Our country is set to ratify and validate the use of extraordinary techniques of questioning and convicting suspects of both genders and all ages. The only thing needed will be the stroke of the pen of the "Commander in Chief of the Free World".

It is likely that at some future point in time we will be in conflict with one or more of our many creditors. It may be a "cold" conflict that slowly escalates to a warm then hot one, or may erupt suddenly from one of the many sparks that are routinely flying between nations.

No doubt a contest to use the most "creative questioning and conviction techniques" could result in a very dangerous situation for both intelligence operatives and military combatants on both sides who are captured in the line of duty - not to mention civilians subject to terror from individuals or states.

The "winner" in such a confrontation will, I believe, be the one who first figures out that nations of adults can not behave like the children in Columbine. We all not only need rules but good ones.

Torture will only lead to dysfunctional and self-destructive behavior becoming more common. Redefining it as harmless hazing or a necessary means of information extraction will not change the nature of the act nor the consequences. Ultimately this course will lead to a less safe world for all of us. It is a pity that our president does not have the self confidence to accept the Iranian president's invitation to debate civilizations.

If there ever were a sign that the end is near, this HAS to be it. Shame, shame, shame Rethuglicans! Blood is on your hands once again. No use in trying to wash off that blood, it stays with you until Judgement Day. Where is your idiotic leader now in the eyes of God? Is God still speaking through that baffoon called the president? I don't think so. God would not approve of torture, neither would Jesus. What a sad day in America.

You should expect nothing less from this current mess of an administartion. They have put future US forces in peril. I love how when Matt Lauer recently asked Shrub during a recent interview to comment on a certain technique called "waterboarding" Shrub dissed him.....

btw, here are the Dem senators who voted FOR the Administration's torture bill:

Carper (D-DE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)

If you consider yourself any sort of a "liberal/progressive" and vote for one of these demons, you're a tool.

And may John McCain be tortured forever in hell.

I actually feel I have no real option this November.

It's either the Democratic crook Menendez, or the lying idiot GOP scion Kean Jr.

Kean Jr. has made clear, when he hasn't been lying, that he'll be Bush's best buddy, but Menendez's vote shows that he's really not an option either. What's next, Bob? A vote to authorize the Iranian Freedom act, which just passed in the House? Don't you realize that New Jersey voters want something other than Republite? What is wrong with Democrats like him?

It's beyond disgusting.

Re some of those D names, they are locked in a pitch battle for re-election. I don't blame some of them for voting in a way that neutralizes Rasputin's... err, Rove's biggest weapon against them. If I had an interest in having a Dem majority, I'd still vote for the Dem candidate who supported this bill. What other choice have you got? Vote for the Republican and only enable Bush more? At least if Menendez gets elected, there is a chance, slim as it may be, that the Dems may be in a position to undo the damage Bush has wrought. If you don't vote for him, you only guarantee more of the same or worse. I know that's not a very principaled opinion, but there you have it.

God must approve of torture because that's exactly what drives our Imperious President and his right-wing wackos: their belief that they are doing God's work. This is most pathetic.

aquaman, that rationalization is amoral. If you don't stand on principle for a bill like this, when do you?

I already admitted that my stance was not principaled. But I find no other way to prevent further degradation of our nation right now. Voting down this bill, no matter how right it would be to oppose it (and I think it is entirely immoral to vote for it), would guarantee that Bush would increase his margins in both House and Senate based on yet another campaign of "Democrats can't be trusted to protect the lives of your children. That doesn't make them unAmerican (wink wink because you and I both know that they are), but it just makes them sadly, sadly out of touch with reality of the threats we face in today's world." In terms of defense, Democrats would be (mostly) finished as a viable national party for at least another decade. In that time, we would almost surely get worse laws, fewer checks on the executive, fewer civil liberties, and our slow (yet sure) slide towards one-party, authoritarian rule would speed up.

