Interesting development. Is Mukasey a stand-up guy doing the right thing, or is he just throwing Congress a bone?

bone

I'm with stupid.

Reminds me of the investigation case for the Iran Contra scandal during the Raygun Regime.

This investigation will 'DEAD END' at the desk of the president.

When questioned all Bush has to say is: 'I do not recall' in reply to anything important.

Most people would not have a hard time believing Bush if he said he couldn't remember anything important!

BTW did they give the new AG Musuckey the necessary security clerance level to figure out whether or not WATERBOARDING is torture?

it's not

Well, gee.

Thanks, Vernon.

It's so good to know.

But I'm real curious how you know.

BTW did they give the new AG Musuckey the necessary security clerance level to figure out whether or not WATERBOARDING is torture?

Only when the Japanese did it to GIs, apparently.

But I'm real curious how you know.


Didn't you know that Vernon is an expert on the following subjects:

The Healthcare Industry

Oil Futures

Military Operations

I guess now we can add Torture to the list of expertises.

Monstman asks: "BTW did they give the new AG Musuckey the necessary security clerance level to figure out whether or not WATERBOARDING is torture?"

Vernon replies "its not"

Apparently the United States Army disagrees with you, son.

"With Congress' approval of a new attorney general who refused to describe waterboarding as torture, the Army has sent out a message to its leaders repeating that the interrogation technique is prohibited in the military. The service issued the Nov. 6 message "to eliminate any confusion that may have arisen as a result of recent public discourse."

Only when the Japanese did it to GIs, apparently.

Posted by northguy3 at 2007-11-13 11:12 PM

I've heard that too. That after WWII some Japanese were charged for torture at the world court, and some of the things listed were water-boarding. Is this true? If so, why is it torture when the Japanese do it but not when we do it?

How about a definition of torture:
Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

If so, why is it torture when the Japanese do it but not when we do it?


Because Vern says so.

Anyone in the military firing a weapon at an enemy is torturing someone when they succeed.

This whole idea of friendly interrogation is like describing civilized warfare.

"Anyone in the military firing a weapon at an enemy is torturing someone when they succeed."

But you'd agree there is a bit of a difference when the enemy has the opportunity to shoot back or run away, right?

Bush promises to rebuild Justice Dept.

WASHINGTON - President Bush welcomed Michael Mukasey back into government Wednesday and promised to help the new attorney general rebuild the top leadership of the beleaguered Justice Department.


AAAARRRGGGGHHHHHH! Run, run away Mr. Mukasey!

With help like that, you'll be a partner in the Brown, Gonzalez, Meirs, and Rumsfeld consulting firm in no time.

Gonzalez did not appear at the ceremony...

Who was one of the main REASONS why the rebuilding is NECESSARY.

Someone just tell Bush to shut up and get out of the way.

"But you'd agree there is a bit of a difference when the enemy has the opportunity to shoot back or run away, right?"

There's a difference, but both are torture.

If so, why is it torture when the Japanese do it but not when we do it?


I wonder if there will be a push by the pro-waterboarding crowd to exonerate the Japanese soldiers who were convicted of waterboarding US troops?

Lokisfur is still keeping up the hope that His support of DUbya isn't for naught even when the evidence is there. Unbelievable.

Larry Mohr

But we had to eavesdrop on the Kerry campaign, they might have been terrorists trying to get him elected.

I wonder if there will be a push by the pro-waterboarding crowd to exonerate the Japanese soldiers who were convicted of waterboarding US troops?

Posted by katieberry

I didn't know that happened. If you recall, the Japamese were a lot more direct than that. I don't think they would waste their time with something so painless.

""I don't think they would waste their time with something so painless.""

But then, you'd be wrong. They did. They were convicted of it. Oh, it isn't painless. Other than that you were right though.

""I don't think they would waste their time with something so painless.""

But then, you'd be wrong. They did. They were convicted of it. Oh, it isn't painless. Other than that you were right though.

There's a difference, but both are torture.

Posted by Petrous at 2007-11-14 12:09 PM

it is only "torture" if the "enemy" surrenders and the victor keeps shooting...in actual combat all bets are off.

do you mean to imply that both are torturing each other? I think you are stretching the limits of reality here.

what is real interesting here is that the Preznut denied security clearances that were later granted.

Why did he say no to valid clearances was he obstructing the justice dept?

The OPR investigation was begun in February 2006 but was shut down a few months later when the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the security clearances to ask questions about the program. Justice Department officials said Gonzales recommended Bush approve the clearances, but the president said no.

What does the Preznut have to hide?