Bush Admin: McCain Torture Ban Doesn't Apply to Gitmo

How much lower can this country sink in the moral septic tank currently known as the White House?

From the Washington Post:

U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban
McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison

By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 3, 2006; A04

Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.

In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."

Government lawyers have argued that another portion of that same law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, removes general access to U.S. courts for all Guantanamo Bay captives. Therefore, they said, Mohammed Bawazir, a Yemeni national held since May 2002, cannot claim protection under the anti-torture provisions.

So anything -- anything -- goes at Guantanamo? No law, no restraints, nothing? That is what that signing statement meant?

Words fail me.

I hope they don't fail Sen. McCain. Somehow I doubt this is what he had in mind when he authored the torture ban.

•  Once again, the test is on McCain...

  we'll see how he reacts...and how quickly he runs away again with his tail between his legs.

  The last 5 years have been the worst fucking nightmare I've ever had.

  by Elise on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:24:35 PM PDT

  •  Sense of the Senate resolution, John.

    You can't escape it, you goddamned eunuch!

    If you won't move even a non-binding Sense of the Senate resolution rejecting this interpretation, you're a waste of carbon, Mr. Straight Talk Express.

    by Kagro X on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:53:59 PM PDT

    •  McCain

      has traded his soul and the suffering he and other pow's endured for the kiss of Judas from GWB.  He has lost his voice and moral standing in his quest to become acceptable to the Bush/Cheney wing of the republican party.  It is ungly.

      by jersy on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:00:57 PM PDT

      •  What do you expect?

        It's John McCain (R:A-B)

        by BonScott on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:27:16 PM PDT

        •  We Need a National Anti-Torture Movement

          You can find an effort to start one here:

          National Religious Campaign Against Torture

          by theologicus on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:49:04 AM PDT

  •  I'm sure they'll soon be hugging

    by steelman on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:59:10 PM PDT

  •  I will bet dollars to doughnuts

    Run away is exactly what he will do.  

    "With all due respect the president is wrong on this... blah blah blah"
    "America is better than this blah blah blah"
    "We just won't do that, no matter what the president says"

    But amidst all of his firm talk, with a gleam of righteousness in his eye; at the same time he gives stirring speeches that sound like he might be proud to be an American; no matter what he says he will do; we all know he will do nothing.  

    He will vote for cloture whenever GWB winks at him, no matter the issue.  He will vote in lockstep with Frist, no matter what his CORE VALUES say.  He will threaten filibusters, rogue legislation and alignment with Democrats for the good of America.  But when the votes are cast, he will drink the Kool-Aid.  Bank on it.

    by WI Deadhead on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:15:21 PM PDT

    •  And aligned he will be

      "But when the votes are cast, he will drink the Kool-Aid"

      In which case, he will at least be making good on his promise to align with the Democrats, no?

      by Free Spirit on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:01:38 PM PDT

    •  And many of my Dem friends, who think

      McCain, who never met a war he didn't like, is "awesome," and many independents, will vote for him over a Democrat in '08. Thus ensuring us some more wingnuts on the Supreme Court, more war, no balanced budget, hatred of gays and immigrants, and 4 more years of a man who cannot govern.

      He does look sick to me, though, and he has that terrible lump on the side of his neck.  Does anyone know what that is??

      by adigal on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:11:00 AM PDT

      •  It's

        what's left of his conscience, desperately trying to fight its way out his body.

        by corvo on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:26:43 AM PDT

      •  Yup

        Indies worship the man, for reasons I can not fathom.  Hopefully, he won't win the Rep nom in 08, either due to ill health or because the wingnuts won't let him, because if he does and remains healthy, he will win the general election.

        by Geotpf on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:38:11 AM PDT

    •  McCain

      Right. McCain has always been a loyal "party wife." His PR is unbelievable as his near-extremist record often gets described as moderate.  Live and learn.

      by notthegop on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:59:58 AM PDT

  •  awwwwwwwwww,

    poor little johnny mccain. dealing with your huggy cake buddy is just...ummm...errr....torture! isn't it?

    by nonnie9999 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:41:39 PM PDT

  •  Why pass laws?

    This is McCain's test.  Does the Senate have any value anymore?  Does his responsibility to the principles that this country was founded on matter to him at all?  Or is he willing to toss that all out in the interests of party loyalty.

    Bush has, in effect, wiped his ass with McCain's amendment.  If detainees cannot get a hearing before a court, then a law preventing their torture is irrelevant.  I knew this when they signed it, I just didn't think it'd happen this soon.  Hell I'm susprised they bothered, I mean why not just site the Commander-in-Chief prievelege?  I guess there's value in feigning an interest in adhering to the law even if you'll never do it in practice.

    McCain, your call?  Are you going to do the right thing or is this game over for what little integrity our government had left.

    by sterno on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:27:20 AM PDT

    •  If the Department of Justice is

      working this hard to avoid oversight of the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, can there be any doubt at all about how that prison is being or has been operated?  

      This is simply appalling.

      by VoicelessInDC on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:58:25 AM PDT

  •  Okay John

    Can the Republican senate get out of Bush's armpit and fight or not.

    

    by enough on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:38:47 AM PDT

    •  Look at McCain's face in this picture

      Doesn't it look like the face of a man who is struggling not to throw up, because he knows he's just sold his soul?

      by litigatormom on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:48:33 AM PDT

      •  No,

        it's the face of blissful repose, safe in the bosom of power.

        by corvo on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:27:27 AM PDT

•  And Yoo strikes again

  line up the children for the testicle crushing.

  bush is in a torturing mood...

  by georgia10 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:25:14 PM PDT

  •  Oh, G-10.