I see myself as a fairly moral and principaled person, so I am not proud that I am defending a position that I, myself, deem immoral and unprincipaled. But the alternative, right now, is so much more frightening to me that I see no other choice at this time. If, by voting for this bill, the Democrats who were on the bubble (Menendez, Stabenow, countless number in the House) assured their safety on Election Day and contribute to a Democrat majority in at least one house on Capitol Hill, I can live with the law till it is declared unConstitutional or gets changed by future legislation.

Given the choice between voting for someone who might be persuaded that torture is immoral or allowing someone to be elected who is unlikely to be persuaded, I would have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

There is no black and white sometimes, only grey. I think one has to take a chance on people doing the right thing when given the opportunity.

It is becoming more likely that, regardless of the rules set by congress, torture will be the official/unofficial policy of the Bush/Cheney administration for the duration of their term. A Democratic win of both houses would not likely change that. This is made abudantly apparent by the vice presidents recent agreement that the acceptability of the use of "waterboarding" during questioning was a "no-brainer".

This article "Making torture official" makes an excellent point of the fact that our federal government once considered Cheney's "no-brainer" to be criminal, far worse than the negligence of shooting a buddies face full of birdshot.

Bush says torture is illegal and Cheney says it's a no-brainer. So, who's telling the truth there? (Hint: it's not Bush.)

I hear where Aquaman's coming from. Bill W, you have the option this election not to vote, to vote for whowever, because Hillary Clinton is going to march right back to the Senate by a sizable margin. A 65%-35% margin or greater wouldn't be inconceivable; perhaps she will even match her little doll-puppet Barack Obama and top 70%, which will make her even more incorrigible than she already is. So your vote against her or your not voting at all won't matter. She will win New York City, its suburbs, and the upstate counties by a margin that will make Charles Schumer crap his pants with jealousy. Just watch.

Menendez is abhorrent, but the very possibility that Kean would give George W. Bush any cover at all, as even Lincoln Chafee has done, leaves me no room to consider not voting or voting for the thug. None. Every single vote for Menendez is a vote against Bush. There. I said it. A vote against the worst incompetence, indifference, arrogance, and ignorance we have witnessed in the White House in a long time. This country has had some doozies as president, Lord knows. But Bush is just the absolute bottom of the barrel worst. I hope that as long as I live, I never, ever have to witness another president, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, about whom you might say that they have set the standard for being the worst ever in the office. Really, he has no peers in this regard. Most of the one-term disasters were, thankfully, voted out. Somehow this man slipped back in, albeit by a razor-thin margin.

Now, if the Democrats manage to win back the Senate, which is possible, we still have a problem with this torture mess. There will be enough Republicans and--surprise, surprise!--conservative Democrats (including Jim Webb, Bob Casey Jr., and the usual dizzy characters like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, etc.) who could sustain a filibuster. Keep in mind that several of the moderate Republicans like DeWine and Chafee, are going to be swept out. So we'll be left with Republican nutcases like Trent Lott, Tom Coburn, Orrin Hatch, and that closeted wacko Larry Craig--do you think any of these people want anything BUT to torture Muslims and anyone else their overlords deem "ter'rists," including Americans or non-Americans who get caught up in some kind of intelligence nightmare? So this horrible, dreadful, awful bill is going to remain law, and in addition to suspending habeas corpus and allowing the president--any of them, including whoever follows Bush--to decide the procedures (cf. his signing statement), it will also prevent any prosecution of them for their violation of the Geneva conventions. Yep. That's also in the bill. The Democrats may be able to stop the illegal warrantless wiretapping, about which we hear so little these days, they may be able to raise the minimum wage, they might even finally find out what sorts of deals Cheney cut with Enron and everyone else back in 2001 (though he's got shredders coming to his house in preparation for a Democratic takeover), but this horrific torture bill is going to remain law. If the Democrats gain a 61-39 margin in the Senate, which just might happen if Iraq keeps careening down its canyon-like path, or the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 margin overturns it, there's hope. But otherwise, it's the (worst) law of the land.