Steve, Steve, Steve,

You/me/us are up against the same mentality within the pundit class that brought us to torture: Collusion. Either these world-class miscreants are completely stupid/oblivious to facts or they are all "in on it" to a point that if they agree to "own" the morass, all they have ever proclaimed would render them the useless members of civilization we have come to know and despise. Methinks it's the latter.

As Pat Moinahan said: "You are intitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts!". Broder, like others of his ilk, pour their own facts, most of which are fabricated to support their bizarre thesis, into dogma sold to a buying public who are easily confused to a point that 52% (in one recent poll) agree that torture would be OK in certain circumstances.

All of this is very nauseating.

Take any article discussing torture, Any of them, right or left leaning, and substitute the word Nazi Germany in the place of America/American. Then read it back to yourself. There isn't a sane person alive who would let those pesky Nazis off, and in fact, they didn't. So what's the problem here? Prosecute these Sadists.

Broder argues, those who support the rule of law have a "plausible-sounding rationale," but he just knows that we're really motivated by "an unworthy desire for vengeance."

I fear that if there isn't a thorough investigation, with sanctions and prosecutions where appropriate, then the next time the United States elects a Republican president we will end up with:

Attorney General David Addington
CIA Director Douglas Feith
White House Legal Counsel William Haynes Garzon
Federal Appeals Judge John Yoo
Associate Justice Jay Bybee
and Chief Justice Alberto Gonzales

This isn't vengence, it's self-preservation.

There is also the secret part. You can't have thoughtful, well-reasoned debates about implementing policies that you know will be excoriated by the public, and so, therefore, you classify them.

Broder is opposed to prosecuting the policy makers behind the torture policy because it means his favorite people won't be able to attend his favorite cocktail parties.

The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places -- the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department -- by the proper officials.

So what?! I'd argue that that makes it even more loathsome. They didn't simply make a mistake. They deliberated and debated and then DECIDED THAT TORTURE IS NOT TORTURE.

Just like lie-berals to presume that our soldiers in training should be treated harsher than real terrorists (or is that, men causing disasters?)

I'm sure that part of the allure of these torture techniques was the fact that they could be sold as mild forms of torture. "Hey, look we're not pulling out their fingernails or boiling them in oil."

They present it as just a dunk in the water and then you have Rummy joking about standing for hours at a time (not until his legs swelled as our detainees did, though).

I'm sure that part of the allure of these torture techniques was the fact that they could be sold as mild forms of torture.

More importantly the allure was that these techniques wouldn't leave visible scars, thereby allowing perpetual deniability.

If Broder thinks this in any way resembles a "deliberate, and internally well-debated" process, he would do well to reference a dictionary.

I am less interested in Broder's definition of well-debated than I am with why he thinks its relevant. Why exactly is "well-debated" a mitigation against law-breaking in his mind? Is there any level of depravity that could come out of the "debate" that he would consider beyond the pale? Does he, for instance, consider Yoo's argument that the President's hypothetical decision to crush a young child's testicles to be a reasonable topic for this debate?

All one needs to know about the "deliberate, and internally well-debated" process is what AG Ashcroft had to say at the time:

"Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

And indeed, it won't. Neither will it be very kind in its judgement of David Broder.

vengeance works for me.

Broder should take a buyout for the good of everybody! I'm sure he carries great and overvalued overhead - a buyout would be a win win for the whole nation! It may just save the print media! -Kevo

"They could get tough . . . "
The testosterone bar. You know, without recruiting the leaders of government and discourse from the ranks of drill instructors and football coaches, is there a way that we can run the country without people who are afraid of being thought a wuss?
It might also spare us the paralyzingly hilarious thought of someone like Broder or George Tenet doing a Travis Bickle imitation in a mirror.

How many of us have made a decision to buy a car (or anything else expensive) very impulsively and quickly, then spent the next six weeks collecting support for that decision and bragging to everyone what a good deal we got? Ask some successful car salemen. That is a standard pattern of decision-making!

Broder is collecting the results of that justification phase and claiming that the decision was actually made after all that information was gathered. But it wasn't. The decision to use torture was made first, and then the data collection and resulting discussion was all focused on justifying the previously made decision.

