To Amy Goodman:
I listened to your excellent program for years! The unending capitulation of Democrats, the excellent interviews with Naomi Klein (shoock therapy, the rise of disaster capitalism), the unending war(s) in Iraq, global warming, etc.etc.
Enough is enough! Yes, the "sky is falling" !!!! We get the message!
WHY CANNOT DEMOCRACY NOW! EVER "connect the dots"????
Some essential conclusions must now be drawn and explored!!!
1. The existing gangster capitalism must end if the planet, this country is to survive!
To end war, the profit must be taken out of war! The privatiazation of the federal government must end.
This gangster capitalism must be replaced with some form of democratic socialism. We must transition the economy away from benefiting only the tiny minority of billionaires. We must create a sustainable economy the strives to fulfill the economic needs of all the people.
Why is the conclusion never discussed.
Run-amok capitalism is not reformable.
2. We must DUMP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. We need a new political party, perhaps a PEOPLE'S PEACE PARTY, formed from the thousands of activist groups and millions of people into a new umbrella party to run at local, state, and federal
government.
A NEW PARTY THAT DOES NOT ACCEPT CORPORATE MONEY OR CORPORATE AGENDAS. The Democratic Party is now fully complicit with the Bush agenda. The Democratic party is not reformable.
Perhaps Cindy Sheehan, who left the Democratic Party in disgust, will include this notion on the agenda of her peace summit January 15, 2008.

PLEASE MAKE ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENT STATUS QUO A FOCUS OF YOUR PROGRAM! THIS DISCUSSION IS ESSENTIAL AS IT IS NOT ALLOWED ANYWHER ELSE!!!

Ostrogoth and Arvy,

First, the Hitler comment. Pretty dramatic, but okay I see your point. Do you know how long it took for us to go to war with Hitler? You go to war and have many casualties or you use diplomacy (which I'm sure you agree is usually best). Fight this war with bush(hitler) and see who suffers. Yes Mukasey is a yes man and hasn't taken a position on waterboarding, but now there is nothing! Bush wants us to turn Mukasey down, he already said he's not appointing anyone else. It's easy for us to not to compromise, but the alternitive is worse. Your objection is noted.

Ostrogoth, it's not about fault. I know who's at fault, but who suffers from us not compromising. We only have another year with Bush, and sure he'll go down in history as the worst president. But, if you don't get my point and keep blaming democrates. Democrates will lose the next election and every Republican running may not be as bad as bush, but nothing will change.

"Do you know how long it took for us to go to war with Hitler?"

If, by us, you mean the U S of A, it took considerably longer than it took for Hitler to breach his "peace in our time" agreement with Chamberlain. Nations, like most people, tend to react only when their own ox is gored, or, at least, when they perceive it that way.

BTW, it wasn't my purpose to equate Bush and Hitler, if that's your objection. I just used the most famous example of appeasement to make a point about likely (and unlikely) consequences historically.

Arvy,

forgive the spin I gave the bush/hitler from your simple appeasement argument. Guess my subconscious took over. And yes, it does seem like most nations don't react till their balls are on the chopping block. Except for he case of Iraq.

Appeasement? giving bush (1/2 of czech to hitler) Mukasey for appeasement, and look at how hitler reacted with appeasment. Continue your point. Appeasing bush with Mukasey and what?

@catbutt: I have nothing very profound to add. It's just that I don't think there's much basis for assuming that Bush will be any better behaved if we give him what he asks for. In fact, I'm inclined to the contrary view that it only facilitates his strategic aims.

TonyVodvarka: What is the source of your claim that Mukasey is an Israeli citizen? I have not been able to find any reference to it.
Can anyone else provide a reliable source?

Schumer and Feinstein's "reasoning" for backing Mukasey was that the Justice Department was falling apart, tons of positions are vacant, and they needed to get "someone competent" in the position to put the Department back together again. They were scared because Bush said he wouldn't send another nominee, and would just have put an interim AG in.

