I wish the second part of Graham's speech would take a closer look at the first part of Graham's speech.

That would be like asking a horse to check out it's own ass.

""Here's what I think happened [after Sept. 11, 2001]: the nation was rattled. The administration went on the offensive and they looked at some statutes on the book as a way I wouldn't have looked at. They were very aggressive."

I'm going to guess that the truth is that they had their eye on those statutes before 9/11 fell into their laps.

This goes back to whether Bush was really evil. Personally I think he may have meant well, but was completely misguided. Cheney, the chickenhawk, was scared shitless that we would get attacked again and decided laws were useless.

The words unintelligent and fearful are better adjectives than the word evil, when discussing the Bush Administration.

Ignoring the law isn't a crime? I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm called for jury duty.

Lindsey Graham is a nauseating little bitch.

I've watched the political career of Mr. Graham over the years, and to him a crime can only be committed if a white middle-aged guy is lying about getting fellatio, or a person of color is robbing a convenience store.

As for his ilk, to him they didn't commit crimes against humanity by implementing a torture regimen so nonchalantly that they used it too many times on the three "E-C" with no clear purpose.

Seemingly, to Graham our enemies are darker skinned, speak a different language, and practice a different religion - simple rational to excuse the unlawful behavior and policies of his buddies in the WH c. 2002 - 2006! -Kevo

But there is not one iota of doubt in my mind they were trying to protect the nation.

Similarly, I have no doubt that Hitler believed he was protecting Germany, Pinochet thought he was protecting Chile, Franco thought he was protecting Spain, Mugabe believes he's protecting Zimbabwe, Kim Jong-Il thinks he's protecting North Korea...

Why must these people be criticized when their intentions were/are pure?

By Graham's rationale, if I drove recklessly, caused and accident in which someone was killed, since I didn't intend to kill anyone, it's not a crime. However, that is not how most states (all?) view this type of act. It doesn't matter whether I was street racing or rushing to the hospital, though the circumstance might influence a jury or be considered at sentencing, I don't think it matters to the law.

So, what Lindsay is saying, because their intentions were good, knowing violating both federal law and international treaty, isn't a crime. This doesn't sound right to me.

...but the President perjured himself about a blowjob! Impeach him!!!

niceities are important.
huckleberry learned that at bob jones university...
"southern niceties" comprise a great deal of the theology at bob jones.

so niceties cover the dismissal of the rule of law ... nicely.

How the f*** is breaking the law not a crime? I don't think the word "crime" means what Graham thinks it means...

Here's what I think happened with Bernie Madoff: the market was rattled. Madoff went on the offensive and he looked at some securities statutes on the book as a way I wouldn't have looked at. He was very aggressive. He was going to make sure this loss didn't happen again, and he tried to come up with money-raising techniques, evaluating the law in a way I disagree with his evaluation. But there is not one iota of doubt in my mind he was trying to protect his firm.

But he made mistakes. He saw the law, many times, as a nicety that he couldn't afford.

So, he took a very aggressive interpretation of what the securities laws would allow, and that came back to bite us. It always does.

But that's not a crime. What we have to understand as a nation, is the fact that we embrace the rule of law is a strength, not a weakness.

Here's what I think happened [after Sept. 11, 2001]: the nation was rattled. The administration went on the offensive and they looked at some statutes on the book as a way I wouldn't have looked at. They were very aggressive. They were going to make sure this didn't happen again, and they tried to come up with interrogation techniques, evaluating the law in a way I disagree with their evaluation.

And I call bullshit. The Bush Administration let 9/11 happewn through plain old garden-variety incompetence, which included a heaping dose of ideological blindness. The intel that led to the famous August 6 PDB didn't come from torture, and yet the Bush Administration has never pointed to a single concrete action they took in response.

Given the other ways in which the Bush Administration milked 9/11 for political gain -- after first indulging in a frantic ass-covering effort as false as everything else they claimed -- Graham's premise is laughable.

But there is not one iota of doubt in my mind they were trying to protect the nation.