That's what sellers of an ideology do.

Those are facts. They are rather well documented. Now let me try to explain what I think Broder (and by implication the Washington D.C. news corps) is doing when they try to explain the facts.

Broder is applying an inappropriate rational decision-making model to the actions of ideologues. It's all part of the broken Washington D.C. news narrative. The editors and producers are selected from the drudges who go out and talk to news participants and collect the details. The drudges are experts at collecting those pieces of random data and stringing them together. But to explain what is happening, those drudges have no training in social behavior and processes.

They also for the most part have no understanding of how ideologues think. And the ideologues play on that ignorance. The pundits are, for the most part, drawn from the ranks of the ideologues, not from the ranks of real researchers. Frankly, real researchers don't generally write too well, so they aren't generally going to impress good writers much.

That's my current best guess and I'm sticking to it - until I get a better narrative of what is happening.

The best single book on organizational decision-making that I have ever read is The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was originally published sometime in the 1970's and is now in a third, updated edition. It is both good history and at the same time, it explains three different models or ways of thinking about how decisions are made in organizations.

Besides, however "well debated" the policy was only *increases* the monstrosity of the crime. Debate it all you want, it's still illegal.

Compare the moral and ethical failings of Jay Bybee, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, and John Yoo to Helmuth von Moltke, the German jurist who opposed Hitler and the Nazis and the environment in which the law was constantly subverted to political expedience. �Whoever lets black be white and evil [be] good for the sake of outward calm does not deserve peace and is putting his head in the sand. But whoever knows at all times the difference between good and evil and does not doubt it, however great the triumph of evil seems to be, has laid the first stone for the overcoming of evil."

Moltke was a scrupulous advocate of the Geneva and Hague Conventions in the face of scathing criticism from the Nazis. In Moltke’s view, lawyers had special responsibilities to uphold the protections found in the Geneva Conventions and must face special accountability for their failings. There is no better argument for prosecutions of our political leaders who contemptuously disrespected the requirements of the Geneva Conventions than Moltke’s exemplary moral example.

What I found deeply disturbing about Broder's screed (which I was able to read thanks to Digby, rather than rewarding the Post with clicks) is the absolute moral deafness it displays.

In dismissing calls for further investigation, Broder defends the decision to torture as a procedural matter and political decision, and never acknowledges that torture inevitably means human suffering, that there's a problem with torturing people even if such torture saves lives, prevents attacks, and all the other (almost certainly spurious) claims that the torturers and their defenders are circulating. Broder does say that this was a "dark episode" in US history, that the "torture issue is serious," and implies that thinking about what was done might cause some "squeamishness," yet the only concern he ever shows is for the potential "humiliation and/or punishment" of the torturers. It's all about us, our squeamishness, the torturers' potential suffering.

That the intentional infliction of severe pain and suffering on anyone is deeply disturbing and problematic (no matter how evil the people on whom the pain is inflicted: pointing this out is not to defend Abu Zubaydah or Khalid Sheik Mohammad in any way) is simply absent from Broder's reflections.

It's bad enough to report on the 'controversy' about whether torture is effective in eliciting information from unwilling informants -- it isn't -- but to discuss the entire matter as if there was no moral dimension is shocking. We haven't heard such blatant defenses of 'procedure' justifying evil since the post-WW II war crimes trials.

Evidently, David Broder has not simply lost his moral compass: he appears not to have one. And to lack a moral compass -- to lack the intuition that torturing someone would be deeply disturbing even if it were necessary -- is to be a moral monster.

The constant comparisons to SERE without any refutation are making me crazy. SERE uses some of these techniques so that soldiers are not surprised/have something in their history to remind them that they survived if they ever find themselves in a torture situation.

It is done under controlled conditions, it is planned, you go there knowing that you are doing your SERE training. It is a taste, a view of torture, but it can't be claimed to be in any way comparable to being captured and held and then tortured. You know when your SERE training is going to be over. You know that your commanding officer doesn't want you dead. You know that it won't last for a week, let alone a month or a year. You know they are watching you for signs that you can't take it and will pull you if necessary. And yet, it's still horrible and terrifying.

