Waterboarding is A-OK Congress says.

AP reports:

"The House approved an intelligence bill yesterday that would prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding, mock executions, and other harsh interrogation methods."

How absurd! Are these Democrats trying to get us all killed?

Naturally, the White House has threatened a veto.

It's amazing in this day and age that we're actually debating whether barbaric techniques like waterboarding are really torture or not and that no one seems to be particularly concerned that their president and 199 members of Congress think that torture is A-OK.

Just go out and shop. Let W. and his men in black worry about what is and what isn't torture. Soon enough, Kiefer Sutherland will be out of jail and "24" will be back to make you feel much better about the whole thing.

But, I digress . . .

Here's an example of the "enhanced interrogation techniques," W. and his supporters in Congress are protecting:

The Army Field Manual prohibits interrogators, but not the CIA, from: "Forcing detainees to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over detainees' heads or duct tape over their eyes; beating, shocking, or burning detainees; threatening them with military dogs; exposing them to extreme heat or cold; conducting mock executions; depriving them of food, water, or medical care; and waterboarding."

Don't you feel so proud to be an American? All of these things presumably W. is squarely behind. Like he says, we've got to keep the terrorists guessing; is it going to be a mock execution or burning this time around? You won't know evil doer.

And all of these things perfectly fine in the minds of our local representatives like Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.) and H. James Saxton (R., N.J.).

Meanwhile, even though every torture session this administration has authorized is on the up-and-up and perfectly legal -- just ask John Yu -- the CIA still saw fit to destroy some video tapes a la Abu Ghraib of some waterboarding hi-jinx they conducted against Abu Zubaida and KSM. The new AG Michael Mukasey -- the one who hasn't made up his mind about whether it is torture or not -- has hit the ground running in his new job by telling Patrick Leahy to take a long walk off a short pier.

The WaPo:

"Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey today sharply rebuffed congressional demands for details about the Justice Department's inquiry into the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes, saying that providing such information would make it appear that the department was 'subject to political influence.'"

How's that for turning things on their heads?

He tells Leahy and Specter:

"At my confirmation hearing, I testified that I would act independently, resist political pressure and ensure that politics plays no role in cases brought by the Department of Justice. Consistent with that testimony, the facts will be followed wherever they lead in this inquiry, and the relevant law applied."

See how that works? He can't tell them anything because that would be politics at its worst.

Gosh, I thought that was the thing the Democrats were accusing Alberto Gonzales of. Make up your minds!

And the beat goes on . . .

And having nothing to do with torture but extremely interesting:

"The bill, a House-Senate compromise to authorize intelligence operations in 2008, would also block spending 70 percent of the intelligence budget until the House and Senate intelligence committees are briefed on Israel's Sept. 6 air strike on an alleged nuclear site in Syria."

What's that all about? I wonder if any mention of the outcome of this little tidbit will ever see the light of day?

waterboarding
Michael Mukasey
Patrick Leahy
CIA torture tapes