Meanwhile, back at the Looney Bin...

[Yonivore]

...otherwise known at the Senate Judiciary Committee, the love-fest between Senate Democrats and Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey drifted onto the rocks this week, as Mukasey declined to join in the Judiciary Committee's bash-Bush agenda.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media's appallingly bad coverage of the committee hearing continued. Here is how the Washington Post began its story, which was headlined "Mukasey Endorses Expansive Presidential Authority":

Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey suggested today that the president could ignore federal surveillance law if it infringes on his cons utional authority as commander in chief.

This is a non-controversial proposition. Of course the President can ignore a law that infringes on his cons utional authority, just as Congress can ignore an executive order that infringes on its powers. The Post continues:

Under sharp questioning about the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Mukasey said there may be occasions when the president's wartime powers would supersede legal requirements to obtain a warrant to conduct wiretaps.

In such a case, Mukasey said, "the president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law. . . . The president doesn't stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Cons ution."

Judge Mukasey tried to give the Senate committee a lesson in cons utional law--the branches of government are equal, and therefore Congress can't take away the President's powers--but it was pearls before swine. Dim bulb Patrick Leahy didn't get the point:

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he was "troubled by your answer. I see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through."

There you have it! The Cons ution: it's a loophole!

The conversation turned to "torture," and the Senators wanted Judge Mukasey to denounce waterboarding:

Mukasey also demurred when he was repeatedly asked whether a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding cons utes unlawful torture.

The point is significant, because "torture" is illegal. So it becomes important to define "torture." The Democrats are desperate to classify waterboarding as "torture," because that would make it improper.

Personally, I think waterboarding is the most appropriate method of interrogating terrorists. It is nearly always effective; it takes only a few minutes; and it is physically harmless. It doesn't hurt the terrorist a bit, but it scares him into talking. That seems like the perfect way to interrogate terrorist suspects. But, if you want to contrast "waterboarding" with "torture," take a look at al Qaeda's torture manual, which explains how to scoop out eyeballs with spoons, use electric drills to maximum effect, etc.

The Associated Press had more on waterboarding:

"I'm hoping that you can at least look at this one technique and say that clearly cons utes torture, it should not be the policy of the United States to engage in waterboarding," said Sen. Durbin, D- Ill.

"It is not cons utional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else," Mukasey answered.

During terse questioning by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mukasey said he did not know if waterboarding is torture because he is not familiar with how it is done.

"If it's torture?" Whitehouse responded incredulously. "That's a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn't."

Left unaddressed by the Democrats, as always, is how we are supposed to get information from captured terrorists. If anything that a terrorist suspect finds inconvenient or unpleasant cons utes "torture," even if it lasts for only a few minutes and does no physical harm, interrogation is essentially impossible. It will be interesting to see whether this interpretation of the law is adopted by the Hillary Clinton administration, should it inherit responsibility for keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks.

[ChumpDumper]

It's hilarious that you take the time to edit other people's blogs to make them look like you wrote them.

You really don't have a thought in your head you could call your own.

[ChumpDumper]

The Cons ution: It's a Loophole!

The love-fest between Senate Democrats and Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey drifted onto the rocks today, as Mukasey declined to join in the Judiciary Committee's bash-Bush agenda. Meanwhile, the mainstream media's appallingly bad coverage of the committee hearing continued. Here is how the Washington Post began its story, which was headlined "Mukasey Endorses Expansive Presidential Authority":

Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey suggested today that the president could ignore federal surveillance law if it infringes on his cons utional authority as commander in chief.

This is a non-controversial proposition. Of course the President can ignore a law that infringes on his cons utional authority, just as Congress can ignore an executive order that infringes on its powers. The Post continues:

Under sharp questioning about the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Mukasey said there may be occasions when the president's wartime powers would supersede legal requirements to obtain a warrant to conduct wiretaps.

In such a case, Mukasey said, "the president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law. . . . The president doesn't stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Cons ution."

Judge Mukasey tried to give the Senate committee a lesson in cons utional law--the branches of government are equal, and therefore Congress can't take away the President's powers--but it was pearls before swine. Dim bulb Patrick Leahy didn't get the point:

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he was "troubled by your answer. I see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through."

There you have it! The Cons ution: it's a loophole!

The conversation turned to "torture," and the Senators wanted Judge Mukasey to denounce waterboarding:

Mukasey also demurred when he was repeatedly asked whether a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding cons utes unlawful torture.