Why the hell didn't S and F call his bluff? They could have blamed the crumbling Justice Department on Bush, saying that it was unacceptable to have an AG who was not clear on torture. They could have just said Mukasey was unacceptable, and that if the Department crumbled, it was Bush's fault...What, do they think the department is really going to be "fixed" in a year???

Their "we have to fix the Justice Department and restore its integrity" line its just so much bs.

arvy,

I liked where you were taking it. I have no faith in bush, I don't think he will behave any better than hitler (might be were I made the comparison). Do you think Mukasey is better than his temp? Trust me I hate laying down on this.

Shumer and Feinstein represent the Vichy Democratic Party.

pleasethink, You're right about the bs. The Justice Department, at least the non career political appointments, hasn't been about justice for 7 years, and deservers to crumble. Better no prosecutions than the politically motivated ones aimed at voter suppression and attempts to muzzle legitimate prosecutions of Rethug corruption. How quickly we forget.Does anyone believe Mukasey's gonna come in and seek out most of the career civil rights unit that resigned in protest? Read what's out there about this man's history please before you claim he's better than Gonzo or better than nothing

It's gonna take a helluva lot moret than competence to restore this Justice Department. Mukasey is NOT the one to do it.

Schumer and Feinstein, and all Democratic apologists everywhere can say whatever they want. The simple truth is that the Democrats can't -- or won't-- mount an effective opposition to torture. It's just immoral.

I was a life-long Democrat. But I'm not anymore.

"But, if you don't get my point and keep blaming democrats. Democrats will lose the next election and every Republican running may not be as bad as bush, but nothing will change."

Catbutt, I'm not blaming Democrats. All eight of them voted against Mukasey. Like I said earlier, anyone who supports torture is a fascist. Schumer and Feinstein are fascists who have declared war on democracy, I don't care what they call themselves or what party they belong to. I understand your concern, and I know that we both oppose torture, but we have to stop pretending that these thugs are behaving like decent, rational human beings. They aren't. Thanks.

catbutt, I fail to see how confirming Mukasey does anything BUT give Bush a pass. How do you figure that? Based on what? The only difference I see from what I know about him is that he's more competent than GONZO. Now there's a recommendation for you. Nothing like setting the bar real low. The man believes in the imperial presidency for godssake! What does that tell us? The other difference from GONZO is that Mukasey's not from Texas so he hasn't always ( we assume), enabled W to be a law breaker. Another big relief! Nothing like giving Bush immunity, AND enabling him to continue to assume not a shred of responsibility for his own criminal decisions, and his bad appointments.

"Do you think Mukasey is better than his temp?"

I think perhaps that Bush unconstrained by any consideration of confirmation might be inclined to appoint someone worse than otherwise, but any more definite answer would require a soothsayer, which I'm definitely not. I only know that, in general, some form of 'checks and balances' is better than total abdication of that role by those responsibile.

Judging by recent performance, the chosen individual is probably less important than Bush's predetermined agenda in any case. I just don't appreciate any facilitation of that agenda by those who are allegedly our representatives.

__
P.S.: I know they're not really our representatives, but that's their claim and therefore the basis upon which I judge them nevertheless.

shrub is an alcoholic. What alcoholic do you know who is satisfied with compromise? It's like saying to a drunk, 'Hey, don't drink your favourite vodka, drink this white wine instead. And please only drink one glass.' HELLO?!? It's like giving the junkie pills instead of cocaine because it's 'not as bad'. What kind of lunacy is that?

He's a drunk of the worst kind - a drunk who has gotten more than he ever should of. Time for boundaries, folks. Boundaries and accountability.

It was interesting to listen to Sen. Specter tell of his awakening to the newfound sense of social justice on the part of Mukasey yesterday. It was like hearing to try to justify his equally ridiculous theory of who killed JFK (Specter created the absurd single bullet theory as a young lawyer for the Warren Commission in April 1964.)