    Testicle crushing just hurts to read. I'm dizzy now.

    hink

    by MrHinkyDink on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:28:35 PM PDT

    •  Mine just retreated...

      ... and may not come down for a while.  Ewwww.

      by Derelict Dog on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:25:36 PM PDT

      •  i don't have testicles...

        but even i had to cross my legs.

        by nonnie9999 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:43:48 PM PDT

        •  Testicles disprove intelligent design

          The position, sensitivity and aesthetics are all wrong.  

          by goldberry on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:31:20 AM PDT

          •  Oh really

            You certainly have some pair of balls to say something like that.

            by The Termite on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:25:04 AM PDT

            •  I have been told that

              but I have more practically positioned ovaries instead.  (Also a flawed design)
              Let's just say that I'm a connosoir (sp).  

              by goldberry on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:27:20 AM PDT

  •  This is how they regain ground...

    ...on "strong on national security."  Anyone that cries "foul" may expect to be tarred with the "pre-9/11 mindset" characterization.

    Sadly, this is still effective in some quarters.

    by Pyewacket on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:51:52 PM PDT

  •  Does testicle crushing count as

    "organ failure."

    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:49:19 AM PDT

    •  Yes, but you see...

      Your right to not have your testicles crushed is clearly overridden by the president's war powers. I mean, the Congress did authorize him do anything to protect us, and what better way to do that than to prevent terrorists from breeding?

      So you see, testicle crushing is one of the centerpieces in the war on Terra.

      by orimk on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:32:15 AM PDT

•  Senator McCain

  Will nothing wake you from your POTUS-dream induced stupor?

  by emptywheel on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:25:17 PM PDT

  •  Is McCain the only Senator who can

    try to get torture banned?  He isn't allowed to go against the president so I'm sure he's not going to say a damn thing.  For all we know they set this up on purpose to make him look like a martyr for a good cause (2008).

    That, and the public don't know what in the hell a presidential signing statement is. And when's the last time you heard anything about this on the magical talking picture box?

    by exiledfromTN on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:30:35 PM PDT

    •  BTW

      OT a bit but I just wrote my senators and Congressman and told them to support impeachment.

      Felt really good.  

      by exiledfromTN on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:36:50 PM PDT

  •  No kidding.

    McCain's been acting like a hungry dog, lately. He wags his tail and waddles up to Bush never knowing if he's going to get a little sliver of meat or a swift kick in the ribs.

    hink

    by MrHinkyDink on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:31:57 PM PDT

    •  cake anyone?

      

      by enough on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:48:31 AM PDT

      •  Why isn't McCain licking W's finger

        for him?  He's already licked everything else, at least this way he'd get some icing.

        by litigatormom on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:50:15 AM PDT

        •  He's wait permission to lick W's finger

          when W has finished licking it.

          by enough on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:53:13 AM PDT

          •  Ah thanks for the explanation

            I forgot that as a spineless running lap dog of the Administration, McCain can't take the initiative in licking any Bush body part, but must wait to be instructed.  

            by litigatormom on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:07:25 AM PDT

  •  Don't be so hard on John

    Just think of what he's doing as the GOP counterpart to the Dems who were positioning themselves for a Presidential run in 2003-04 by voting for the IWR (need I go through a list and remind you who they were?) in the fall of 2002.

    Look, folks:  Politics is a dirty business, and if you want to win and be "king of the mountain," you've got to be ready to sell out a whole lot of things most normal people hold dear . . . or at least say they do.

    That's why psychological studies have shown that the field of work that attracts the most sociopaths is politics.

    Even though many of us knew that Bush was lying about Saddam during the fall of 2002, and were telling the leading Dem contenders for President as much back then, they decided to listen to the conventional wisdom propounded by the DLC and decided to "stand with the President" in order to not have their patriotism questioned when they made their bids for the White House (funny how for all of their sell outs, NONE OF THEM GOT WHAT THEY SOLD THEIR SOULS FOR.)  Thus, they enabled Bush's subsequent decisions that have so far sent TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE TO THEIR DEATHS.

    So, don't be so hard on John McCain's sell-outs. . . unless you are ready to be equally as hard on many of the "leading Dems," some of whom post here on Kos.

    Like I said, politics is a DIRTY, DIRTY business.

    Welcome to the REAL WORLD.

    by SpermDonor on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:24:56 PM PDT

    •  you have hit upon the problem...

      we have run out of patriots. now, it is all about 'winning'. i thought mccain was supposed to be a war hero who is always willing to put his life on the line for this idea we call america. so why is he not prepared to put his principles out there, even if his political life might be at risk?  

      by nonnie9999 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:54:55 PM PDT

      •  We have not run out of patriots...

        Witness John Murtha.

        by steelman on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:11:21 PM PDT

        •  Yes...and,

          witness the Hon. John Conyers.

          by maxschell on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:48:40 PM PDT

          •  And Russ Feingold!

            by Geotpf on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:43:03 AM PDT

            •  And...