To compare it to actual state-sanctioned torture is ludicrous and I wish people would call them on it. I'm trying to think of analogy...without much success. Okay, it's the difference between having some sort of consensual sexual experience with a "safe word" back-up plan to being kidnapped by a stranger, held in a room and raped repeatedly for an unknown length of time. Those are not the same experience and having done one does not give you more than the tiniest sliver of insight into the other. Also, one is criminal, illegal and subject to prosecution.

Doesn't "enthusiastic ignorance" define every wingnut ignoramus you've ever met???

I would like to see Broder explain how a "deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places -- the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department -- by the proper officials" could result in a such flagrant violations of the law.

this whole thing reflects very badly on every member of bush's cabinet. no one told them that these "interrogation techniques" were torture?

you have to close your eyes and plug your ears very hard to not recognize what was being proposed and ultimately done.

colin powell was secretary of state at the time. didn't powell speak up?

i can well imagine tom ridge being completely ignorant of history and going along with the torture regime, but presumably colin powell knew exactly what was what.

by the way, where is colin powell? he's been mighty quiet lately.

has anyone talked to anthony principi who held the cabinet position of secretary of veterans affairs at the time the program was begun?

the 21st century is very different from the 20th. in the 20th century, ignorance of the law was no defense.

if torture techniques were discussed with all deliberation, then powell and principi would be two people to talk to who could not possibly have been ignorant of the origins of the SERE program or recognize that one of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" was in fact waterboarding. he might be a navy guy and not army or marines but he did serve in viet nam.

that should be "not recognize that one ..."

but you all know what i'm getting at.

I am as against torture, and for the rule of law, as anyone. However, I think an important piece is missing from the general back-and-forth of this ongoing debate. That is, I don't believe the American people voted for torture prosecutions in November. I don't think Obama was given a mandate by the voters to prosecute Bush administration officials. I do believe he was given a mandate to end the torture regime, which he has done. I also believe, more importantly, that he was given a mandate to focus on other things besides torture: namely, healthcare, global warming, ending the Iraq War, and rescuing the economy. If you asked the average voter how they rank the issues of the day as to their concerns, I think you would see "torture prosecutions" near the bottom of the list.

I say all of that because so many of the civil libertarian pundits over the last couple of weeks have behaved as though there is nothing more important for Obama to do as president than prosecute torturers. More important than universal health care. More important than the two wars we are currently fighting. More important than combatting global warming. More important than saving our banking system. And I think that is a woefully naive attitude to take.

I understand that a president can and should be able to juggle more than one problem at a time. But not all problems are equal, as anyone honestly facing the political realities of torture prosecutions should understand. Already, we are seeing Obama spending precious political capital on this issue. And he should spend some of it on this issue. But how much should he spend on an issue that most Americans don't consider extraordinarily pressing, compared to the economic suffering they are currently living through? Compared to their lack of jobs, their lack of health care, their lack of retirement savings, their lack of quality education, their crushing levels of personal debt?

I also think there has been a lot of naivete about how divisive and draining politically prosecutions of the last administration really could be. I've seen Paul Krugman make flippant remarks like "Even the president needn't, and indeed shouldn't, be involved". Anyone who has a shred of political instinct knows that to be complete nonsense. The firestorm that would erupt over seeing a prior administration prosecuted as war criminals could be more explosive than Watergate. And I think if people are going to be intellectually honest about their advocacy for these prosecutions, they have to admit that they will likely come with a large political cost for the president. And they have to ask themselves and their fellow Democrats if they would rather trade major legislation like health care for torture prosecutions.

Democratic presidencies like this one rarely come along. This one has already ended the torture regime. Yet so many are conflating Obama's hesitancy with prosecution with the actual torture regime under Bush. That's wrongheaded, and worse: morally vain.

Interesting that we're discussing "idealogues" without looking in the mirror. If you think David Broder can not discern the internal intentions of the Bush administration, how can you grant yourselves omniscience?