Any lawyer who insists that torture is legal or that simulated drowning, beatings, electrocution, anal probes, and similar tactics are somehow not "torture" should never have been awarded a law degree because he obviously did not pass his Constitution Law courses. Moreover, he should have his head examined by a psychiatrist because advocating such tactics on another human being sure sounds like a symptom of a dangerous sociopath deserving of incarceration to protect the rest of society from him.

By the way, you personally can do something about it, even as to the newly minted federal attorney generals being inflicted on us by the Bush Administration. It's easy and free. Contact your state's lawyer grievance or ethics committee and ask for the forms to file a grievance. Seek disbarment or sanctions for any such lawyer practicing in your state. Or, if he is not licensed in your state, at least seek a ruling by the state bar or licensing board forbidding him to supervise other lawyers who are licensed there. Surely there must be at least one state with a sufficiently courageous licensing authority to revoke the ability of these miscreants to practice law. After all, not only is torture criminal and unethical, it is a violation of his oath of office which is to defend the Constitution. It is not the President.

P.S. I might be willing to concede as to any particular tactic if, but only if, the President, the VP, and the Attorney General publicly undergo such abuse themselves first to prove it is not torture. If these cowards do and survive, then they might have an argument. Which leads to an interesting thought. If that ever happens and the tactics are declared not to be cruel and unusual, then there might be some merit in using such tactics in Senate Confirmation Hearings when questioning candidates for such offices.

In any event, torture is or should be a bipartisan issue.

Mukasey, hazy?
Mukasey, lazy?
Mukasey, crazy.

I spoke with a highly regarded mechanic at the local auto repair shop here today, and he has it on good authority that not only the wheels, but also the axil, and the transmission have fallen off bush's shitmobile.

Mrs. Beck, said she was terribly disappointed in her boy Glen.

Shove a Kucinich vote up the DNC's attention deficit.

This just in: Schumer's I.Q. has gone missing.

"most of the bush administration doesn't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees", says Dan Solesby, a spokesman for the U.S. Fartestry Service.

"In a remarkable demonstration of commitment to his job, former acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin, according to ABC News, underwent waterboarding when tasked by the White House to rework its official position on torture in 2004. Concluding that waterboarding is torture, he was forced out of his job."

One wonders why, if they have been so determined to use this practice in their interrogations.... why did they even bother to have someone try this out when re-working their official position? If his opinion afterwards meant so little to them, then why even do it? It doesn't make sense..

"Former Nixon White House counsel John W. Dean sees something familiar about the Mukasey nomination:

As the Senate Democrats complete another sad concession to President Bush, and confirms a nominee who refuses to declare "water-boarding" torture, allow me to offer a brief historical reminder: the Senate Judiciary Committee has conspicuously forgotten that there are direct situational and historical parallels with Judge Mukasey's nomination to be Attorney General and that of President Richard Nixon nominating Elliot Richardson to be Attorney General during Watergate.

Nixon's Attorney General had been removed (and was later prosecuted for lying to Congress) – a situation not unlike Alberto Gonzales's leaving the job under such a cloud. Nixon was under deep suspicion of covering up the true facts relating to the bungled break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate, not to mention widespread rumors that he had engaged in abuses of power and corrupt campaign practices. Today, Bush is under even deeper suspicion for activities far more serious than anything Nixon engaged in for there is evidence Bush has abused the laws of war, violated treaties, and ordered (or approved) the use of torture and political renditions, which are war crimes.

Since Judge Mukasey's situation is not unlike that facing Elliot Richardson when he was appointed Attorney General during Watergate, why should not the Senate Judiciary Committee similarly make it a quid pro quo for his confirmation that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes? Richardson was only confirmed when he agreed to appoint a special prosecutor, which, of course, he did. And when Nixon fired that prosecutor, Archibald Cox, it lead to his impeachment.