Sadly, the Convention against Torture does not include an exception for "trying to protect the nation," even if it were so.

But no -- the Bush Administration was, fairly demonstrably, interested in the well-being of the Bush Administration and its key supporters. We already know that they tried to torture people into giving false intel to bolster their case for the Iraq war.

"The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." --George Orwell, who knew a thing or two about official obfuscation, 1984

I agree w/ Saint Zak. I think Bush would've had us in Iraq sooner or later, 9/11 just prepped the mind set and removed the roadblocks.

Wow, McGruber, do you get some sort of prize if you post every bullshit wingnut talking point here?

Wasn't Graham part of the crew that took on impeaching Clinton because they had to uphold the rule of law when it came to testimony about a consensual affair before a grand jury regarding a sexual harassment suit?

And now the rule of law means bupkes?

Sadly, the Convention against Torture does not include an exception for "trying to protect the nation," even if it were so.

Quite the opposite, in fact, since Article 2 of the Convention provides that "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

Gosh, you don't think Lindsey is asking for EMPATHY do you?

Suddenly I realize I've never broken any Marijuana Laws. However, I have treated them as "niceties" for many years.

Whenever I see these justifications that rely on the reasoning, "what they did was against the law, but their intentions were pure...they just wanted to protect us," my reaction is simply, fine, let them stand trial and present their defense. If the jury buys it, or an appeals court buys it, they may walk (OJ walked, North and Poindexter walked, that's the way the system works). If the jury or the appeals courts don't buy it, they will go away for a long time. That is fine too.

There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion, but what the torture defenders are advocating isn't the right application. If the rule of law is to have any meaning at all, there have to be investigations and trials. Somebody high up has to be put in jeopardy at least for a short time. The alternative is arbitrary justice, which is no justice at all.

Here's what I think happened with OJ Simpson: his marriage was rattled. Simpson went on the offensive and he looked at some domestic violence statutes on the book as a way I wouldn't have looked at. He was very aggressive. He was going to make sure this divorce didn't happen again, and he tried to come up with conflict resolution techniques, evaluating the law in a way I disagree with his evaluation. But there is not one iota of doubt in my mind he was trying to protect his family.

But he made mistakes. He saw the law, many times, as a nicety that he couldn't afford.

So, he took a very aggressive interpretation of what the homicide laws would allow, and that came back to bite us. It always does.

But that's not a crime. What we have to understand as a nation, is the fact that we embrace the rule of law is a strength, not a weakness.

All this country really had going for it was an ideal of the rule of law and its equal application. Goodbye, America, you were OK while you lasted. Enjoy your slide into third-world irrelevance.

I have not looked at the law or cases interpreting the law, but I am pretty sure the mental state required for a conviction of torture is the INTENT TO TORTURE, not a bad reason for wanting to torture. In other words, even if the reason for some torture is to save the lives of the children, if you intend to torture and then actually torture, you are guilty of torture. That is the way criminal law works in the case of almost every crime. Lindsay Graham surely knows this.

Lindsay Graham is doing a performance art piece, perfectly enacting the willful ignorance and self deception used by Bush and Cheney, then dancing a parody around the intent.

"They were scared and angry after 911, but gosh, they didn't mean to hurt anyone."

Here's what I think happened with Osama bin Laden: his religion was rattled. Bin Laden went on the offensive and he looked at some anti-terrorism statutes on the book as a way I wouldn't have looked at. He was very aggressive. He was going to make sure this didn't happen again, and he tried to come up with asymmetrical warfare techniques, evaluating the law in a way I disagree with his evaluation. But there is not one iota of doubt in my mind he was trying to protect Islam.

But he made mistakes. He saw the law, many times, as a nicety that he couldn't afford.

So, he took a very aggressive interpretation of what the Federal Aviation Administration flight path regulations over large cities would allow, and that came back to bite us. It always does.

But that's not a crime. What we have to understand as a nation, is the fact that we embrace the rule of law is a strength, not a weakness.

