REAL STORIES
BY REAL PEOPLE Search
Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Series - We The People - US Attorney Gen & Torture #27

by Rose Mountain (writer), , November 08, 2007

Tuesday 11/6/07 the Congressional Senate Judiciary Committee approved Bush's nominee for US Attorney General even though he refused to take a position on the immoral and internationally illegal practice of torture. Read Democracy Now's transcript below of the Committee's vote plus a few speeches, one by Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts who spoke out strongly against the nomination, one by Democratic Senator Feinstein of California who approved the nomination, plus others. The Committee approved the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey by a vote of 11 to 8, all 9 Republicans voted for him and 2 Democrats who broke ranks from the other Democrats, California's Feinstein and New York's Schumer. Excerpts "Mukasey’s confirmation had been in doubt after he refused to condemn waterboarding as a form of torture". "According to ABC News, former intelligence officers and supervisors admitted in 2005 that the CIA used waterboarding. In fact, the Vice President confirmed its use. And the intelligence officers and supervisors described the waterboarding this way: the prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet; cellophane is wrapped over the prisoners face, and water is poured over him; unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in, and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to an almost instant plea to bring the treatment to a halt. Malcolm Nance, a former master instructor and chief of the training of the US Navy Seals, described it as “horrifying to watch [and] if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death.” "Now his nomination is expected to go to the Senate floor by next week, where he is virtually assured to win confirmation. The Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said at yesterday's hearing that he had been dissatisfied with some of Mukasey's responses to questions about waterboarding and torture, but that he ultimately decided to approve his nomination".

BELOW ARE 3 TRANSCRIPTS/LINKS BY DEMOCRACY NOW with Host Amy Goodman, a nationwide independent news broadcast on local and public TV stations at http://democracynow.org 1)Transcript copied below of Senate Committee Approves Mukasey's Attorney General Nomination. 2)Summary & Link to Interview with Henri Alleg "an 86-year-old journalist subjected to waterboarding by French troops during the war for Algerian independence, says no civilized country should allow it." 3)Summary & Link to Interview of author Naomi Klein of "Shock Doctrine" on State-Sanctioned Torture. Klein reacts to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s approval of Michael Mukasey which she calls an endorsement of state torture."

**SENATE COMMITTEE HEARING--

Background-from Mon,Nov 5,2007 Democracy Now "Just days ahead of Tuesday’s Nov 6th 2007 committee vote, Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter joined Democratic Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California in supporting Mukasey’s nomination. Mukasey’s confirmation had been in doubt as five of the panel’s ten Democrats had lined up against him after he refused to state categorically that waterboarding is illegal."

TRANSCRIPT BELOW-Amy Goodman reporting & showing video clips of Senate Committee. Wed Nov 7,2007 "Despite Waterboarding Stance, Senate Committee Approves Mukasey's Attorney General Nomination" http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/07/155221

Overview of Senate Judiciary Hearing "Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Patrick Leahy, the Committee Chair, decided to call for a vote before any other panel members spoke. Leahy threatening to remove any protesters from the hearing room after some members of the antiwar group CODEPINK who were in attendance spoke out in opposition during the vote roll. The remaining protesters, members of the antiwar group CODEPINK, stood up in silence in the back of the room holding up signs in opposition to Mukasey and torture. Later in the hearing, Chuck Schumer, the other Democrat who broke with his party to support Mukasey’s nomination, explained the reasons behind his vote. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York had initially recommended Mukasey to the White House as a consensus candidate."