              ...Max Cleland.

              by turnover on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:15:16 AM PDT

              •  mas cleland's pic...

                should be next to the word 'patriot' in the dictionary.
                forgive me for taking up so much space (refer back to the original thread if i sound like a lunatic). i don't know how others read over here, but i always check to see if anyone has responded to me before i read the new stuff.
                i wanted to come back here and make sure i apologize to all those who called me out. i deserved it. i was angry when i wrote my post, and--i was going to say fell victim to, but i am not a victim, i am a perpetrator--i unwisely used hyperbole, to the detriment of my ultimate purpose--to make a point. i should not have been so sloppy, and i hang my head in shame. i did not mean to say that there are no patriots left in this country. what i really meant to say is that the title is too blissfully bestowed upon people who don't deserve it. i think there are a lot of patriots--from the 'little' people working hard to raise their families and trying to make this country and world a better place to those who wield their power to restore this country to what it has always supposed to be.
                i humbly apologize, and i promise to speak a little more carefully in the future.

                by nonnie9999 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:28:08 PM PDT

            •  feingold is gold to me...

              full apology to follow

              by nonnie9999 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:19:00 PM PDT

          •  love conyers...

            full apology to follow

            by nonnie9999 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:18:01 PM PDT

        •  correct, full apology...

          further down, as i owe others an apology.

          by nonnie9999 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:17:27 PM PDT

      •  Wrong question

        Surely the cattle stampede for the "electable" Democratic candidate in 2004...in order to WIN...did not escape your notice?

        If the ordinary citizen, who has no political career to risk, will not put their principles out there, why would we expect their elected representatives to do so?  They do in fact represent us, you know.  Much more accurately than many of us would like to think, too.

        by Free Spirit on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:12:50 PM PDT

        •  i don't agree with that...

          i did notice that the 'electable' dems aren't elected. one reason is diebold. the other is that we are forced to choose between candidates who survive iowa and new hampshire. i would rather select from the full menu, not told to select among the leftovers. when the democratic party allows democrats--the grassroots real democrats select their nominees instead of having them thrust upon us, voters will once again be able to vote for their principles.
          it's like the olympics. all the big sports companies signed up michelle kwan and bode miller. all tv cameras were on them. so what happened? michelle dropped out, and bode didn't even try to ski without a hangover. that's why people don't even bother to watch the olympics anymore. it is all hype. we are forced to watch those nauseating fuzzy-lensed life stories of the people the corporations have told them to focus on. we don't get to see anything about those athletes who come from behind and win gold after relying on nothing more than determination and love of their sport.
          i said earlier on another thread that i don't mind if the repugs want to concentrate on villifying hillary. i don't believe she will be our nominee. i don't think average democrats will stand for that if the powers that be in the democratic party decide to focus on her. while a lot of people are not paying attention yet, we are. it is our responsibility to remind the powers that be that without our votes, they and their choices are nothing. those are our principles, and we intend to put them on the line.

          by nonnie9999 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:31:52 PM PDT

          •  I hope you are right, but...

            i don't think average democrats will stand for that...

            Average democrats have been allowing a handful of states (really, their party leaders) to select their candidates for them for many generations now.  It seems to me they will stand for almost anything.  At least when it comes to doing something about it.  They will complain about everything.

            while a lot of people are not paying attention yet..

            A lot of people have not been paying attention "yet" for a very, very long time. "Yet" seems to be forever just around the next bend.

            ...we are. it is our responsibility to remind the powers that be that without our votes, they and their choices are nothing.

            Hear, hear!  Perhaps I should amend the original statement to "there are not enough patriots."

            those are our principles, and we intend to put them on the line.

            Bravo.  What exactly does that mean?

            when the democratic party allows democrats--the grassroots real democrats select their nominees instead of having them thrust upon us

            They will never allow you to do anything.

            by Free Spirit on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:51:27 AM PDT

            •  i see the world through...

              muddy-water colored glasses. i am not an optimist by any means, so ordinarily i would agree with you. however, i think the shit has hit the fan, and the american people are finally saying that enough is enough. some people who were not paying attention had their eyes opened by the war. still more by katrina. now that the port scandal might actually touch their pristine little world, even more will start to question what the hell is going on.
              we have 2 currencies in this fight. one is dollars and the other is votes. i know that i have very little of the former, so i try to use the latter as strategically as possible. i don't email my rep or senators for every little thing. i don't want to be known as the crank who bitches and moans about everything. i don't write letter to reps or senators outside of my area unless they do something i consider so aggregious that it needs to be addressed. we have to realize that we are not going to fix everything at once, so we pick our battles.
              the biggest obstacle we have are those dems in power with whom we disagree, but who are so safe in their districts or states that they don't give a damn what we think. therefore, if we want to be smart, we threaten the ones who are not so safe. we write to the party leaders and let them know that there will be no support for dems in peril if we are not given more power, including--and most importantly--the ability to pick our own candidates. how? keep up the online polls. point out to the powers that be that if we lose again with one of their candidates, they will be held responsible. they can no longer plead ignorance if we have data that shows that another candidate would have done much better.
              i've rewritten my answer to you 5 times. i am not sure that this version is the best one or not. after i deleted the last version, i had almost decided not to answer at all. by this time, nobody will be reading this thread. however, you took the time to answer me, so it is only right that i take the time to answer you. besides, i think that we are pretty close in our thinking. i am not some wide-eyed innocent who thinks everything is going to be hunky-dory. i am pissed off. however, i refuse to throw up my hands and let the bad guys win without a fight. i hope you feel the same way.

              by nonnie9999 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:03:36 PM PDT

              •  I am happy you responded

                But one can only take this kind of discussion so far on a dKos diary.  Would you like to continue via email?

                by Free Spirit on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:51:44 PM PDT

    •  Ah, but you contradict yourself a bit here

      if you want to win and be "king of the mountain," you've got to be ready to sell out

      (funny how for all of their sell outs, NONE OF THEM GOT WHAT THEY SOLD THEIR SOULS FOR.)

