failure to answer is noted. And then:

    Water boarding? A tough one. I would say it is not, but would restrict its use only for those times when it can be demonstrated the prisoner can be expected to have important information and/or it is time sensitive.

    Of course reasonable people doing reasonable things in defense of the country is not a strong point of the Left. Or the modern day Reidocrat...

    (I surrender! I surrender!)

    [ Parent ]

    Read and learn (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Dark Avenger on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 08:56:31 AM EST
    Wikipedia:

    Administration testimony contradicted by documents

    Members of Congress investigating the dismissals have found that sworn testimony from Department of Justice officials appears to contradict internal Department memoranda and e-mail, and that possibly Congress was deliberately misled. The White House role in the dismissals remains unclear despite hours of testimony by Attorney General Gonzales and senior DOJ staff in congressional committee hearings.[40][41] The Bush administration has issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.[42][43][44][45] The origin and evolution of the list of attorneys to be dismissed remains unclear.[46][47][48][49]

    Politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice

    Attorney General Gonzales, in a confidential March 1, 2006 order, not published in the Federal Register, formally delegated authority to senior DOJ staff Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson to hire and dismiss political appointees and some civil service positions.[50][51] On May 2, 2007 the Department of Justice announced that two separate investigations into hirings conducted by Goodling had been intiated several weeks earlier: one by the department's Inspector General, and a second by the Office of Professional Responsibility.[41] In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, on May 23, 2007, Goodling stated that she had "crossed the line" and broke civil service laws regulating hiring for civil service positions, and had improperly weighed political factors in assessing applicants.[52]

    In a May 30, 2007 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General and Counsel for the Office of Professional Responsibility confirmed that they were expanding their investigation beyond "the removals of United States Attorneys" to also include "DOJ hiring and personnel decisions" by Monica Goodling and other Justice Department employees.[53][54]



    hehe (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:15:44 AM EST
    Uh, since they serve at the pleasure of the President, they can be fired at anytime for any reason.

    As Clinton, he can tell you.

    [ Parent ]

    What part of (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Michael Gass on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:33:16 AM EST
    BROKE THE LAW and then tried to LIE do you not understand?  

    Even in an "at will" state, a person cannot be fired for being black you imbecile.

    [ Parent ]

    Tee-hee-hee! (1.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Dark Avenger on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:23:53 PM EST
    Just in case you missed it the first time.

    In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, on May 23, 2007, Goodling stated that she had "crossed the line" and broke civil service laws regulating hiring for civil service positions, and had improperly weighed political factors in assessing applicants.
    [52]

    Civil service positions aren't 'at will', PPJ, and your invocation of Clinton(which seems to always happen when something suggesting the aWol malAdministration is less than perfect enters the discussion) doesn't hold water, as Goodling admitted to illegal acts and was invoking the 5th Amendment, which didn't take place in Travelgate:

    Resignation

    On March 23, 2007, she took an indefinite leave of absence.[8] On March 26, 2007, Goodling cancelled her upcoming appearance at a Congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.[9][10] In its history, no Department of Justice employee has ever exercised his/her Fifth Amendment rights with respect to official conduct, and remained an employee.[11] On April 6, 2007, Goodling announced her resignation from the Department of Justice, writing to Gonzales, "May God bless you richly as you continue your service to America."[12]

    and there is an ongoing investigation, but PPJ seems ready to render a verdict already:

    On May 3, 2007, the Washington Post reported that the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General launched an internal probe into whether or not Goodling "illegally took party affiliation into account in hiring career federal prosecutors" in her work at the Department.[23]

    On May 12, the New York Times published an article about Goodling repeatedly engaging in "prohibited personnel practices" while at the Justice Department. "You have a Monica problem" several Justice Department officials told Robin C. Ashton, a criminal prosecutor at the Department of Justice. "She believes you're a Democrat and doesn't feel you can be trusted."[24]

    One week after Goodling's testimony before the House, the Department's Office of the Inspector General and Counsel for the Office of Professional Responsibility confirmed in a letter[25] to the Senate Judiciary Committee, that they were expanding their investigation beyond "the removals of United States Attorneys" to also include "DOJ hiring and personnel decisions" by Goodling and other Justice Department employees. [26]

    From 10/22/2007 Countdown with Keith Obermann:

    And now we have word that another Bush loyalists, those considerably higher up in the food chain may also be in the prosecutorial crosshairs, former attorney general Alberto Gonzales.  He only left Justice last month, but justice may not be done with him.  Former U.S. attorney for Western Washington State John McKay saying in a speech Friday, according to the "Spokesman Review" that the Justice Department's inspector general may recommend prosecuting Gonzales.  Mr.  McKay was one of the fired U.S. attorneys whose purge triggered congressional investigations of Gonzales and his highly politicized management of the Justice Department.  This past June, McKay was questioned by the Inspector's General Office for eight hours about possible reasons for his firing including his decision not to investigate the Democratic Governor Chris Gregoire for alleged voter fraud, a decision supported by career prosecutors in his office as well as by the FBI.  Let's turn to Mr.  McKay right now.  John McKay, former U.S. attorney for the western district of Washington state.  Great thanks for your time tonight, sir.

    JOHN MCKAY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY:  Glad to be here.