AMY GOODMAN: The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General on Tuesday by a vote of eleven to eight. Mukasey ultimately owed his approval by the Committee to two Democrats who broke with their party to support him: Chuck Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California. They joined all nine Republicans on the panel in backing Mukasey. Eight Democrats voted against him. Mukasey’s confirmation had been in doubt after he refused to condemn waterboarding as a form of torture. Now, his nomination is expected to go to the Senate floor by next week, where he is virtually assured to win confirmation. The Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said at yesterday’s hearing he had been dissatisfied with some of Mukasey's responses to questions about waterboarding and torture, but that he ultimately decided to approve his nomination.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: What do we have to say about the morality of waterboarding? Is it banned by some international commitment, the Geneva rules? A very fuzzy --very fuzzy area. Justice Jackson made a lot of famous statements, and one of his most famous statements was that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Not a suicide pact. So we're not bound by the Constitution to undertake conduct which would be a suicide, so that it is my thought that Judge Mukasey went about as far as he could go. I thought he was not on solid ground when he said he wasn’t read into the program, that he didn’t know what waterboarding was. Waterboarding is generally well known. Not being read into the program, I thought, was -- candidly -- an excuse, and a flimsy excuse. Certainly, he had been investigated sufficiently so the President was confident to tell him the highest secrets of the country, and he could have been read into it and could have given us a judgment. And he said, in answers to my letter of October 24, that he was reluctant to put people at risk, and we know that a couple of weeks ago former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was served with legal process, unclear exactly what it was, perhaps a warrant of arrest. We know that some countries are exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction on crimes against humanity, that Prime Minister Sharon was under indictment from Belgium. And we know what happened with Pinochet, so that there is a risk factor. So I think he went about as far as he could go, and I think now it’s a matter for the Congress. I want to express one other concern, and that is a concern about what Judge Mukasey may have as a view of excessive executive authority. I’m very concerned about the presidential signing statements, where we pass legislation and under the Constitution he has the authority to either veto it or sign it, and he cherrypicks. But he did it in two contexts, which were very troubling. One was, after his negotiations with Senator McCain, when we legislated on interrogation, he signed the bill and said he didn’t have to follow it. And we passed out of this committee the PATRIOT Act, passed the Congress, and we gave the FBI additional powers on the condition that we had more oversight. Then he signed the PATRIOT Act, and he said he didn’t have to abide by the conditions on oversight. And I asked Judge Mukasey about that, and I got back an answer which is totally unsatisfactory. He said, “I agree with you. The presidential signing statements should not be a vehicle for creating unnecessary confrontation.” Well, what does that mean? Is there necessary confrontation? And he says he will keep in mind the concerns when advising the President. I think the Attorney General should have said, “If the President negotiates an arrangement with Congress, signs a bill, he ought to stand by it and not act to the contrary.” But all factors considered, I think that the balance is decisively in favor of confirming Judge Mukasey. And I look forward to congressional consideration of this issue of waterboarding. We’re the people who ought to decide it. And with his assurances in writing that he will back us up, that’s good enough for me.

AMY GOODMAN: Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Patrick Leahy, the Committee Chair, decided to call for a vote before any other panel members spoke.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: So why don’t we call the roll and then go back to individuals in order of seniority on both sides? We’ll alternate sides. Clerk will call the roll.

CLERK: Mr. Kennedy.

SEN. TED KENNEDY: No.

CLERK: Mr. Biden.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: No, by proxy.

CLERK: Mr. Kohl.

SEN. HERB KOHL: No.

CLERK: Mrs. Feinstein.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Feingold.

SEN. RUSSELL FEINGOLD: No.

CLERK: Mr. Schumer.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Durbin.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: No, by proxy.

CLERK: Mr. Cardin.

SEN. BENJAMIN CARDIN: No.

CLERK: Mr. Whitehouse.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: No.

CLERK: Mr. Specter.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Hatch.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Grassley.

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Kyl.

SEN. JON KYL: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Sessions.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Graham.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Cornyn.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Aye, by proxy.

CLERK: Mr. Brownback.

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Coburn.

SEN. TOM COBURN: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Chairman.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: No.

CLERK: Mr. Chairman, the votes are eleven yays, eight nays.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: The nomination is passed by the Committee. It will be sent to the floor, and the Leader will set a time to schedule. Could I -- one, I appreciate the interest of all the members of the public in the Committee’s work. There are many people who have come to hear this hearing. I expect everyone here to be respectful of the Committee and other members of the public. And if there are -- certainly, everybody is able to express an opinion, but not audibly. If there are audible expressions of opinion, I am directing the police to remove the people who do that, whether they agree with my position or not.
AMY GOODMAN: Senator Leahy, threatening to remove protesters from the hearing room after some members of the antiwar group CODEPINK who were in attendance spoke out in opposition during the vote roll. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was the first to speak after the Committee vote.