      Selling out does not win.  It's a mantra repeated in order to persuade people to sell out.

      by Free Spirit on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:07:33 PM PDT

    •  Welcome to the real world

      history will cringe

      if we still have an atmosphere

      http://www.starvation.net/

       On Tuesday September 11, 2001, at least 35,615 of our brother and sisters died from the worst possible death, starvation. Somewhere around 85% of these starvation deaths occur in children 5 years of age or younger. Why are we letting at least 30,273 of the most beautiful children die the worst possible death everyday? Every 2.43 seconds another one of our fellow brothers and sisters dies of starvation. Starvation doesn't just happen on Tuesday September 11, 2001, it happens everyday, 365 days per year, 24 hours per day, it never stops.

      The number 35,615 is a conservatively low number for the barbarically needless daily deaths the poorest of the poor die. If we were to add the next two leading ways the poorest of the poor die, water borne diseases and AIDS, we would be approaching a daily body count of 50,000 deaths. Yes, upwards of 50,000 people per day are needlessly dying on Earth. These deaths are dictated by the greed of a very few, and the rest of us are not changing it -- or this ultimate sin wouldn't be happening, now would it? Let us not forget that the vast majority of these needless deaths are of children 5 years of age and under. One person every 2 seconds needlessly dies from starvation, water borne diseases or AIDS.

      by Peter Pan on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:56:02 AM PDT

  •  John McCain is a war criminal

    Don't ever forget: John McCain is a war criminal. He was shot down over Vietnam in the process of bombing a lightbulb factory.

    by elishastephens on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:46:15 AM PDT

•  Septic tanks

  actually start treating sewage: in one, "natural bacterial action decomposes human waste products into environmentally acceptable components."

  I'm just saying, that's an awfully positive term for  this fucking administration.

  by MissLaura on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:27:01 PM PDT

  •  Ok, I can't resist pimping this old diary

    a Ring Lardneresque monologue by a septic system builder, holding forth on George Bush.

    Bush on Iraq: the view from the ground

    I thought, and think, it was a splendid metaphor for everything idiotic about Bush supporters. Nobody else thought the diary was worth a damn though, which sort of surprised me.

    by smintheus on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:37:47 PM PDT

    •  It takes a different kind of reading

      than most diaries around here.  If I didn't have the context of your comment here, I'd have found it difficult, and I've actually put in a lot of time around septic system installations.  That being the case, it sounds familiar...

      by MissLaura on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:43:25 PM PDT

      •  We had a problem much like this

        when we bought our house, the old system was built in the most half-witted way, and then crushed by some other dimwit with an oil truck.

        It occured to me that many workers, like the guy who built our new system, take such pride in their own work and are so careful to plan every part of a project out in advance...so how could they reconcile their own habits and attitudes, with support for an utterly reckless clown like Bush? How do you reconcile a deep-bred suspicion of every move that local politicians make, with a willingness to swallow any nonsense that DC pols give out?

        by smintheus on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:35:44 PM PDT

        •  One of my friends

          who is a Republican, and a skilled installer of septic systems, I often feel is a Republican like he's a Crimson Tide fan.  They're his team, he roots for them.  I mean, he's a smart guy, but honestly back before it got too painful to talk politics, if I took it policy by policy, he'd even acknowledge (jokingly but definitely) that it was against his self interest to be a Republican.  And he didn't give a damn about gay rights - felt like it was just fine for anti-sodomy laws to be overturned and didn't exactly support gay marriage but wasn't going to sit around worrying about it either.  Except that then he did buy into the whole War on Terror = War on Iraq bullshit.  But...I don't know.  I can't figure it.

          by MissLaura on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:49:43 PM PDT

          •  well, he installs septic tanks...

            so, it follows that septic tanks are his bread and butter. therefore, he is used to eating and digesting shit. i think he makes a perfect repug!

            by nonnie9999 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:01:05 PM PDT

            •  septic tanks are empty when installed, n/t

              by smintheus on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:03:44 PM PDT

              •  Well, if we're going to pick nits

                Unless he only installs systems where none have previously existed i.e. at new home sites, I'm sure he is plenty familiar with encountering shit, therefore nonnie9999's comment seems to hold... um... water.

                by greeseyparrot on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:54:43 PM PDT

    •  That is a great diary

      Shoot, and it only got one comment.

      People should go read it.

      by SusanG on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:43:28 PM PDT

      •  Why thank you

        It's such a relief to hear that somebody thinks it has some merit. I pondered for days about how to compose this diary as subtlely as possible, and then it just fell flat as a pancake.

        Here's one of my favorite grafs:

        "It's all Saddam's fault anyway. He's the one who chose to go to war against us, we didn't attack him. He kicked out the inspectors. If he didn't want war, he shouldn't have done that."

        by smintheus on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:26:41 PM PDT

    •  Really

      Go read it it is very clever and well done.

      by NearlyNormal on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:20:07 PM PDT

•  No right without a remedy used to mean

  something.  Let's hope it still does.

  by mvr on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:27:03 PM PDT

  •  but there is a remedy...

    "Unfortunately, I think the government's right; it's a correct reading of the law," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "The law says you can't torture detainees at Guantanamo, but it also says you can't enforce that law in the courts."

    Let's see... executive branch breaks the law, judicial branch can't do anything about it, that leaves... legislative branch... remedy... Constitution... oh yeah, impeachment!

    Add it to the list of high crimes and misdemeanors...

    by pb on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:03:50 AM PDT

    •  What kind of a law is that?