Many administrations have made very questionable decisions during their tenure:denying habaeus corpus (Lincoln), internment of non-combatant American citizens (Roosevelt), use of Agent Orange chemicals for massacre (Johnson) but we don't assume they had evil intentions.

This was, perhaps, not a good decision. But this whining for payback is sheer retribution. Don't try to dress it up as anything else. The Bush-haters unwillingness to see their venom is just as sickening to me as the Clinton-haters during their administration.

Care to start some Hillary-rumors? You're in the same type of mindset.

Normally, I think, we call "a deliberate, and internally well-debated, decision" to violate the law a "criminal conspiracy", and the destruction of documentation relating to the activities "obstruction of justice".

Not only is Broder wrong about the quality of the decision-making process, he's wrong about what it represents.

Will, I am terribly afraid that Obama's reasoning mirrors yours. But it's not a choice. He, and we, are obligated by law to investigate and prosecute. Laws our nation created and convinced the world to adopt, by the way. If we just 'look forward', we will be criminals.

I have a feeling that when America sees the photos that the Pentagon is scheduled to release, and we get more details revealed on just how Broder's "deliberate, and internally well-debated" process transpired, the American people will rank torture prosecutions higher on their list of priorities.

Much as I want universal health care, I want a country that stands for the rule of law and human decency even more.

Establishment figures like Broder oppose investigation and prosecution of war crimes because they fear that long-held myths about the purity of America's intentions will be shattered. Broder and his ilk live in a world of artificially created nonsense that holds that our government is always right because it is run by sensible and decent middle-aged White Men. And even if they are wrong occasionally, we are not to ever doubt that they meant well.

If the North Koreans or the Iranians had been caught running a torture program like ours, Broder would have been the first to raise his voice in moral outrage.

"I also think there has been a lot of naivete about how divisive and draining politically prosecutions of the last administration really could be."

more divisive and draining than NOT prosecuting the bush administration for what was clearly a deliberate program of torture?

more divisive and draining than former members of the bush administration being recycled into a future republican -- or democratic -- administration?

the fear mongering done by the bush administration and its current defenders has apparently worked on the public given the poll numbers, and the screeching charges of politicization are obviously working very well indeed, certainly on you.

i can only hope that things don't come to a point where you are regretting your words here, but i think it is pretty well guaranteed that if these crimes are not prosecuted the cancer will come back. half the bush administration were criminals recycled from past presidential administrations' criminal enterprises, including, as you well know, "dick" cheney.

"Many administrations have made very questionable decisions during their tenure:denying habaeus corpus (Lincoln), internment of non-combatant American citizens (Roosevelt), use of Agent Orange chemicals for massacre (Johnson) but we don't assume they had evil intentions."

you are kidding, right?

i shouldn't have pushed "post" so fast ...

what i meant was, you are kidding when you liken george w. bush to lincoln, roosevelt and johnson.

did you sleep through the last eight years?

The whole point is that--given the circumstances, there were circumstances, remember?--they were reasonable in relying on the decision of the military to waterboard american soilders in training. Presumably the military had checked out the techniques, including their history, and found them mild enough that they could in good conscience expose our brave soilders to.

now perhaps they could have take a few extra months, convened some kind of blue ribbon panel of historians to look into waterboardering in WWII. but still at the end of the question would have been the same.

are we morally and legally obligated--and the legal question is related to the moral question is so far as what you define as constituting torture--to spare the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks the same treatment we expose our own soilders too, some of whom may have indeed died in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting against those would be gladly carry out KSM's next plot?

If some guy named Steve Bennen wants to look the mother of a fallen american soilder in the eyes and tell her that we would spare the killers the same treatment their loved one recieved even if there was a tiny chance it might produce actionable intelligence to prevent another mother to feel the same pain, we'll, then he's got some balls.

Democratic presidencies like this one rarely come along. This one has already ended the torture regime.

The whole point, of course, is that if there are no consequences for the people that advocated and administered torture, then Obama has not "ended" anything. I understand the point you are trying to make and I do understand the politics of this administration's decision. Maybe, just maybe, this is the wise course to take from a political viewpoint. I am not entirely convinced but regardless, none of us should be under the illusion that we have achieved anything with respect to this issue if we simply let past lawbreaking stand.