    OLBERMANN:  What exactly can you tell us about the Inspector General Glenn Fine's upcoming report, when we get it, what do you think it will say and why?

    MCKAY:  I don't have any real inside knowledge of that other than, Keith, that it's about time for that report to be coming out.  We know the inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility have been looking at all the facts surrounding the firing of the United States attorneys including myself.  We understand that the inspector general did interview former attorney general Gonzales and that is usually a sign that the report is close to completion.

    OLBERMANN:  When the Inspector General's Office spoke with you, and obviously understanding that there are only certain degrees to which you can be specific about something like this, but what lines of inquiry in a broad sense might they have been pursuing regarding Mr. Gonzales or his aides or obviously anybody more directly connected to the White House?

    MCKAY:  Well, again, I don't have any inside information regarding the investigation itself.  I was asked a number of questions.  There have been indications, I think, publicly, by some who are familiar with lines of inquiry including some in Congress, but it's a very wide ranging investigation, we do know that.  The inspector general in particular has very broad per view to look at waste, fraud and abuse, claims of mismanagement in the Justice Department.  But also the inspector general has the authority and the ability to refer a matter for prosecution if he feels it's warranted.

    OLBERMANN:  In your speech on Friday, you said--let me quote it exactly - "There was a conspiracy to politicize the Justice Department."  Was that a reference just to this purge of U.S. attorneys or was there more to it in your opinion?

    MCKAY:  I think the evidence that has come out in Congressional hearings and in some other reports that we have indicate that there were persons at the Justice Department who sought to politicize it in its hiring, not just by firing presidential-appointed United States attorneys such as myself but in hiring line assistance of United States attorney who prosecute case on a daily basis or try cases in Department of Justice.  And those who love the Department of Justice, as I do, are very offended by that and quite certain that the inspector general is looking very hard at the question of politicizing the Department of Justice through hiring.

    OLBERMANN:  Give us your assessment of him, of Inspector General Fine in terms of the integrity of the report that you expect, sketch out what we might expect to happen afterwards if he does recommend prosecution, your own feelings of the probity of what's happening at this point for his investigation?

    MCKAY:  I think highly of Glenn Fine, I do not know him personally.  He enjoys a very, very good reputation as a straight shooter, as a person of integrity.  The inspector's general throughout the government are, you know, a different breed in the sense that they're inside the Department he is inspector general for the Department of Justice, but his report is directly to the Congress and really to the American people.  And I know he takes that job very, very seriously.  And I believe he will do so in this case.  And he has a lot to work with.  Remember we had a lot of testimony from the former attorney general, much of which on important matters he indicated he didn't recall, I think saying that so many times anyone who watched it would have been concerned about whether or not he was concerned about the search for the truth.  So, it's now on this point the next step is for the inspector general to issue his report.  I do think that it will come down shortly, possibly before thanksgiving.  And you know, we hope that there will be some measure of accountability.  Some indication of a positive change at the Justice Department, many of us have believed--and I certainly do--that there's been a dark cloud over the Justice Department caused by the former attorney general and others at the Department of Justice who sought to politicize it in firing ninety-nine states attorneys may have been only part of it.

    OLBERMANN:  The conspiracy to politicize the Justice Department would be about as dark a cloud as we can imagine it to the DOJ.  John McKay, the former U.S. attorney for Western Washington State.  Great thanks for your time tonight, sir.

    MCKAY:  You're welcome.



    [ Parent ]
    WATB (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    Bush whines no fair:

    Judge Mukasey is not being treated fairly," the president said, after taking the extraordinary step of inviting a group of reporters into the Oval Office to vent his feelings. Sitting behind his desk and leaning back in his chair, Mr. Bush said he was concerned that some people may have "lost sight of the fact that we're at war."

    boo hoo.

    On Direct TV (none / 0) (#1)
    by troqua on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:43:59 PM EST
    Channel 366

    Arlen Specter (none / 0) (#12)
    by glanton on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 10:32:00 PM EST
    Recently said that it isn't reasonable to expect Michael Mukasey to answer whether simultaed drowning is torture because, if it's torture that means the people who have been authorizing it can be prosecuted for war crimes.

    Isn't that amazing that a US Senator can unapologetically celebrate the privileging of men over laws in this country?

    Again, if there's a place for the death penalty in this country at all, why not issue capital charges against the lawyers and government officials who commit war crimes in our name?

    So okay, that isn't going to happen.  But how sickening to see the likes of Rummy and Gonzales masquerading in suits, dining well, and receiving the best health care in the world, pretending to wisdom, affecting dignity and decency, etc.  They'll get state funerals for crying out loud.

    Not true. (1.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:16:54 AM EST
    A law could be passed that makes it torture but excludes past actions.

    [ Parent ]
    Come on, PPJ (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Al on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:28:05 AM EST
    Stop pretending there is no legislation. There's very clear legislation against torture. It's up to your people to apply it.

    [ Parent ]
    You quit pretending (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:59:01 AM EST
    that the law is specific.

    Congress can fix this problem in a heart beat. That the Demos don't want to tell us they don't care about torture, they just want to play to their base.

    [ Parent ]

    The law is very specific (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Al on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:25:16 PM EST
    Torture is a crime. All that is needed is for the Attorney General to define waterboarding as torture, so that the torturers can be charged and prosecuted.

    [ Parent ]