      So the law says that it (itself) isn't enforceable? Aside from the impeachable offenses list, add this one to the list of laws that the executive has prevented from being enforced, when his job is to enforce them.

      Here's another "freedom is slavery" quote from the article:

      Guantanamo Bay officials deny that the tactics constitute torture. They wrote in sworn statements that they are necessary efforts to ensure detainee health.

      We torture them to save them.

      (Talking about force-feeding them via "nasal-gastric tubes and restraint chair" but still, ick.)

      by OldGrandet on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 04:21:02 AM PDT

•  This is DISGUSTING!!!

  how can these people live with themselves?

  for something a bit more uplifting...please take a peek at Whitecat's diary on a children's worldwide peace & art project:

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  PEACE

  by PeaceIsBeauty on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:28:01 PM PDT

  •  that is a lot more cheerful for sure

    cool diary

    by RumsfeldResign on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:45:00 PM PDT

  •  Question

    >>>>
    This is DISGUSTING!!!  how can these people live with themselves?
    >>>>>

    An even more important question is: "How can WE live with ourselves?"  This is supposed to be a democracy.  Hell...we've even got a big building in Washington that holds 535 people who are SUPPOSED to represent US.  How in the world have we allowed THIS to happen?

    by aybayb on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:22:13 PM PDT

    •  Fall of The American Democracy

      If there is any doubt that we are left twisting in the wind by our politicians the recent news reports of american citizens being investigated for open public critical remarks on Bush is daily going un-noticed by everyone. A nurse is dismissed for writing a letter called threatening the President because she dared to say that Bush was being negligent in health issues. A teacher is dismissed because he permitted criticism in his classroom of Bush's State of the Union speech. Then of course there is the declaration by the Justice Dept. that reporters are subject to prosecution for treason if they publish leaks that they consider classified for national security reasons. Sieg Heil!!!!!!  

      by wlgriffi on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 03:30:02 AM PDT

•  One part of me,

  the nasty part, says that we should leave Gitmo as is, and just send all of BushCo there once sane people retake control of the goverment.

  Then the more rational part of me shoots the idea down, starting at "two wrongs don't make a right" and goes from there.

  But still, it's tempting.

  -dms

  by dmsilev on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:28:46 PM PDT

•  I don't laugh much anymore

  at the news of the world, but I just had to laugh and laugh when I spied this headline. How predictable is this group of thugs? It must be a bit like what it felt like watching Mussolini's cruds try to pretend they were leading Italy back to its glory days.

  by smintheus on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:29:17 PM PDT

  •  Ouch. I laughed also.

    I vividly recall Andrew Sullivan crowing that the anti-torture "good guys" had won, therefore everything was okay.

    by Bill White on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:53:40 PM PDT

  •  Friggin' A

    Mussolini, that is exactly right.  Pompous, arrogant, fool of a jackass tool that never really had a philosophy except grab while the grabbing is good and happily made himself a pawn of the very devil.  Got to play around with the Mussolini thing-Busholini or Il Dubya or something like that-he should hope that neither he nor the country end up that way.

    by NearlyNormal on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:54:12 PM PDT

    •  Il Dubya, I like it

      Anybody have a photo of Bush sticking his chin out, that would lend itself to a Mussolini photoshopping exercise?

      by smintheus on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:12:08 PM PDT

      •  Good-Give it hell

        I'm not one to photoshop, but I'd love to see a real nasty piece like dood abides did on Wizard of Oil.

        by NearlyNormal on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:37:06 PM PDT

•  This is s defining moment for McCain

  If John McCain does not raise all hell over this, his 'maverick' status will officially be dead. Personally, I lost respect for him a long time ago. He has been nothing more than a rubber-stamp on so many issues just like the rest of the senate republicans. His refusal to hold Bush accountable for breaking the law and lying to the country makes him just another neocon covering up for the president.

  by Deano963 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:31:25 PM PDT

  •  I get a little sad when I see him on TDS

    I think he wants to be liked and accepted.  Too bad he's looking for it in the wrong place.

    Call me crazy but in the back of my mind I always get the feeling that he knows he's sold out.

    by exiledfromTN on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:39:43 PM PDT

  •  His Defining Moment Was Long Ago

    He's a Republican.

    Nothing less.

    by Gooserock on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:18:37 PM PDT

    •  and nothing more - n/t

      by jlynne on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:22:25 PM PDT

  •  He's going to say

    that he basically didn't mean for it to apply to Gitmo in particular, but talk three or four layers of circles around it when he's on his next show.

    The latest real turning point for him was his going off on Obama, especially with how it motivated the KKK wing of the base.

    by BlueEngineerInOhio on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:30:43 PM PDT

•  Yup

  it's okay to torture "terrorists," at least according to my repug friend.  Forget that these people have not been convicted, much less charged.  This from a person who used to be a lawyer. Bottom line, repugs care more about their party than they do about their country.  Repubs are un-American and unpatriotic -- spread the word!

  by elveta on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:31:52 PM PDT

  •  not terrorists

    The latest analysis I have seen on who is at Gitmo is most of them have no connection with terrorism.
    

    by BradMajors on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:58:18 AM PDT

    •  That's what I've seen too n/t

      by elveta on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 07:38:45 PM PDT

•  How on earth...

  ... can a government of the people, by the people, and for the people to live with life, libert, and the pursuit of happiness possibly argue in favor of torture?!