Before the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee completely cave-in to Bush, at minimum they should demand that Judge Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate if war crimes have been committed. If Mukasey refuses he should be rejected. This, indeed, should be a pre-condition to anyone filling the post of Attorney General under Bush.

If the Democrats in the Senate refuse to demand any such requirement, it will be act that should send chills down the spine of every thinking American."

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/post/index/1381/Schumer--Feinstein-cave-UPDATED

As predicted, the pas de deux is danced according to the score, and enough Democrats go along to get along-- with the usual minor-key continuo of coy faux-reluctance and reservation.

The weak rationales offered by the Enablers du Jour, Feinstein and Schumer, justify approval for reasons which are essentially therapeutic in nature. The DOJ is falling apart under its temporary leadership, and needs a new Daddy to ensure expedited remedial measures. Well, they had to say something. And to an uncritical observer, they make a good show of seeming to solemnly and thoughtfully deliberate the merits of their foregone choice. In the end, it's the usual end-justifies-the-means, cost/benefit crapola.

But perhaps this particular pretextual fig-leaf defense was introduced to do double-duty. Remember the report that after AG resigned, Schumer and/or Leahy consulted with the White House, and noted that Congress would not be required to so vigorously pursue oversight committee investigations into DOJ problems arising during Gonzalez' tenure if the WH nominated an "acceptable" candidate?

Whether this was a definite quid-pro-quo or not, rest assured that, in fact, congressional bosses will rein in the oversight committees. If questioned about it-- which they most likely won't be-- they will piously declare that it was decided that rigorous investigations would be inimical to the vital rebuilding task for which Mukasey was explicitly confirmed. It's a win-win; everybody walks, and tomorrow's a brand new day!

Neat how that works out, no?

I Got Your Schumer Right Here

Remember when James Cramer was having his Psycho-spasmic melt-down on CNBC?
A couple weeks later, Senator Chris Dodd started making statements that the debt limit should be raised for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At that time, Presnit bush, surprisingly (to me), said that no more debt should be taken on by Fannie or Freddie until their books and accounting standards had been improved. About a week later, Chuck Schumer added his voice to Dodd's, saying that Fannie and Freddie's debt ceiling should be raised to alleviate the stress on new home owners so that they don't loose their new homes. A couple days later, sure enough, a large load of mortgage debt got laid off on Fannie and Freddie. Obviously, Wall Street (in New York) had urged the Senator from New York, to do them an extremely important favor. I've no doubt that Wall Street, and various New York banks were EXTREMELY $$ grateful to Senators Schumer and Dodd, for the VERY helpful bail out. That meant that Mr. bush had capitulated, and allowed the two good ol' boys to do Wall Street a SWEET $$ favor. That also meant that Senators Schumer, and Dodd now owed Mr. bush a BIG favor. Figure Senator Schumer's support of HAZY MUKASEY, makes things square with bush. ( freakinbarnacles !)

Think about it. Schumer gets paid a princly salary and perks to do the peoples business, then get 'appreciated' by Wall Street for bailing them out; they who have ridden the housing bubble for 6 years of record bonuses and imperial wall street salaries. Then when wallstreets house of smoke and mirrors comes crashing down and they are swimming in the debt that THEY created, Schumer and Dodd bail them out on YOUR BACK, because Fannie and Freddie's books are on our side of the ledger. Wall Street and Politicians can't loose, they get money when you buy, and they get money when you sell, they get money when they create a mess, they get money when the fix the mess they created.

I hereby move that the name of the Congress of the United States of America be changed to "The International House of Pusillanimous Ass Gaskets"

reader21 wrote: You don't need flaming torches and lying down in the street. You need a website, someone to organize the campaign and a bank account.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I prefer flaming torches (preferably molotovs). Yes, I can see where the Admin would spin it and call it A-Q inspired terrorism, but the web-site approach is just virtual protest, a distraction to keep people from doing things that actually hurt the Administration. The web has been with us for over 13 years but I have not seen it do anything to change the direction along which the US is heading.

