"...if the interrogation method doesn't involve prolonged severe pain and suffering it isn't torture.."

No prolonged pain if they're dead . As of 9/11/2002 we'd "rough interrogated" 29 to death in Afghanistan .(that we know about) . That fact seems to have disappeared . (Was in MSM , at the time) Lately been hearing /reading ,in many places, "Only 3 prisoners were waterboarded .", with what follows indirectly implying that's the extent of torture (if any).

Tried to argue against torture with someone recently (in person) . It culminated in "If they don't die , it's not torture." Me: " So ....., it'd be OK for federal agents to torture you, even to death , to find out if you've done anything wrong , or know anything?"

A: "Yes, if that's what it takes." He's not a hard-core RWer either. Basically apolitical . (Probably watches too much FOX, but doesn't go with just FOX . ) Don't know how to get through that.

You're probably right that there's a big steaming pot of corruption under the telecom lid .

I see the congressional Republicans just got around to mentioning it on their blog . For something so all-fired important , they seem a bit reluctant to talk about it . Now that they have , they're going ~ 1/2 'n' 1/2 "Be scared!"/ " It's the lawyers."

http://blog.nrcc.org/

BTW, tried to post the comment below . It wouldn't let me . Anybody understand what this is about? http://recaptcha.net/apidocs/captcha/#keyscope I jumped through all the hoops, but still no-go.

Ooooooooo I'm so scared !!!!

Do you think the $118M (at least) contributions by the telecoms have any influence on this (you?)? The PAA is a CMA operation.

Nobody's "blind" . No information was "lost". FISA works just fine . Only two warrants have been denied since inception. What it does do is ensure that the executive branch doesn't get to grade it's own homework . The PAA's primary purpose isn't to protect us ;it's to protect the White House.

" Only" foreign terrorists ? Puh-leeeezzz! It's ALL on EVERYONE, hence the hysterical cries for telecom amnesty .If they didn't do anything wrong, they have nothing to fear. Right? Foreign-to-foreign communication requires no warrant. Warrants are only required if it is an American being spied upon . Delays? A 72hr grace period ensures that procedure doesn't impede a lawful investigation.

Of course you know all that , yet continue with this dishonest campaign . Honest arguments would be " We have to have surveillance on everything/one, at least for awhile, to determine what is normal." or " We can't take the chance that a judge will make a mistake . The president must have the power to authorize the intercept of anything , at any time." or "The 4th Amendment is outdated .We need to change it ." I would disagree , and say you're wrong , but at least you wouldn't be lying .

Our system of government is designed to be adversarial , and YOU, as members of Congress, are supposed to check the power of the president . Why then, do you seek to give away YOUR power, to give the executive branch unlimited power, in this area? You are failing to do your job , and play your proper role . Don't forget, whatever you allow THIS president, will carry over to the next one .

Yep, did all that . Kids go more for keyboards than katydids, now though . Some still do it;making sure my little nephews are among 'em . Last summer was OK for lightnin'bugs, but in the previous 4 or 5 , seemed to be going the way of the bees . How about yours?

Btw , there's another area where BushCo & fellow travelers might not be up-front with things, and need to be gone. The chemical mentioned on the bee story isn't just a new one. It's a whole new class , and we hardly know anything about it . If it proves to be the culprit (proven already, but hidden ?) , what are the chances of the "right" thing being done?

Btw, GC , there's opportunity there too. Stationary bee colonies seem to be much less affected , so (probably) going to be a lot more demand for local bees .

The Siegelman case might not even be the worst one. The case of Georgia Thompson is similar , but she was more clearly innocent , and not guilty of any legal back-scratching . Did time anyway . As Paul Krugman suggested , the bigger US Attorney scandal will probably be that involving those that kept their jobs .

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041807K.shtml

Don't forget Bunnatine Green either .

Is there a penalty for the stonewalling?

Yep, right in the Constitution, but it's "off the table".(The reluctant witnesses can be cited for contempt.) The Prez & VP can be impeached for failing/refusing Congress information that they have a right to get. Of course they assert that Congress isn't entitled to it .

DC, PDA, I voted for Nader in 2000 , as NY was safely in Gore's pocket .I was hoping he'd get his 5%, so as to be included in the debates in '04 . This so as to force the major candidates to address actual issues, that they'd rather avoid, similar to the effect Perot had on fiscal policy discussion.

If Nader had any hope of winning, or there was any chance of a close NY race , I wouldn't have done it . I also voted Mark Dunau(Gr), a Delaware County organic farmer, over Hillary & The Suit, as I saw little difference between Hill & the BushBoy ( Keep in mind he was a downstate NY Republican = ~ TX Dem . ) This time though , even if it looks like an Obama mega-freakin'-super-duper landslide , I'll join in , to pile on , and make sure the R's can't dispute the mandate , and repudiation of THEM .

Hillary?(Never say never) Probably write-in Obama or Dodd( to make the FISA/Constitution point.- This is such a small town , that 1 vote can make a point, if you're willing to discuss it. At least the vote counters see it. )