  What. the. hell.

  by socratic on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:32:04 PM PDT

  •  And liberty too!

    wtf is libert?

    by socratic on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:32:30 PM PDT

    •  easy

      Its Q*bert's little brother.

      by voltayre on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:50:22 PM PDT

  •  Such a Government Can't And Doesn't n/t

    by Gooserock on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:19:08 PM PDT

•  there goessssss

  McCain chance to be pres.  < snicker >

  by OneCrankyDom on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:33:19 PM PDT

  •  How Could This Hurt McCain?

    If The Party nominates him, he'll have the Silicon vote wrapped up same as any other Republican.

    by Gooserock on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:22:52 PM PDT

•  mccain knew EXACTLY what he was doing...

  he wants the reputation of standing up for what's right - without actually having to do it.

  he agreed to have the Levin-Graham Amendment tied to his so-called anti-torture ban.

  by selise on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:33:27 PM PDT

  •  As I recall

    There was a lot of screaming around that time because of the Levin-Graham Amendment. The Repugs knew McCain's ban wouldn't pass without it, and that the amendment would provide an out for them.

    Not to mention the signing statement that read something like this: "This bill means I can put the screw to whoever the hell I want 'cause I said so."

    by PatsBard on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:59:49 PM PDT

    •  <screws>

      sigh

      So much for my delusions of editing grandeur.

      by PatsBard on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:00:50 PM PDT

      •  no one can see her own typos

        because you knew what you meant.  don't let it get to you.  :)

        by soyinkafan on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:04:18 PM PDT

        •  Thank you

          I feel better now.

          ;)

          by PatsBard on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:13:49 PM PDT

    •  we'd have been better off w/o it...

      torture was illegal BEGFORE mccain's bill - which sadly has, if its done anything, its lower our legal protections against torture.

      i despise what mccain has done.

      by selise on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:14:49 PM PDT

      •  McCain probably trying to have it both ways

        Standing up to the Administration in public, but giving them what they wanted under the table.

        In mid-2004, he changed course and decided to be a Bush suckup.  That's been his game ever since.  He wants to be President pretty badly, apparently, and it's working: the big money boys are starting to come around to his side.

        Worthless toady.

        by RT on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 03:29:23 AM PDT

        •  Love the sig

          especially given the Regnery family's UGLY history...i.e. all-white dating services.

          by BlueEngineerInOhio on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:34:04 PM PDT

      •  McCain is a Loser

        McCain has always been a weakling and an opportunist.  All anyone need remember is that it was he, after he and his family were attacked by the 2000 Bush campaign, who was later seen being a sycophant toward Bush to understand the corrupt nature of McCain's personality.

        by elephty on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:40:25 PM PDT

    •  McCain wanted the symbolic value

      of the bill, more than he wanted the substance.  He didn't want the bill to go down in flames, so he allowed it to rendered worthless so he could have a "win."  

      This is what comes from "working with the White House." This is what the White House means when it says it is willing to "listen to the Congress" about the domestic spying.  They are willing to give you a fig leaf so that you can tell your constitutents you "got" something, so long as you agree to add something that makes what you "got" worthless.

      You cannot do business with this White House.  Better to go down in flames if you want to tell your constituents that you tried to do the right thing.  This is something every Democrat needs to say over and over again this year.  There is no doing business with the White House.  There is no "working with" the White House.  There is only one thing: getting enough Democrats in Congress so that the White House has to do business with us. Until we impeach his ass.

      by litigatormom on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:01:03 AM PDT

•  McCain?

  A spokeswoman for McCain's office did not respond to questions yesterday.

  How many months has it been since McCain got a personal visit from Capt. Fishback?   For someone who gets it about the US torture policy, McCain hasn't said much to America on the subject.  Ran out of paper for press releases?

  Democrats need to demand a return to basic principles of human rights in US policy.   We need to be the loud ones here.

  by soyinkafan on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:33:27 PM PDT

•  Bipartisan Malfeasance

  Whether the signing statement means that or not is still legally irrelevant - like all signing statements and "whereas" clauses. The Grand Inquisition^W^WJustice Department is actually claiming that

  "the Justice Department lawyers argued that language in the law written by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) gives Guantanamo Bay detainees access to the courts only to appeal their enemy combatant status determinations and convictions by military commissions"

  So Senators Graham and Levin are to blame for writing such an obvious loophole. And of course those congressmembers who voted for the law (especially in committee), or against any amendments which would have closed such a loophole, are also liable.

  Send them to Guantanamo where we can torture them.

  by DocGonzo on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:33:49 PM PDT

  •  no no NO!

    Read THE LAW. The loophole as described DOES NOT EXIST. It says "appeals UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH" are limited. The paragraphs in question refers to the decisions of enemy combatant tribunals. The law in NO WAY says that these detainees are denied general access to the courts.

    by Politburo on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:26:30 AM PDT

    •  fuck!

      I missed Sec. 1005 (e)(1). It appears the loophole DOES exist. WTF

      by Politburo on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:34:25 AM PDT

      •  From the Desk Of

        Is there a way to trace the author of a given section of a bill? I want to know whether Levin is merely complicit in sponsoring such a criminal loophole, or whether he (his office) wrote it himself.

        by DocGonzo on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:31:34 AM PDT

•  Y'know what?

  Fuck McCain.  Fuck all of them.  They tease and tease and tease like they're going to behave like civilized and normal adults, and then they cave in.  McCain wants to be President -- to do so he has to go through the right wing, which is in love with Bush.  So he won't do anything to jeopardize his budding romance with the right, 'cause he needs them.  If some Ay-rab has to get his testicles crushed in a vice so John McCain can prove he's tough enough to take over the role of national Daddy to the bed-wetters on the right, then it's a sacrifice McCain is more than prepared to make.