SEN. TED KENNEDY: The Department of Justice is in dire need of new leadership to guide our nation back to its constitutional moorings. Under Attorney General Gonzales, the Department lost its way as a genuine force for justice, too often served as a rubber stamp for the White House and as a facilitator and enforcer of political objectives, rather than the rule of law. After a period of such tarnished leadership in the department, we need a clear, decisive, straightforward attorney general who’s not afraid to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law, even if it means disagreeing with the President of the United States. I had hoped that Judge Mukasey could be that person. He is certainly intelligent and has demonstrated an admirable dedication to public service. As a federal judge for almost nineteen years, he was, by all accounts, fair and conscientious in the courtroom and even showed admirable independence at times. But after reviewing and re-reviewing Judge Mukasey’s answers to questions from members of this committee, I have concluded that he is not the right person to lead the Justice Department at this critical time in our history. We need a leader who will inspire confidence in the rule of law. We need a leader who is unafraid to speak truth to power. We need a leader who is worthy of the trust we place in our attorney general to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Michael Mukasey, regrettably, is not that leader. Like many of my colleagues and many American citizens, I am deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey’s evasive answers about the legality of certain techniques of torture. While the nominee acknowledges that torture is unconstitutional, he has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that the controlled drowning of a prisoner, waterboarding, rises to the level of torture. What is the big mystery here? Over and over again, civilian and military tribunals have found waterboarding to be an unacceptable act of torture. My concerns began with Judge Mukasey's answers to our questions about waterboarding. Waterboarding is a barbaric practice in which water is poured down the mouth and nose of a detainee to simulate drowning. It’s an ancient technique of tyrants. In the fifteenth and sixteenth century, it was used by interrogators in the Spanish Inquisition. In the nineteenth century, it was used against slaves in this country. In World War II, it was used against us by Japan. In the 1970s, it was used against political opponents by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and the military dictatorships of Chile and Argentina. Today, it’s being used against pro-democracy activists by the rulers of Burma. When we fail to reject waterboarding, this is the company that we keep. According to ABC News, former intelligence officers and supervisors admitted in 2005 that the CIA used waterboarding. In fact, the Vice President confirmed its use. And the intelligence officers and supervisors described the waterboarding this way: the prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet; cellophane is wrapped over the prisoners face, and water is poured over him; unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in, and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to an almost instant plea to bring the treatment to a halt. Malcolm Nance, a former master instructor and chief of the training of the US Navy Seals, described it as “horrifying to watch [and] if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death.” Judge Mukasey cannot say to this committee that waterboarding is torture? He calls it “repugnant,” and indeed it is. But he refuses to condemn as unlawful. And then, in perhaps the most stunning and hollow promise reportedly made by a nominee for Attorney General in my forty-five years in the Senate, we are told that Judge Mukasey agreed to enforce a ban against waterboarding if Congress specifically passes one? We are supposed to find comfort in the representation by a nominee to the highest law enforcement office in the country, that he will in fact enforce the laws that we pass in the future? Can our standards really have sunk so low? Enforcing the law is the job of the Attorney General. It is a prerequisite, not a virtue, that enhances a nominee’s qualifications. Make no mistake about it: waterboarding is already illegal under United States law. It’s illegal under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit outrages upon personal dignity, including cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment. It’s illegal under the Torture Act, which prohibits acts specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. It’s illegal under the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. And it violates the Constitution. The nation's top military lawyers and legal experts across the political spectrum have condemned waterboarding as torture. And after World War II, the United States prosecuted -- prosecuted -- Japanese officers for engaging in waterboarding. What more does this nominee need to enforce existing laws? It is the job of the Attorney General to enforce our Constitution laws. The Attorney General must have the legal and moral judgment to know when an activity rises to the level of a violation of our Constitution, treaties or statutes. But this nominee wants to outsource his job to Congress. That passing of the buck is completely unacceptable by a nominee who wants to be the highest justice official in our country. This nominee has failed to demonstrate that he will be a clear, decisive, straightforward leader that the Department of Justice so desperately needs. For all these reasons, I oppose this nomination. After six long years of reckless disregard for the rule of law by this administration, we cannot afford to take our chances on the judgment of an attorney general who either does not know torture when he sees it or is willing to look the other way to suit the President.

AMY GOODMAN: Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, speaking in the Senate Judiciary Committee. When we come back from break, the two Democratic senators who voted for Mukasey's confirmation: Feinstein and Schumer. Stay with us.
[break]

