Yeah, that's what happened in the late 30's and 40's under Roosevelt. Americans just gave up and let the government rock their cradle.

Why say progressives want "equal outcome" when no one is advocating that position? To be dishonest would be the first place to look.

All this nonsense just because Americans think the rich have had enough advantages and working families have a right to health care in the richest country in history.

After I graduate (get released) from Hillary's re-education camp, I hope she has a nice comfy place for me there.

During the most dangerous time of America's history….the Cold War….the nation did not institutionalize torture. They didn't vote to approve it. There were no presidents and presidential stooges endlessly advocating for it.

Yet now….with a medieval enemy who could never destroy or bring down America…..we have to torture.

It makes no sense. There's no perspective.

I don't suggest that Islamic extremism isn't a problem. But to say since 9-11 the dangers we face are worse than ever and therefore require radical means like torture…..is simply not credible.

The problem today is…….the promotion of fear by our leaders…to the extent that Americans will accept savage and illegal methods to keep them safe. Even if they won't.

Hypothetical once-in-a-billion scenarios are portrayed to justify cruel and unusual acts of barbarity.

It's not acceptable.

In the case of those 3 Al Qaeda guys, they KNEW they knew a lot. And the results checked out. I've even heard that 25% of the actionable intelligence on Al Qaeda came from those 3.

And calling Scalia a "nazi jurist" makes you dumber than a shovel, not to mention small-minded and hateful. Why must you demonize everything you disagree with ? What an ugly trait.

Explain to me the part of the Geneva Convention that applies to Al Qaeda. I don't think it applies to them at all.

I don't want to "institutionalize the same evil we're fighting",but I don't want thousands of americans to die in a terrorist attack either. I know perspective is difficult for you and you see everything as either black or white, but why don't you try to see both sides for once in your life ? A president weighed the lives of americans against some very temporary discomfort for 3 Al Qaeda killers following an attack on the US. This wasn't some theoretical game being played. All decisions are not simple.

In addition then, I guess, you would also approve of using torture in, at least, isolated criminal cases inside the country. The very same case you attempted to make would also be true from a threat from citizens inside the country.

Just a .1% need for torture, huh? It's like being a little bit pregnant. It's just a silly position to hold.

And while I'm at it…..this idea that Scalia, the Nazi jurist, expounded upon while in Europe about torture and the Constitution…..is ridiculous.

The Congress of the United States was a signee of the Geneva Conventions agreements. Any international contract entered into by Congress is Constitutional.

The question I would like to have answered is…..why is it that you want the U.S. to institutionalize the same evil that we say we're fighting? I don't get that part.

People who say harsh interrogation doesn't work are just trying to spin things for political reasons. Of course they work, but like I said, 99.9% of the time they should not be allowed.

And all your talk of a military dictatorship is inane. Haven't you figured out yet that judge's decisions come down to the opinion of ONE person ? When Bush goes to FISA for a warrant, ONE person decides that issue. When you go to traffic court, ONE person decides that issue. If we aren't going to put any decision-making powers in the hands of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, especially when it comes to matters of national security, then there isn't even a reason to have a president. You are way off the skids on this one. You BDS is hampering your judgement again.

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

You know who said that, right Roy? You do, right King? Apparently, the Attorney General knows as little about the Constitution as I do.

Of course torture works …. but not 100%.

In this regard, torture is like capital punishment. The death penalty does not deter all murders, but it sure cuts down on them. Ditto the laws against armed robbery, etc, etc.

And torture, by the way, was one of the main ways the French army cracked the terrorist cells in Algeria during the French-Algerian war (1954-1962).

But you ask, "Is torture counter-productive?"

The answer is "yes," if it is used indiscriminately. and "yes" again, if torture is used as punishment or out of frustration. But "no," torture is not counter-productive if it is used judicially and in special cases.

"And what do we do then, after harsh interrogation techniques are expressly prohibited by law, when the needed information is paramount ?

So I'd vote nay on that ban. I would leave it with waterboarding requiring the express approval of the attorney general and the president on a case-by-case basis, that would stop it from being abused, but I wouldn't ban it altogether, whether you want to call it torture or not."

Your mistaken assumption is that torture gets good results. Military experts disagree. Jack Bauer and you are experts?

But you embarass yourself when you hand the approval of crimes of savage torture over to 2 men. In the case of the Bush clan…..2 criminal men.

You are arguing for a military dictatorship. What is disturbing here is that you don't seem to understand what you're encouraging with your full acceptance of torture.

You really should rethink your position here. It's no different than bin Laden's.

I would accept an explanation of what waterboarding has to do with the Constitution. In over 25 years of teaching Government to high school kids I just didn't manage to run into any of that kind of thing and I assure you we read the whole thing each and every year. I think that there is some political activity there that doesn't happen to be in the wording of the document. There are possibly some words that escaped me all those years. I tried very hard to be as unbiased as I could but evidently I didn't manage to use any liberal thinking in the reading.

Do you suppose this difference in interpretation could have anything to do with my desire to use strict interpretation and your need to use liberal interpretations that seem to try to make the words fit the thinking of the reader no matter what they may say? Maybe liberal interpretation adds or subtracts some meanings from time to time. Sir, i do not believe in a "living Constitution". I do not believe that we change our interpretations to fit the specific times and our own desires.

Now I hope I have explained how I see the document and given you my beliefs in it to make your explanation simpler. Explain away, but if you must use the "living" form of interpretation I must tell you that it will sail over my head.

Something is bothering me about the last two votes you have reported. I wonder if Senator Graham is trying to set himself up as a Presidential candidate for 2012. He is following Obama and Clinton by not voting. It is obvious that they don't do it so that they aren't down on record on these important votes as Obama has managed to do througout his 4 year history in the Senate. I just wondered if anyone here has any idea what Graham is doing.

Personally, I think that waterboarding to attempt to protect the people of the United States from terrorist attack is pretty smart activity. Why terrorists have to be protected from our government, as it tries to protect us, escapes me as sound reasoning. Surely Rev Red will come along and explain to me how I am wrong.