Republicans are out there defending this policy. They are making it clear that, not only do they not believe the Bush administration has done anything wrong, they intend to continue to torture people if they have the chance to do so.

No, there is only one thing we can do that would at least count as an attempt to disabuse those who would torture in our name from doing so and Obama's admin has chosen not to do it. You know exactly what that is. Maybe that is the "smart" thing to do but lets not kid ourselves about what we are giving up when we make that decision.

Presumably the military had checked out the techniques, including their history, and found them mild enough that they could in good conscience expose our brave soilders to.

Does it really need to be explained, again, that this argument is exactly backwards? The reason that our military personnel were exposed to these techniques was to attempt, in some small way, to prepare them for what they might face from our less ethical enemies. In other words, the idea was to prepare them for what we considered torture.

That is aside from the fact that there is a significant difference between a training exercise and actually being tortured. can you guess what it is?

If some guy named Steve Bennen wants to look the mother of a fallen american soilder in the eyes and tell her that we would spare the killers the same treatment their loved one recieved even if there was a tiny chance it might produce actionable intelligence to prevent another mother to feel the same pain, we'll, then he's got some balls.

I have a better idea. Why don't you go tell that same mother that if she has any remaining sons that she has no reason to complain if they are captured and tortured by our enemies because it is really totally legal. After all, her dead son might have even been "tortured" in training and its really fairly mild. Tell her, because you are incapable of understanding the concept of consent, that there is no difference between her son's training exercise which he could end at anytime and what he faces when he is actually held at the mercy of his enemies.

biggerbox on April 26, 2009 at 1:29 PM

"Much as I want universal health care, I want a country that stands for the rule of law and human decency even more."

I do too. I am simply stating that I feel it is very likely the current debate will get us neither. What is the overall effect? Who really gets punished? What policy initiatives get lost in the process? Is "damn the torpedoes" really the best way to manage the prosecution of the political opposition?

That is the political dilemma being ignored here.
________________________________________________

karen marie on April 26, 2009 at 1:33 PM

"the fear mongering done by the bush administration and its current defenders has apparently worked on the public given the poll numbers, and the screeching charges of politicization are obviously working very well indeed, certainly on you."

I don't believe that this is being "politicized" by the Obama administration. I am simply making the obvious point that this debate does not and cannot exist in a vacuum. I am certainly no "defender" of the Bush administration, and challenge you to point to any statement I've made in contradiction.
_______________________________________________

brent on April 26, 2009 at 1:49 PM

"The whole point, of course, is that if there are no consequences for the people that advocated and administered torture, then Obama has not "ended" anything."

I disagree. There was a "legal" framework for torture in the past administration. That has been abolished. Anyone who tortures now would be violating Obama's directives regarding "enhanced interrogation techniques".

It has ended. The past simply hasn't been punished yet. Those are two separate things. The fact that no one now is going to be tortured in U.S. custody is no small matter, but it is being short thrift here. I agree that it is not the same thing as prosecution, and I agree that on the merits, prosecutions are warranted. I am just asking people to look at the political realities. The fact that that is such a bothersome reminder for so many people is indicative of the problem.

"Maybe that is the "smart" thing to do but lets not kid ourselves about what we are giving up when we make that decision."

Prosecutors decline to prosecute all the time. They aren't giving up their moral authority in doing so, nor are they saying the accused is innocent.

To Karen Marie:

You just proved my point . . . I didn't like the Bush policies, but you're saying that the actions of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Johnson are O.K. just because you liked them better? Or, perhaps, you can excuse these lapses as you approved of other of their actions/policies? That logic is a bit, shall we say, "tortured" don't you think?

Or are you saying this situation demands suspension of cohesive reason? If so, think about that. The end justifies the means? H'mmm.

Anyone who tortures now would be violating Obama's directives regarding "enhanced interrogation techniques".

And the consequences of such a violation will be what? We will make new directives when the old ones are violated? A law that we decide not to enforce is not really a law in any real sense.