AMY GOODMAN: California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein was one of two Democrats who broke with her party to support Michael Mukasey's nomination as Attorney General.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: The President has said publicly that he will not send another nominee to the Hill. What does that mean? It means that for the remaining fourteen months of this president's tenure, we will effectively have an acting attorney general. It means that most likely there will be recess appointments this winter of the ten positions in the department which are filled by acting or interim individuals. I don’t believe a leaderless department is in the best interest of the American people or the department itself. And I think that’s something really worthy of consideration. I believe the President would not send another nominee to the Hill. I believe he appointed this man because he believes he is mainstream. I believe there was even discussion about whether he should appoint him or appoint somebody who was even more conservative. Now, let me bring up the subject of torture. I believe waterboarding is illegal. I believe it’s prohibited under the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. I believe that waterboarding is prohibited for the United States military under the Detainee Treatment act and the United States Criminal Code. And I believe that neither the military nor the CIA should use waterboarding. But I don’t believe that Judge Mukasey should be denied confirmation for failing to provide an absolute answer on this one subject. Now, as was said earlier, last week Judge Mukasey specifically told Senator Schumer that if Congress passes a law that outlaws waterboarding in all circumstances, the President would have no legal authority, no inherent authority under Article II to ignore it. Now, I know that there are very prestigious civil rights groups in this country that believe that this difference in United States law, in other words, the Detainee Act on one side providing a prohibition against waterboarding for anyone in any branch of the military and no specific coverage of the CIA, there are those that believe it doesn’t really matter; what the CIA does is still covered under these international treaties to which we are a signatory. I believe that’s correct. Nonetheless, it is very easy to remedy, and it is very easy to simply say waterboarding is prohibited in any vehicle that we may have before us. I think there is an argument that can be made to do that, to take this off of the table of any other discussion and to make it very, very clear. So that’s something I think we’re going to have to decide and come to grips with in these months. But I really believe that this man is going to be an independent breath of fresh air in this department. I really believe, though, that he has a very short time in which to put his imprimatur on the department. And I would hope that he moves rapidly. I hope he will step forward and be a truly non- political, nonpartisan attorney general, that he will make his views very clear, and that once he has the opportunity to do the evaluation he feels he needs on waterboarding, will be willing to come before this body and express his views comprehensively and definitively. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Thank you. Without -- there will be --

PROTESTER: Shame on you! Shame on you!

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Officers, will you remove the person?

AMY GOODMAN: Committee Chair Patrick Leahy, directing security to remove a protester from the hearing room after they spoke out at the end of Senator Feinstein's comments. The remaining protesters, members of the antiwar group CODEPINK, stood up in silence in the back of the room, holding up signs in opposition to Mukasey and torture.
Later in the hearing, New York Senator Charles Schumer, the other Democrat who broke with his party to support Mukasey’s nomination, explained the reasons behind his vote. Schumer had initially recommended Mukasey to the White House as a consensus candidate.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Today, I voted today to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General of the United States. I did so for one overarching reason: the Department of Justice, once the crown jewel among our government institutions, is adrift and rudderless; it desperately needs a strong and independent leader at the helm to set it back on course, and I believe Judge Mukasey is that person. As this committee's own investigation has found over the last nine months, the Department has been run into the ground by the Bush administration. The Department has been mired in scandal: inexplicably fired US attorneys, political prosecutions, ideological litmus tests for career lawyers, mass departures by civil rights lawyers. The list goes on and on. But now we’re on the brink of a reversal. There is virtually universal agreement, even from those who oppose Judge Mukasey, that he would do a good job in turning the Department around in these areas. We need a leader to take care of the Department, not a caretaker as the President has promised if we reject Judge Mukasey. To accept such an unaccountable caretaker, I believe, would be to surrender the Department to the extreme ideology of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington, without check. All the work we have done, the months and months and months of hearings and discussions, all the work we have done to pressure Attorney General Gonzales to resign, would be undone in a moment. Now, let me be clear on the torture question. I deeply oppose this administration's opaque policy on the use of torture, its refusal to reveal what forms of interrogation it considers acceptable. I deeply oppose all forms of torture. It debases us and opens our own citizens to abuse abroad. Specifically, I believe that the cruel and inhumane technique of waterboarding is not only repugnant, but also illegal under current laws and conventions, period. I also support Congress's efforts to pass additional measures that would explicitly ban this and other forms of torture.
When Judge Mukasey came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he refused to state that waterboarding was illegal. That was unsatisfactory to me and many members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. But he has personally made clear to me that if Congress passed further legislation in this area, the President would have no legal authority to ignore it, and Judge Mukasey would enforce it. From a Bush nominee, this is no small commitment, as it flatly contradicts David Addington's own view of executive power and the President's authority to order torture. And this is an important point.
Even without the proposed law in place, Judge Mukasey would be more likely than a caretaker to find on his own that waterboarding is illegal. Indeed, his written answers to our questions have demonstrated more openness to ending the practices we abhor than either of this president's previous attorney general nominees have. We could expect no such openness from a caretaker attorney general. In many respects, Judge Mukasey reminds me of Jim Comey, a former Deputy Attorney General in the Bush administration, who disagreed with us on many issues, but displayed admirable, unique independence. He has been widely praised for it. Now, I understand and greatly respect the view of some of my colleagues that the tortured question trumps all other considerations. For the Senate to make a bold declaration about torture and waterboarding by rejecting Judge Mukasey is appealing, but to defeat him would abandon the hope of instituting many of the reforms called for by our investigation. And if six months from now with a caretaker attorney general the same policies continue, the victory in defeating Mukasey would seem hollow. No one questions that Judge Mukasey would do much to remove the stench of politics from the Justice Department. I believe we should give him that chance.