  Jackasses, all of them.

  by jsmdlawyer on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:34:52 PM PDT

  •  js, I'm with you.

    McCain, McCain, McCain. I'm really sick of him. I say take his little flippers away, stick him back in the box, and ship him off to the jungle. Jesus, this crap really pisses me off.
    

    by The Gryffin on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:06:30 PM PDT

•  And don't forget ...

  We didn't do torture before we did it.

  And now we do it, but ... hey, fuck you, world! We do it because we can!

  Gawd, this is so thoroughly disgusting I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight.

  by SusanG on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:35:14 PM PDT

  •  November 7, 2005

    Headline:
    

    Bush: `We do not torture' terror suspects
    Response to question comes as exception is sought for CIA

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
    

    by talex on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:23:31 PM PDT

    •  You Mean BUSH Lied!?!?!??!

      by Kdoug on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:33:47 PM PDT

      •  You Forgot

        "AGAIN"

        by talex on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:45:42 PM PDT

  •  How to weasel

    The President says we don't torture, but wants to be able to nonetheless to save the people of Amurica, even tho he swore to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States, not its people.

    It doesn't count as US custody because it's not the US, even though it's operated by the US and staffed by US troops(unless they're subcontracting the torture they don't do.)

    Does our exalted supreme leader walk around with a "FUCK YOU, I'M FROM TEXAS" shirt all day?

    

    by BonScott on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:51:32 PM PDT

•  I'm sorry, but what the fuck use is...

  a torture "ban", when all it does is elicit a promise from the torturers that they will stop torturing? It is about as good as the promise to stop hitting his wife you get from a serial abuser.

  McCain may be fighting the good fight on this one, but his stance really ends up being a cover to keep the torturers in power.

  Bush should be impeached for abrogation of treaties, per the Constitution, where treaties that are ratified are said to have the power of LAW.

  (Watch out... here comes the all caps rant)
  IS THERE NO MORE FUCKING ACCOUNTABILITY IN THIS GODDAMN SOCIETY?
  

  by Valtin on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:36:59 PM PDT

  •  It's Not a Society

    And they're not a political party and they're not governing.

    They're something you lose your job for describing.

    by Gooserock on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:23:51 PM PDT

•  I think it's referring to

  Section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act, or someone correct me.

  by Viktor on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:37:15 PM PDT

  •  Section 1005 deals with review procedures

    Now, I'm not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV. But what I read there seems to say that the government lawyers are correct in saying that the detainees have no standing in U.S. courts.

    This is the part where it seems to me that the law says "fuck you" to anybody in U.S. custody outside of the U.S.:
    

    `(e) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider--

    `(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or

    `(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who--

    `(A) is currently in military custody; or

    `(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.'.

    by marathon on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:36:21 PM PDT

    •  no!

      That only applies to appeals of enemy combatant tribunals.. here is the act.. what did you paste from?

      by Politburo on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:28:12 AM PDT

      •  fuck!

        I see you pasted from the amended USC. I missed the critical part of the act at Sec. 1005 (e)(1). This is fucking ridiculous.

        by Politburo on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:38:22 AM PDT

        •  "Isn't that special?"

          From what I see, the only thing that a detainee is allowed to do is to appeal the ruling of the tribunal set up for them.

          So I'd like to know who would be allowed to hold the government accountable for torture if it isn't the one being tortured. Yeah, I know, it's not like any of the Republicans in charge are ever going to hold any of their own accountable.

          by marathon on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:28:23 PM PDT

•  Way to go, Georgie

  Just send Karen Hughes back to the Middle East.  They'll understand.

  Dolt.

  by skralyx on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:38:59 PM PDT

•  Cry, the beloved country

  I was brought up to be proud of our flag, of this nation.  That has been tested a lot of course, since 'Nam and Nixon:  but it can hardly get much lower than this.

  by ChiTom on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:39:58 PM PDT

  •  I cringe during the pledge

    I have this dilemma.  I'm a member of various civic-minded groups that each start meetings with the pledge of alligience.

    I just don't know how much longer I can mouth those words. How fucking sad is that?

    by Arabiflora on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:56:57 PM PDT

    •  it is a dilemma, isn't it?

      During the Olympics, with all the "national-pride" at stake, I just couldn't buy it.  Sad.

      by dash888 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:05:37 PM PDT

      •  On the other hand . . .

        . . . it may be the desire to be unashamedly proud that lead to our salvation?  

        Does this liberal "hate America"?  Hell, no!  I love it, and that's why all of this is so wrong, and why the Regime must go.  

        "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" (Jefferson):  ironically, I think that line has often been used by the really wacko Right, but I don't think I care to surrender it (or Jefferson) to them, either.

        by ChiTom on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:20:10 PM PDT

      •  Nice outfits though.

        I really dug your four-man bob. Black bob, black suits, black helmets. Really sinister looking, and suited your national image to a tee. It seemed more honest than all that old red-white and blue nonsense.

        by KMO on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:50:30 PM PDT

    •  To millions

      of people around the world, the concept of a  'pledge of allegiance' is, frankly, absurd. I've never been able to understand what is so admirable about it. Or what purpose it serves - other than to express the belief that support for authority should not be based on merit. Pledges of allegiance belong in the middle ages.

      by LodinLepp on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 07:31:30 AM PDT

•  What will an already testy congress

  make of this?
  This little announcement should make for a decent litmus test of congress' mood, actually.  I've been wondering if they really felt fed up with being marginalized or if they are just being fussy.  This should make for an interesting little eval moment.