Prosecutors decline to prosecute all the time. They aren't giving up their moral authority in doing so, nor are they saying the accused is innocent.

This is exactly wrong. Prosecutors operate under the assumption that their decisions regarding whom and when to prosecute are enormously consequential on the perceptions and frequency of crime. There are a host of reasons that they might decide not to prosecute, including political ones, but they are acutely aware that they are trading credibility and authority and effectively setting policy when they are doing so. The flip side is that this is also why prosecutors often pursue convictions that they know will be politically difficult. They do so because they are not willing to make that trade... but in both scenarios they fully understand that it is a trade.

The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places -- the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department -- by the proper officials.

I think we should take David Broder at his word. IF that is what Republicans in power think constitutes a proper debate; it is no wonder we find ourselves in the economic quagmire we do, not to mention the Iraq debacle. It also explains very well why Republicans in congress have no ideas for the future. They even think they've got substantial proposals. It truly is sad to observe supposedly 'evolved' people come up with this. It truly is shameful to be referred to as a Republican.

As biggerbox said:

... we call "a deliberate, and internally well-debated, decision" to violate the law a "criminal conspiracy", and the destruction of documentation relating to the activities "obstruction of justice".

If 'socialism' is the new 'liberal' epitaph to describe progressives; then 'republican' is now synonymous with 'idiot' and/or 'stupid'

As Steve has pointed out many times in the past. I do find it interesting how Republicans in general like to project.

If Broder thinks this in any way resembles a "deliberate, and internally well-debated" process, he would do well to reference a dictionary.
-----------------------

Perhaps Broder isn't referring to the process you're thinking of. Perhaps he is merely making shit up and flinging it at the editorial page in the hope that people will believe it.

You write almost as though you feel there is something wrong with that! Just like a blogger. No code of ethics.

Professional Journalism™ -- Healthy, well-formed ethics, now with new minty freshness so they smell minty good! Gotta love it!

"And the consequences of such a violation will be what? We will make new directives when the old ones are violated? A law that we decide not to enforce is not really a law in any real sense."

Whose law? Obama's? And enforced how? After the fact? You make it sound like the modus operandi should be 2) new administration in; b) new law passed; c) old administration prosecuted for breaking new law.

Again, I think there is existing law pre-Obama that was sufficiently violated to warrant prosecution, but the political muddle you've stumbled into illuminates exactly why these situations are not as black and white as we'd like them to be.

"There are a host of reasons that they might decide not to prosecute, including political ones, but they are acutely aware that they are trading credibility and authority and effectively setting policy when they are doing so."

So you agree there are situations where not prosecuting may be in the best interests of society, the court, the system, the prosecutor, the accused, or the victim, etc., despite a host of reasons countervailing. I think you've made my point for me.

brent on April 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM

So you agree there are situations where not prosecuting may be in the best interests of society, the court, the system, the prosecutor, the accused, or the victim, etc., despite a host of reasons countervailing. I think you've made my point for me.

This was in fact the first point that I made. I "agreed" with you in my very first response or at least, I acknowledged that this was a reasonable argument. My point was, and remains, that we can decide not to prosecute for all sorts of reasons of expediency but we should not pretend when we do so that we are not giving up a certain amount of authority to deal with that "crime" in the future. We have done nothing to "end" the crime when we make it clear that we have no willingness to prosecute that crime in situations like these.

My problem with your argument, in other words, is that you seem to want to focus on the costs of moving ahead with prosecution but don't seem nearly as concerned about the costs of not moving forward. You seem to be arguing that new directives mean that there are no such costs or that they are limited. That is simply not the case.

Whose law? Obama's? And enforced how? After the fact? You make it sound like the modus operandi should be 2) new administration in; b) new law passed; c) old administration prosecuted for breaking new law.

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here. Let me make my point more clearly. When we decide that our response to lawbreaking is not to punish the perpetrators of that crime but to simply write a new law - one that is essentially identical to the old law - then no new administration will have any reason to believe that they cannot simply "violate" the new law the same way that the old law was violated -- by just inventing a new "framework." Why wouldn't they? We will have made it clear that they likely face no consequences for doing so.