AMY GOODMAN: New York Democrat Charles Schumer, explaining why he supported Mukasey's nomination as Attorney General. The Senate's Democratic leaders are expected to schedule a vote by next week, where he is virtually assured of being confirmed." (end transcript)

*Democracy Now Interview Nov 5,2007 title "French Journalist Henri Alleg Describes His Torture Being Waterboarded by French Forces During Algerian War" Summary"Henri Alleg an 86-year-old journalist subjected to waterboarding by French troops during the war for Algerian independence, says no civilized country should allow it." "...supported Algerian independence from France." "He was interrogated for a month, questioned under torture, and repeatedly subjected to waterboarding. Alleg described his ordeal in an essay titled “The Question,” which was published in 1958 with a preface by Jean-Paul Sartre. The book was subsequently banned in France and legalized only after the war ended in 1962." http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/05/1538212

*Democracy Now Interview Nov 7,2007 title “Shock Doctrine” Author Naomi Klein on State-Sanctioned Torture and Disaster Response for the Chosen" Summary "Author and journalist Naomi Klein reacts to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s approval of Michael Mukasey, which she calls an endorsement of state torture. And she turns to California, where in last month’s wildfires a spate of new companies offered privatized solutions to emergency management--only for those rich enough to afford it." http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/07/156211



About the Writer

Rose Mountain is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

9 comments on Series - We The People - US Attorney Gen & Torture #27

Log In To Vote   Score: 16
By Joannie on November 08, 2007 at 11:36 am
Sobering news that the White House, Republicans in Congress, and a few Democrats continue to show they no longer care about being a democracy.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 15
By Mitch on November 08, 2007 at 11:44 am
Frightening news the US can't sink any lower, sounds a little like the anonymous commentators who harass this Series, what's happening to America??!
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 14
By Rose Mountain on November 09, 2007 at 02:23 am
UPDATE FOR READERS OF SERIES WE THE PEOPLE--For those who managed to find this article, yes the 2 guys who want this Series off Broowaha are at it again. The simple answer is that everyone who has signed-up with Broowaha & logs-in can Vote & Review every article they've read in this Series. Votes & Reviews are now needed to keep my Series afloat, and keep my new & old articles in the Headlines & Political Section. As soon as you click on an article look to your right for place to Vote & Review. Unlike vote machines across the nation, these Votes & Reviews will count. Keep the faith. Rose Mountain
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 14
By Mock Six on November 09, 2007 at 03:53 pm
I read RM's articles as I learn of others to Mock. I learn about the scallywags in the articles but now we have some heartless cowards who attack as Anonymous. A drink of rum & hearty laughter. It is the best tonic. I raise a toast to RM and her Anonymouse attackers. RM for the good work she does. The Anonymous cowards for the laughter they give me. Savvy Mate?
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 12
By Mock Four on November 09, 2007 at 06:37 pm
Rose is still here and the rest of us 95% ARE the New and Here to Stay Moral Majority. So it's Rose AND the rest of us against you dead in the water 5%, Anon, with just not enough balls to even write under your Broo name. Savvy mate?
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 11
By Rose Mountain on November 10, 2007 at 12:59 pm
UPDATE TO READERS OF WE THE PEOPLE--Nov 10 at 10am. (see comments above & below Article #26 for background info)Due to 2 people saying they want this Series off Broowaha then 11/4 flooding Articles with bad Votes & Reviews, then repeating attacks during week including yesterday, Readers have been working hard all week to save this Series of 27 Articles (so far) with their outpouring of Excellent Votes & Reviews, plus now Total Views 8169. It's all quite amazing. What provides the most safety is the Excellent Votes & Reviews on each article you've read. We're not on solid ground yet, but hopefully soon when others realize what's happening. Thanks for everything. Rose Mountain
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 12
By Creedon on November 10, 2007 at 04:07 pm
I read the lead story by Ed. I thought the point was to trash the story if one doesn't like it. Or rave it if one does like it. Why go after the author?
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 13
By Charles, Jr on November 14, 2007 at 09:43 pm
It's a curious thing I've noticed. Others have also commented on it. El G seems to be the Queen of The Multiple Broo Accounts. Works well for boosting his rating and dissing authors and comments he doesn't like. What did happen to Tumerica? Will Rose Muntain survive his dissing? It's curious because a lot of the tits and ass stuff stories El G writes is good.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Annonymous on December 05, 2007 at 05:10 pm
I lifted this wonderful comment from Venditto (NY BrooWaha) “people who wish to remain anonymous yet voice opinions are universally accepted as cowards. Just so you're aware.”
 Report abuse



Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.


Rate This Article


Your vote matters to us



x


x