[...]after watching the people speak their voice, liberals refuse to let the rule of law stay. They want the courts to decide. -- McGrubber, @11:21

Right. Because, of course, those rubes sitting on the courts' benches have absolutely no idea about laws. Unlike the voting public. You should always, *always*, ask the voting public to craft and interpret the laws and decide what's legal and what's not; those lawyers on the courts don't know squat, *ever*.

I'm off to rob me a bank or two and let no court tell me it's not legal.

Regardless of how you want to parse it, laws were broken multiple times during by the Bush Criminal Enterprise. That dumbocraps participated in retroactively 'legalizing' many of these crimes just adds an additional layer of disgust.

Of course torture is the biggie! It is illegal under American law. It is illegal under International law. It is what the United States tried and executed Japanese for after WWII.

Waterboarding is what the reich-wing and their corporate media echo chamber focus upon. It seems that the reich-wing continues to define what will be discussed and the corporate media willingly agree.

The torture practices done at the behest of Bush and the amerikan sheeple were not limited to waterboarding. Dousing people in water and then putting them in freezers is torture. Hanging people from hooks by their hands tied behind them is torture. Attaching electrodes to genitals and running voltage thru the wires is torture.

It is completely disgusting that there even continues to be a discussion about whether the United States should be torturing people. It is completely disgusting that Anti-American, Anti-Military assholes are allowed to provide justifications for torture. Every damn justification that they make can be used by other groups and countries as justifications for torturing Americans, civilian and military!

I love this McGruber character. He's like a Neo-Al. A caricature of everything wrong with the GOP. Nice job, I love performance art.

Please ignore McGruber the troll...

Until he provides a justification for torture that other groups and countries cannot use to justify torturing Americans, he is just an Anti-American, Anti-Military asshole.

Cheney is definitely a coward, his shameful 5 deferment draft dodging proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

To say that our government on that day was rattled is something I dispute. I'm not going to get into a 9-11 discussion, but ask yourselves these two questions:

Why did the training exercises that day that NORAD was conducting use the scenario of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings?

Why did Dick Cheney order Jets that were being scrambled to stand down?

McGruber, you are a freakin' moron. Affirmative Action? Ted Kennedy?

Get over it pal! It's the 21st century now! You're still fighting the 70's and 80's culture wars... which you people lost!

Now, if you want to continue to be brain fed by your leader, the AM talk radio show guy we all know as Mr. Anal Poisoning himself Lush Limpballs, by all means, go ahead.

just step aside and let real patriotic Americans solve the problems you conservative idiots left us.

PRESIDENT OBAMA is 100 times the man any republican moron could ever hope to be.

Attention slackers without professional integrity: Could we get at least one hour of work a day out of you? Why do you think you never advance beyond this dead end job?

Ok, McGruber, I'll bite.

Your post indicates that you don't have an argument to defend the Bush Administration's torture policy. I'll admit that is hard to defend the indefensible, but you Bush apologists have sure given it the old college try many times over the last 8+ years. What Bush authorized was torture. Full stop. The "EIT's" were in direct contradiction to the Geneva and UN Conventions, as well as US law. The efficacy of the torture and the intentions of those who authorized it has no bearing on the legality of the program. If this nation truly respects the rule of law then there should be no debate as to what needs to happen next.

But see, McG, you got nothing so you attack liberals on a completely unrelated issue and make yourself look stupid doing it. You actually think that a citizen challenging the constitutionality of a law - especially a law that limits that citizen's rights - is disrespecting the rule of law? Did you take Civics 101? You should also understand that a law that is passed, even if it was supported by 99.9% of voters, is not automatically constitutional. So when a court rules against these marriage bans they aren't "legislating from the bench", or displaying "judicial activism", or "ignoring the will of the people." They are, in fact, doing their constitutionally mandated role in the process. I know that sucks for you and your ignorant, bigoted ilk, but you will have to take that up with the Founders.

The least we can have is to know what happened - even if we don't end up punishing people when "extenuating circumstances" are accepted. We ought not to turn the page until we've read it, as Pat Leahy said.

