Indeed, and I believe I've responded with equal graciousness.

Yes, but you believe all kinds of things, let's face it. As you and I and everyone here knows, you made the Code Pink comment purely to be insulting, and now you're backpedaling. Not surprising.

And as I said, I don't like [torture techniques] either. In fact I don't think you'll find anyone who IS in favor of them as an abstract. Whether or not they are necessary at any given time is a whole different matter.

No, Shooter, it's the exact same matter. Professional interrogators have come out to say that torture is no way to gather valuable intel. In other words, torture has no practical purpose, and is therefore never necessary. Its purpose here in the US is symbolic; to establish the president as beyond the law, and to demonstrate some extra humiliation to our Muslim enemies. Those politicians who choose torture as a method to achieve these goals, along with their enablers like you who defend their activities, do in fact favor torture as an abstract. One might suppose the only time they (you) would reject torture is if it were happening to them (you).

Most people understand that torture works.

I don't know about "most people." The people who do understand torture as being a productive practice are the ones who have no experience in that practice. Our intel community generally agrees that torture does not in fact work.

Regardless of polls, the reality that has to be worked with is a Congress (as a group) that perceives it's in their best interest to jawbone their position rather than vote against Bush.

You've finally arrived at the point of this thread. Yes, that is the reality. Members of congress (democrat or republican) enjoy their level of privilege and access, and are as risk-adverse as anyone with privilege and access. What this means is that Congress has generally abdicated its responsibility to represent their constituents, in favor of protecting their privilege and access. This means we no longer have a representative government, although it plays one on TV. I expect this makes no difference to you, Shooter, until they suddenly cancel Hee Haw or try and take away your assault rifle.

Shooter, your whole defense was already tried back in 1974 and found wanting:

Herein is a large problem with all the "illegal", "liar", "criminal", administration. Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, it's legal.

Sorry, you're wrong. We've got a statutory legal system, where our laws are written clearly. The president cannot go out and murder someone and have that murder be legal until the Supreme Court says otherwise. Nice try, but again, Nixon already tried the whole "if the president does it, then it's not illegal" thing, and it didn't work.

The Supremes might be needed to determine whether or not a law or an action is constitutional. However, that is not necessary regarding torture. In this case, the US has signed the Geneva Convention, and according to our constitution, our foreign treaties are the same as domestic law. That is, it's already statutorily provided. In terms of precedence, also, we've got a long history of prosecuting people who torture (including waterboarding). So again, there is no legal controversy here.

Either way I'll take Mukasey's knowledge and experience over yours, with all due respect. Needless to say, since Mukasey was the Dem choice they are satisfied with his competence as well.

Are you saying that Mukasey's "knowledge and experience" can't possibly be trumped by his own corruption and desire to get ahead in a GOP administration, to where he might say something that isn't exactly true just as a means to an end? That, due to his "knowledge and experience," what he's saying just has to be correct? Really? And you're also extending this prestige to the Democrats in congress? You're saying that as long as the Democrats are for it, it's okay with you? Damn, Shooter, you're doing backflips now, holding up the Democrats in congress as the beacon of justice and democracy. Better stop before you get a nosebleed.

If your intent is to first terrorize and then embitter civilians, torture works.

I hadn't thought of that! Perhaps terror and bitterness are Bush's (and Shooter's) intent. Which explains Shooter's comment that "torture works." And explains the cumulative results of Bush's presidency which, shown in this new light, hasn't actually been a failure at all. It's been an unmitigated success!