The point is significant, because "torture" is illegal. So it becomes important to define "torture." The Democrats are desperate to classify waterboarding as "torture," because that would make it improper. As I've written before, I think waterboarding is the most appropriate method of interrogating terrorists. It is nearly always effective; it takes only a few minutes; and it is physically harmless. It doesn't hurt the terrorist a bit, but it scares him into talking. That seems like the perfect way to interrogate terrorist suspects. If you want to contrast "waterboarding" with "torture," take a look at al Qaeda's torture manual, which explains how to scoop out eyeballs with spoons, use electric drills to maximum effect, etc.

The Associated Press had more on waterboarding:

"I'm hoping that you can at least look at this one technique and say that clearly cons utes torture, it should not be the policy of the United States to engage in waterboarding," said Sen. Durbin, D- Ill.

"It is not cons utional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else," Mukasey answered.

During terse questioning by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mukasey said he did not know if waterboarding is torture because he is not familiar with how it is done.

"If it's torture?" Whitehouse responded incredulously. "That's a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn't."

Left unaddressed by the Democrats, as always, is how we are supposed to get information from captured terrorists. If anything that a terrorist suspect finds inconvenient or unpleasant cons utes "torture," even if it lasts for only a few minutes and does no physical harm, interrogation is essentially impossible. It will be interesting to see whether this interpretation of the law is adopted by the Hillary Clinton administration, should it inherit responsibility for keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../10/018794.php

[Nbadan]

Let's see if Yoni still supports the power of one, the Federalists, once Clinton or another liberal is in office...I have a feeling we'll be hearing a lot of 'states rights' and smaller government whinning......

...just like the Republicans are all of the sudden against all these earmarks again....nevermind they went up 10-fold while they were in control....

[PixelPusher]

There you have it! The Cons ution: it's a loophole!

The loophole is in the excuse "for national security purposes" that a "emergency powers" president can trot out during this endless "national war-on-terror emergency".

Don't worry, the blogs will explain it to you once Hillary is President.

[Yonivore]

Let's see if Yoni still supports the power of one, the Federalists, once Clinton or another liberal is in office...I have a feeling we'll be hearing a lot of 'states rights' and smaller government whinning......

You'll hear me talk about state's rights and smaller government now. What we're talking about is the legislative branch of the federal government usurping the executive's cons utional powers.

State's rights infringements have mostly been ins uted by the legislative branch as well. I'm not sure where the President's war powers impacts state's rights.

...just like the Republicans are all of the sudden against all these earmarks again....nevermind they went up 10-fold while they were in control....

I'm opposed to earmarks now and then. What's your point Nbadan?

[George Gervin's Afro]

...otherwise known at the Senate Judiciary Committee, the love-fest between Senate Democrats and Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey drifted onto the rocks this week, as Mukasey declined to join in the Judiciary Committee's bash-Bush agenda.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media's appallingly bad coverage of the committee hearing continued. Here is how the Washington Post began its story, which was headlined "Mukasey Endorses Expansive Presidential Authority":


This is a non-controversial proposition. Of course the President can ignore a law that infringes on his cons utional authority, just as Congress can ignore an executive order that infringes on its powers. The Post continues:


Judge Mukasey tried to give the Senate committee a lesson in cons utional law--the branches of government are equal, and therefore Congress can't take away the President's powers--but it was pearls before swine. Dim bulb Patrick Leahy didn't get the point:


There you have it! The Cons ution: it's a loophole!

The conversation turned to "torture," and the Senators wanted Judge Mukasey to denounce waterboarding:

Mukasey also demurred when he was repeatedly asked whether a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding cons utes unlawful torture.

The point is significant, because "torture" is illegal. So it becomes important to define "torture." The Democrats are desperate to classify waterboarding as "torture," because that would make it improper.

Personally, I think waterboarding is the most appropriate method of interrogating terrorists. It is nearly always effective; it takes only a few minutes; and it is physically harmless. It doesn't hurt the terrorist a bit, but it scares him into talking. That seems like the perfect way to interrogate terrorist suspects. But, if you want to contrast "waterboarding" with "torture," take a look at al Qaeda's torture manual, which explains how to scoop out eyeballs with spoons, use electric drills to maximum effect, etc.

The Associated Press had more on waterboarding:


Left unaddressed by the Democrats, as always, is how we are supposed to get information from captured terrorists. If anything that a terrorist suspect finds inconvenient or unpleasant cons utes "torture," even if it lasts for only a few minutes and does no physical harm, interrogation is essentially impossible. It will be interesting to see whether this interpretation of the law is adopted by the Hillary Clinton administration, should it inherit responsibility for keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks.