Oh, and one more thing. Your suggestion that a bank account is needed. Ooops. Money (and power) is at the root of our problems. It is a misconception that one "needs" money to accomplish something. What it needs is a quarter million angry people in an illegal march. I'd like to see a patriot point to the gates of the White House or Wall St and say "People of America, tear down this wall".

Apparently the White House cherry picked members of Congress to read in on programs they knew were illegal.

Some members of Congress may be looking for ways to thwart activities or appointments that may lead to them (as well as the White House) and to assist activities and appointments that may lead away from them (and the White House); think torture, illegal detentions, extraordinary renditions, warrantless wiretapping, the Iraq invasion, yada yada yada; view any member of Congress that is not interested in a thorough investigation of any of these with circumspection.

While these politicians worry about themselves we need to worry about our country. By investigating and understanding what has gone wrong, including what they've done, we can find out how to prevent it in the future. The good ones will help us; the bad ones won't.

If corrections aren't made this next election, if there is one, may be the last.

The best answer to any question or questionable situation that arises at this point is, "I don't know, appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and report back to me then I'll tell you what I think."

The worst answers are answers like, "we know everything we need to know", "they're just wasting time", "just get it back to me so I can do the nation's business", "we already have all the answers we need", "we can investigate later", "fill in the blank .. promised to address this later", "fill in the blank .. is already taking care of that", yada yada yada.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Shakespeare's Henry IV.

Sorry, it's from Henry VI.

Let's get real Amy.

Until we get a legal tribunal to bring all the truth to bear about the illegalities committed by the Bush Administration and their lackies (Democrats and Republicans included), we are all living in a "nether world". A Bullshit world of lies.

Where are are the United States attorneys who will stand up for American Justice? What do they want/need? Money?

Fine. (No pun). Just say so. Give us the website and we will send all our money to pay these guys/gals to defend the Constitution. Because, quite very obviously, our Congressional Representivives will not do so.

"The first thng we do, is kill anyone who thinks torture or the war and occupation of Iraq is wrong". ___ Snakeshit ___ Cheney's 101

What ever happened to the rule of law? Torture and an unchecked executive are both consitutional issues. We are getting yet another AG who will lie when he swears (or affirms) to obey, defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies, whether foreign or domestic. How will our beloved Constitution be saved from fascists?

can senators be recalled?

Dear rannfox, I am caught out on this one. I have just gone back to double check what I too quickly saw on the Google search (Mukasey dual citizen), and essentially found assertions from sources that are not especially quotable. These assertions were plausable to me at first given Mukasey's othodoxy and long record of fervant advocacy of right-wing Zionism. Although speculation about his Isreali citizenship may be a technicality, he certainly could have it at any time if he does not have it now, that technicality is important. Apologies

I have called both my senators Dominici and Bingaman to oppose this nomination. We should all put the heat on.

Yeah, they'll listen to us, we are the people.

First, my Rep., Patrick Murphy, 8th Dist PA, votes yea, to table, called him 7 times prior to vote, found out what he did, emailed him a scathing letter, complicate in treason, torture and on I went, called Washington off., told them that and more., he has always voted the ethical way, F him.
Add some insult to lots 'o injury, Arlen Specter(R) PA, votes in favor of Mukasey, Fu@@ing Specter, putz represented Ira Einhorn in the 70's. Unicorn killer, murdered girlfriend from Texas, she went to Bryn Mawr, when the seat got too hot, politically speaking, he withdrew as attorney of record.
I am really pissed off right now. I do all the calls, emails, repeatedly, and look, they could give a damn about who put him in Congress. Specter usually good on all pro-women issues and normally a Repug in Dem's clothing, actually.
Cannot wait until it bites them in their BA@@s!

when i said 'put him in congress', speaking of murphy, i know specter is a senator.