  What will the judge make of it? It seems a little risky to have this decided on.  

  by Unduna on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:40:14 PM PDT

  •  As in, decided against them.

    These boys really don't seem to get the ever widening, ever clearer picture that it is the law that is going to be the end of them.

    They really are stupid with psychosis.

    by Unduna on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:44:21 PM PDT

  •  This is their intent

    That "testy" Congress voted for this rather explicit language. This isn't Abu Gonzalez redefining terms after the fact. This is what McCain intended. Make a big stink about torture but then pass a law that, in effect, legalizes it.

    His intent may have been, as we've seen with wiretaps, to pass a law that prevents pass torture victims from using the courts to prevent political embarassment for Bush. But, like the abused wife, he is in denial, because when does BushCo ever mean what they promise?

    by ineedalife on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 03:52:31 AM PDT

•  AMAZING

  instead of denying there's torture..they just say it's OK??????????????

  are you sure it's not Stalin in the whitehouse?

  by RumsfeldResign on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:41:59 PM PDT

•  Torture

  Slippery Slope

  From January 2004 to January 2005, I served in various places in Iraq (including Abu Ghraib) as an Army interrogator. Following orders that I believed were legal, I used military working dogs during interrogations. I terrified my interrogation subjects, but I never got intelligence (mostly because 90 percent of them were probably innocent, but that's another story). Perhaps, I have thought for a long time, I also deserve to be prosecuted. But if that is the case, culpability goes much farther up the chain of command than the Army and the Bush administration have so far been willing to admit.

  ...

  Those who serve in the prisons of Iraq deserve to know clearly the difference between legal and illegal orders. Soldiers on the ground need a commander in chief who does not seek strained legalisms that "permit" the use of torture. The McCain amendment, prohibiting "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment in all instances, is an accurate reflection of the true values of the military and American society. We should adhere to it strictly and in all cases. I know, from personal experience, that any leeway given will be used to maximum effect against detainees. No slope is more slippery, I learned in Iraq, than the one that leads to torture.

  Speaking of Torture, Didn't We Shut Down The Torture Rooms?

  Human rights abuses in Iraq are as bad now as they were under Saddam Hussein, as lawlessness and sectarian violence sweep the country, the former U.N. human rights chief in Iraq said Thursday.

  John Pace, who last month left his post as director of the human rights office at the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, said the level of extra-judicial executions and torture is soaring, and morgue workers are being threatened by both government-backed militia and insurgents not to properly investigate deaths.

  ''Under Saddam, if you agreed to forgo your basic right to freedom of expression and thought, you were physically more or less OK,'' Pace said in an interview with The Associated Press. ''But now, no. Here, you have a primitive, chaotic situation where anybody can do anything they want to anyone.''

  Pace, who was born in Malta but now resides in Australia, said that while the scale of atrocity under Saddam was ''daunting,'' now nobody is safe from abuse.

  ''It is certainly as bad,'' he said. ''It extends over a much wider section of the population than it did under Saddam.''

  by muledriver on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:43:32 PM PDT

•  Now I know why

  I didn't trust John McCain even though I wanted to think he was doing something important with his bill. Now it looks like Bush gets his way and McCain gained some "good guy" points without crossing him. Shout this out!  How about; "Torture is not alright with me or Jesus" and "McCain Anti-torture bill a phony".

  by Gram E on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:47:37 PM PDT

•  So the screaming point of this issue

  is that the Bush administration/Justice Department admits that it does torture, and will continue to torture, at least if the prisoner was captured before the McCain amendment.  This is their "loophole"?  Good god does the truth hurt.

  by drangel on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:48:25 PM PDT

•  Call a spade a spade.

  They just admitted to torture and told us to go fuck ourselves.

  by Five of Diamonds on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:48:54 PM PDT

•  Somehow. . .

  I doubt Johnny Boy will object too much. He got his brownie points from the legislation, it's not his job to teel the truth on the Fascists, he's one of them after all. Did he object to Shitboy's "signing statement"? Er. . . um. . . no.

  McCain is the next pig they're going to slap lipstick on and run as a "real" conservative and the fascist policies will continue, the same elites will pull his strings and Leo Strauss will smile from the pit of hell as all we unworthies will have yet another "gentlemanly" leader from the moneyed class.

  Conservatism whether "real" or the Shitboy variety is the problem, it is these policies over the past 25 years that have brought us to the brink of destruction, economically, civically and morally but they're going to pitch the shitboy as an aberration and Johnny Boy as the real thing.

  I wish the Vietnamese had ripped his fucking arms out, as well as his lying tongue, the murderous piece of shit. Bombing poor people who never did a damn thing to America. Gee, what a hero.

  Fuckers, the lot of 'em.

  by Dave925 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:51:19 PM PDT

•  I'd like to hear from

  McCain, because it a slap to his face.
  The Military, because they know how stupid policies like this are, and because it trashes everything they stand for.
  Any God Damn Democrat- just to see if they're awake.

  by bornadem on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:52:49 PM PDT

•  I read all your posts from another country..

  ..and I am reminded of Alan Paton's book about Apartheid South Africa. There are some lines in it that I am hearing you all say about how you feel in regard to the country you love and I share your grief:

  "Cry, the beloved country, for the unborn child that is the inheritor of our fear. Let him not love the earth too deeply. Let him not laugh too gladly when the water runs through his fingers, nor stand too silent when the setting sun makes red the veld with fire. Let him not be too moved when the birds of his land are singing, nor give too much of his heart to a mountain or a valley. For fear will rob him of all if he gives too much."
  

  by Welshman on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:54:09 PM PDT