Lindsay Graham made a stupid remark about the British and Northern Ireland which tells me he has no idea what he is talking about. He does not even know what the conflict was about!

A Brit

McGruber, you have a point about letting the States decide marriage rules: but guess who wants the Federal Govt. to intervene and nullify those State decisions on account of the meddler's own prejudices? Conservatives, through the DOMA etc. I don't think any but the most radical liberals want to force States to accept gay marriage (I don't), so that's mostly a straw man.

As for affirmative action, the point is to protect or compensate from discrimination based on historical patterns, not to express ideas about the helplessness of the affected minorities. It is indeed game to wonder whether given policies are still good ideas, etc.

BTW, the first few were funny but the SNL "McGruber" skits are getting tiresome (except IIRC the real McGyver was on once.)

BTW' folks, the torture issue isn't just about waterboarding and some "lite" stuff - some prisoners apparently died from beatings etc. It's worse than even the usual trade-off we are arguing over. Steve, more on those cases.

"a nicety we can't afford,"

Isn't that how Republicans see all laws?

McGruber, you are a freakin' moron. Affirmative Action? Ted Kennedy?

McGruber was fairly entertaining there for a while with his Wingnut Bingo, but he sure ran out of anything interesting to say quick.

McGruber, you have a point about letting the States decide marriage rules

I disagree. As usual, the issue isn't what conservatives want to frame it as -- marriage rules -- but rather whether the State normally McGruber rails against can deny the rights associated with marriage to a select group of people. You know, like they used to forbid interracial couples from marrying, citing "tradition." Sadly for mcGruder, denying rights to an entire category of people isn't legal even if it is adopted by popular vote.

It truly is a case of separation of Church and State. The Church can recognize anything it pleases as marriage, and no one -- except dihonest Republicans -- is claiming otherwise. Under the constitution, however, states can't grant the rights and benefits of marriage to a certain class and deny it to another.

I disagree that McCain's bunker buddy should get the quote of the day!

---------------------------------

Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate affiliated with several Christian right groups over the years, said the discussion should not come down to “Would Jesus torture?�

“There are a lot of things Jesus wouldn’t do because he’s the son of God,� he said. “I can’t imagine Jesus being a Marine or a policeman or a bank president, for that matter. The more appropriate question is, ‘What is a follower of Jesus permitted to do?’�

Bauer said the answer is “it depends� — but the moral equation changes when the suspect is not a soldier captured on a battlefield but a terrorist who may have knowledge of an impending attack. He said he does not consider water-boarding — a form of interrogation that simulates drowning — to be torture.

“I think if we believe the person we have can give us information to stop thousands of Americans from being killed, it would be morally suspect to not use harsh tactics to get that information,� Bauer said.

------------------------------------------

To say that Jesus would agree to torture strikes me as even more egregious than Lindsey turning himself inside-out to justify the Bush Criminal Enterprise.

McGruber - Whether or not you think waterboarding or any of the other "EIT's" are torture is not relevant to the discussion. That determination has already been made. The fact that there are ignorant and dishonest apologists like you trying to minimize what these procedures are(waterboarding = just dunking his head underwater, stress positions = sitting uncomfortably) does not change the fact that these techniques fit the very definition of torture under US law and our obligations under the Geneva and UN Conventions. Soldiers have been convicted of war crimes for committing these very acts in the past. The real question is not whether crimes were committed, it is whether or not this country has the moral and political will to do what must be done.

Of course you don't think it's torture. I would have expected no different answer from you. If one of ours was captured by Iran or North Korea and was being submitted to these very same "EIT's", I suspect however, that you would be signing a very different tune.

BTW, Obama threw out the "toolbox" with the rest of George "we do not torture" Bush's garbage.

As an old Republican, I am distressed to see the ignonimy offered up by the likes of McGruber!

Here's a bit of advice to ol'McGruber - embrace the living wonderment of humanity, and lose the myopia of a dead ideology that was rendered bankrupt by the most recent policies of the immediate past Republican administration.

Stand up for being really real, and not cowered into pushing throw-back debunked intellectual drivel upon the rest of us! -Kevo