Judge Mukasey's refusal to comment on waterboarding, on grounds that it would be "irresponsible" to provide "an uninformed legal opinion based on hypothetical facts and circumstances," raises serious questions. President George W. Bush told reporters it was unfair to ask Mukasey about interrogation techniques about which he had not been briefed. Bush need only to facilitate a classified briefing for him on waterboarding and the C.I.A. interrogation program. He will then be able to render an informed legal opinion. Very simple.

Waterboarding was used by U.S. intelligence officers as an interrogation technique before the Justice Department publicly declared torture "abhorrent" in a legal opinion in December 2004. But Mukasey's assertion that waterboarding is illegal could cause extreme embarrassment and even legal jeopardy for senior officials. He is more concerned about protecting senior officials than he is in enforcing the law and the Constitution.

Wired Magazine
AT&T Whistle-Blower Hits D.C. To Stop Telecom Spying Immunity
By Ryan Singel November 07, 2007 | 8:20:04 PM

"The Senate Judiciary plans Thursday to mark-up a measure passed by the secretive Senate Intelligence Committee would let telecoms like AT&T and Verizon escape the bevy of lawsuits accusing them of massively violating Americans' privacy, so long as the attorney general writes a letter to the judge saying that the government told the companies that the president thought he had Constitutional authority to evade the nation's privacy laws."

Mark Klein ..
"I've called and sent letters to senators and Congress members. They haven't called back. I don't think they want to pursue it. They want to talk about this behind closed doors. These days I am angry at Congress for helping them keep it secret.
They could hold hearings and subpoena people and give them immunity. Right now there are people who could come forward and say what they know, but they need immunity. That's the bottleneck. I don't see a resolution coming from this Congress. It's a conspiracy against the American people."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/att-whistle-blo.html

See ..
AT&T Wiretap Whistleblower Fights Senate Deal
All Things Considered, November 7, 2007 •
"In 2002, Mark Klein, a former technician for AT&T, came forward with information that the company was collecting data for the National Security Agency. His testimony was central to several class-action lawsuits against AT&T for its alleged wiretapping.
Klein is now in Washington, D.C., to speak out against a possible Senate deal that would grant immunity to AT&T and the other telecoms for their role in NSA surveillance — effectively nullifying those lawsuits."

Robert Siegel talks with Klein.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16088947

Stop Mukasey before he can undercut lawsuits that will save America!

Don't let Congress and the White House legitimize and cover up torture, illegal detentions, extraordinary renditions, warrantless wiretapping, the Iraq invasion, et al.

Help Us Common Dreams!!!

O roe....Ever see the "Hardball" footage of Tweety cornering Murphy about whether he would've voted for the Iran resolution? It is on YouTube--what an imbecile! Murphy managed to squeak in as a result of the Dem sweep in the last election but he is a disaster. It was the NorthEast region of Philly that was gerrymandered into our district that put him there--Bucks voted against him. He is a bluedog who often can be counted on for voting with the Right. He is over 400k in debt personally, but is fiscally conservative--which means that in an area on the frontlines of flooding due to global warming he does little except blame it on upstream reservoirs--which is a lame evasion of reality. He doesn't advocate for us. He is a military man but claims to be against the Iraq invasion--although no one bangs the drums louder for threatening Iran and he panders to the wealthy Jewish constituency, complete with trips to Israel, now raking in the cash. His only issues seem to be veterans affairs and prostrating himself before Israel. When Cindy Sheehan was in Philly there was a Jewish folksinger singing the praises of Patrick Murphy and it made me sick considering the scenario--was she blind? We actually had a decent Republican congressman, Fitzpatrick, who was exceptional on environmental issues and was one of the first Republicans who opposed Bush on Iraq. I hope Fitzpatrick (or even Pater Kostemeyer) runs again. He has my vote over the simpleton Murphy who also voted against reinstituting the fairness doctrine. So much for partisan Democratic allegiance.
I was thinking about when Bush said, "...some people call you the 'have mores', I call you my base", and it occurred to me that the Republican base was the Democratic party.