I can't wait to hear from you after Hillary wins in 2008... you and the talk radio lynch mob will attack her before she even takes ofiice... my humble prediction..

[ChumpDumper]

I can't wait to see what you rip off from powerlineblog after Hillary wins in 2008.

[Yonivore]

I can't wait to hear from you after Hillary wins in 2008... you and the talk radio lynch mob will attack her before she even takes ofiice... my humble prediction..

There's quite a bit to attack...and, we're not waiting for her to take office.

[ChumpDumper]

But of course you will support all the powers she will inherit from Bush.

[spurster]

I thought Yoni was a libertarian.

[Yonivore]

I thought Yoni was a libertarian.

And, you'd be right. Why would attacking Hillary Clinton be reserved for Republicans alone?

[George Gervin's Afro]

But of course you will support all the powers she will inherit from Bush.

I want Yoni on the record for this one..

[George Gervin's Afro]

There's quite a bit to attack...and, we're not waiting for her to take office.

This sums up nicely how close minded you and your ilk are. Your not even going to wait for her to get into office. I have no problem with people voicing their criticisms but it becomes blinded when you won't allow them to get into office before you do.

[xrayzebra]

This sums up nicely how close minded you and your ilk are. Your not even going to wait for her to get into office. I have no problem with people voicing their criticisms but it becomes blinded when you won't allow them to get into office before you do.

Yeah, she is such a pillar of the community, isn't she?
Even in the face of the "dish washer" donations, the
Postman donations and support from Media Matters and
MoveOn.org, which are suppose to be non-political, you
think she is the greatest thing since peanut butter and
double beds. And shouldn't be criticized.

And wire tapping for her is no problem. She doesn't
need a law to allow it, she will just do it. You know like the FBI files, who no one can recall who obtained them or hired the guy that was in possession of them. With the
support of her dimm-o-crap law makers. No problemo.

Like they say, she will make history is she does get
elected. She will be the first Woman to sit behind the
President's desk, instead of under it. Yeah baby.

Just like old times, her and Bill can have their sleepovers
at the White-house with their separate bedrooms and
the Secret Service to watch over things, so they aren't
interrupted.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I want Yoni on the record for this one..

As do I... so does the president get to run rough shod over the cons ution if she is a democrat Yoni?

[clambake]

ray,what if it comes down to hillary and rudy?

are you going to vote for the values candidate?

[George Gervin's Afro]

ray,what if it comes down to hillary and rudy?

are you going to vote for the values candidate?

oh lord now your going to have ray formulate a critical thought on his own. hush doesn't come onuntil tomorrow..

[xrayzebra]

ray,what if it comes down to hillary and rudy?

are you going to vote for the values candidate?

You know the answer to that question. And I know
who you will vote for.

[xrayzebra]

oh lord now your going to have ray formulate a critical thought on his own. hush doesn't come onuntil tomorrow..

Poor GGA. I can always depend on a childish and
predictable response from him. Now let's hear it from
the Chump. I know you two are joined at the hip and
can move without each other.

[clambake]

so your not interested in values anymore?

[xrayzebra]

so your not interested in values anymore?

Most certainly. Aren't you?

I guess I should call you the Three Musketeers! Seems
like you all run together.

Clam
Chump
GGA

What a trio. Rush just doesn't know what he is up
against with you against him, does he?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Poor GGA. I can always depend on a childish and
predictable response from him. N ow let's hear it from
the Chump. I know you two are joined at the hip and
can move without each other.

Like they say, she will make history is she does get
elected. She will be the first Woman to sit behind the
President's desk, instead of under it. Yeah baby.

childish remarks???

oh ray your a hoot..

[George Gervin's Afro]

Most certainly. Aren't you?

I guess I should call you the Three Musketeers! Seems
like you all run together.

Clam
Chump
GGA

What a trio. Rush just doesn't know what he is up
against with you against him, does he?

hush never debates anyone on his show specifically thosehe continually critcizes.. what 20 yrs and not one debate...I wonder why that is Ray??


Hush the soundbite shadow boxer..he dances left, shakes right, ducks right...hush then takes the punch and the soundbite never had a chance..

[clambake]

Most certainly. Aren't you?

I guess I should call you the Three Musketeers! Seems
like you all run together.

Clam
Chump
GGA

What a trio. Rush just doesn't know what he is up
against with you against him, does he?

do you ever have a thought that doesn't morph into a Rush wet dream?

I asked you if you no longer valued values.