Did you see DiFi sneer when she acknowledged that waterboarding was torture and illegal, last night on Democracy now? My skin crawled..Ther attitude about torture is on the level of Holocaust deniers.
Kennedy was great though.

Tommybones: Your comment about civil disobedience has struck a cord with me. But how do we go about it? Any suggestions from any bloggers? I agree peaceful means and marching has netted nothing. It's time to ratchet it up. Lets take this country back. Its sure as hell not going to be handed back to us by the new president whoever he or she may be!

I think that all of this has probably been going on for a very long time, carried out clandestinely by national security agencies. What is radically and frighteningly new is the bravado of the Bush administration in making it publicly-stated policy. Only a public that doesn't care about dehumanization of others would fail to respond. Maybe Russ Feingold will filibuster the Mukasey nomination and at least put the symbolic brakes on. His disclaimer is ludicrous. I mean, I know what waterboarding is and I know it is torture and I have zero security clearance. The Dems who still care should do everything possible to spite this administration.

LITTLE BROTHER: Eloquent posting.

LAWLESS ONE: Excellent ideas!

Civil Disobedience! We need to throw our bodies into the war machine. We need to create havoc on Wall Street. We need to tie up the phone lines of war profiteers for months on end. We need to march on a weekday down mainstreet, stopping traffic along the way.

On Saturday, October 27th, an estimated 30,000 New Yorkers marched down Broadway in the driving rain to protest the Iraq war. The NY Times, NY Daily News and NY Post didn't even post a single line blurb about it. No story. Nothing. What good does all the peaceful marching on weekends do if it doesn't effect the machine enough to even warrant the slightest mention in the three local newspapers????

Enough of this nonsense. Everyone debating in here is preaching to the choir.

Ideas? I'd love to post some specific ideas, but as we all know, big brother is data-mining our little conversation and listing specifics online would be a mistake. I recommend we all find our own local groups, which will work independently (dare we call them Civil disobedience cells?) in a relentless campaign to harass those profiting from the war machine. Endless phone calls to tie up a businesses phone line is one effective way, as we have seen with the angry responses from those at Conyers office, tired of the endless calls. Perhaps similar tactics geared towards the corporations making billions in blood money is a good idea?

oh, and to the gestapo scumbags reading this post, after data-mining it (probably the words civil and disobedience triggered a red flag of some sort, no doubt)......fuck yourself, you traitorous blood-sucking cowards... this isn't Nazi Germany so take off your brown shirts and respect the constitution.

Remember republican loud-mouth Ann Coulter's book, The Only Way To Talk to A Liberal Is With A Baseball Bat."
Maybe Americans need to show Washington they are serious. We could grab plastic baseball bats and hold them just for the symbolism, alone.
I'm not advocating violence, or hitting anyone with them; but just the actual symbolism of American citizens marching on Washington equipped with plastic baseball bats-to do some symbolic housecleaning-just might get somebody's attention!
Do you think they'd get the message then? Maybe protesters symbolically wielding plastic baseball bats should be part of every protest from now on!

starofthesea, ostrogoth, arvy:

You all made good points. Thank you, I think I may have been too passive on this vote. I loath that mukasey is all we have to choose from, but thought he would be better than having no one. I thought bush wanted us to turn mukasey down, so he could say "hey it's not my fault." thought mukasey would have to hold him to some accountability, at least more than the alternative.

thanks... Usually I'm quite the boat rocker. Wasn't sure what kind of suffering would take place without any check or balance.

I admire the Jewish people. They are very smart, and I tend to accept their claim of being the chosen people. On the other hand, I loathe those people who are stupid.

The Jews comprise about 2% of the US population, but their disproportionate numbers in the US Congress, in the US State Department, and within the Bush Administration is a tribute to their intelligence. If you are stupid, don't blame the Jews for being smart. They made you fight their Iraq war (oil was part of it), and they are busy preparing you to fight their Iran war.

Another outstanding quality they have is that they are united. Just look how slimy Senators Schumer and Dianne Feinstein voted for Mukasey's confirmation.

In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and they deserve it. You may not like it, but the hell with you, if you can't face the truth.

@Saila

Ditto the Mafia.

It does not take stupidity to recognize and oppose kleptocracy.

Amy Goodman says: Judge Michael Mukasey admits waterboarding is repugnant, but refuses to say whether it amounts to torture.

I think that whether ANYTHING amounts to torture depends greatly on whether or not John Yoo's definition of torture stands up in court. "Repugnant" is a personal opinion, but "torture" is a legal one. If it turns out that anything short of death is defined as torture, there may be legal ramifications. If John Yoo's definition of "torture" holds, Muskasey can be accused of slander for saying that something is torture which does not fit the legal (ie American) definition of the term.

How big is a 3 x 7 foot cell? And is living in one torture?
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=653

TonyVodvarka says: Mr. Mukasey is an Isreali citizen.

Are you saying that this automatically makes him Islamophobic? I am sure that there are Jews on both sides of the issue. In fact, I know that there are.

That said, the US seems to have little interest in getting Israel and Palistine to kiss and make up.

Just saying that there may be reasons other than ethnicity or religion for Mukasey's hesitancy to commit himself on issues of crime against humanity. Let's look a bit deeper - what was Muskasey doing before he became a judge? Aren't judges elected in the US? If they are, they definitely need a few rich sugar daddies to fill their war chest.

HailCODEPINK - I asked on another thread whether Wright and Benjamin will be seeking election since I think they would make good Congresspersons which ever stripe they adopt. Get them in any honest way you can.

Ron says: They violate the UN Charter, the US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and the Rule of Nuremberg and you sign up with them?

Yes, but does Waterboarding violate John Yoo's definition of torture - my guess is not unless you do it wrong and the person really does drown. Someone said that it should be called "Simulated Drowning" because "Waterboarding" sounds like something one does at the beach.

Lucitanian says: "America does not torture" is a lie on which the present administration should be impeached and imprisoned.

I think that we need to do is list certain "repugnant" practices and ask whether America engages in them or not. What Bush is hiding behind is semantics.

Q: President Bush, does the US agree in torture?

Bush: No,

Q: President Bush, does anyone who either works for the US Military or who has a contract with the US military to look after detained individuals perform simulated drownings, floggings, or administers shocks to those whom they have incarcerated.

Bush (under truth serum): Yes

Ostrogoth says: Torture is a hallmark of fascism. If you support torture you support fascism. Perhaps you can sincerely support democracy while torturing prisoners, but I doubt it.

Well sure - the right always wants to "get tough on crime" and that usually means doing things to suspects that seems to presume, at the very least, that they are all guilty. Other than the 15 year old Canadian, how many people in Guantanamo Bay have actually been even charged with anything?

Wikipedia says: Khadr has been reported to have been kept in solitary confinement, for long periods of time; to have been denied adequate medical treatment; to have been subjected to "short shackling", and left bound, in uncomfortable "stress positions" until he soiled himself [3].

This bring up the point - what if a "detainee" is not subjected to the waterboard, does it still constitute torture? There are other "repugnant" methods which need to be looked into.

Ostrogoth, our teacher, teacher Mrs Axworthy (Lloyd Axworthy's former wife) pulled a lot of strings and got her grade 11 class in to see Deer Hunter.

onlooker says: Which specific provisions of the Geneva conventions?

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

"The Bush administration quickly declared that members of al-Qaeda captured on the battlefield were "unlawful combatants" and not subject to the Geneva Conventions."

As you will see, the administration's argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/genevaconventions.html