You see, this formulation effectively reduces the law on torture into a policy difference and policy can very easily be changed. So whether or not you think torture is illegal, what you have decided with this formulation is that, legal or not, you don't plan to treat it as if it is a law. You plan to treat it as if it is a difference of opinion. That may be the politically expedient thing to do but the notion that you have also managed to stop torture from occurring again is really just pretend.

Does anybody think that any other nation on earth would NOT torture terrorists (if waterboarding can techncially even be called torture) under certain circumstances? If WMD were involved? The ticking bomb scenario? We're the only nation on earth that's so childish and naive that we actually suffer angst over this nonsense.

Let's see. In the US we:
-lead the world in rates of violent crime, murder, child rape, etc.
-have a criminally incompetent K-12 system that "graduates" significant numbers of funcional illiterates.
-cannot stop grossly irresponsible govt spending; talk about greed!

And with all this, we get all smug and sanctimonious about our "principles" on torture. There should be legalized means for enhanced interrogation as authorized by appropriate authority. Any nation that hasn't got the guts to take modest means to protect itself doesn't deserve to exist in the first place. But don't worry; our decline is well established and moving along smartly. Another generation or three and we'll be finished.

Casey and Will make an inadvertent case for why we need to prosecute, and now, and hard. These two, like many Americans, lose zero sleep over the torture, suffering, and mass murders of non-Americans, and especially non-whites.

The failure to criminalize prior war crimes permits the commission of future ones. The discomfort some "Americans" feel for prosecuting white American politicians for the torture and murder of Arab prisoners would be helpful in preventing a future version of this conversation.

Gonads on April 26, 2009 at 6:40 PM

"Casey and Will make an inadvertent case for why we need to prosecute, and now, and hard. These two, like many Americans, lose zero sleep over the torture, suffering, and mass murders of non-Americans, and especially non-whites."

Thank you for baselessly assigning racism to my motives. I imagine that's a common reflex for you.

Also, I find it hilarious that you assign such motives in the wake of my defense of our first African-American president--a man for whom I worked tirelessly to get elected, to whom I donated every extra dollar I had, for whom I am extremely proud to have as my president.

But sure, just call me a racist because I don't want to see his presidency get clusterf*cked over the torture prosecutions. That's just easier for you, isn't it?

But sure, just call me a racist because I don't want to see his presidency get clusterf*cked over the torture prosecutions. That's just easier for you, isn't it?
Posted by: Will

... well ... you're certainly going to need a better argument than expediency in order to convince me otherwise. We tortured people in our name ... this isn't abstract to me, and unless I see some influential white people in chains soon, I'm simply going to assign base motives to their apologists.

And fuck you, son ... you're calling those of us who dare ask for war criminals to be treated as war criminals "morally vain"? Democratic pragmatists have demonstrated themselves, over the past 8 years, to be political castrati, impotent and fearful of Republican backlash. For once in your life, do the moral thing without fear of retribution. The voters may actually respect you for it.

The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places -- the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department -- by the proper officials.

And administered by people who, like Republican strategist Phil Musser, knows whether a person should be tortured for intelligence, "just by looking at them":

http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2409648

Let's remember that nobody who was tortured (and there are many more on top of the three who were known to have been waterboarded and those picked up in dragnets in Afghanistan, Iraq and who knows where else) had been charged, or tried, or found guilty of anything. There was even one known American in the bunch (Jose Padilla).

The CIA has admitted destroying 92 videotapes of interrogations. Aside from the US's good name (all done in our names) what else has the CIA destroyed?

How did people like David Broder, and most of the others in mainstream media, get to be considered "mainstream thought"?

I watched Fareed Zakaria this morning, and a round table discussion with Peggy Noonan, Jon Meacham and Walter Isaacson (all referred to as historians, btw). Cynically they dismissed last week's news of what the Bush administration and the CIA have been up to, chuckling.

What have we become when we don't object to these people's rise in the media and on our air waves?

So, we tortured KSM, who cares. The only thing most of the third world understands is brute, obliterating force and collective punishment. Barbarian people's do not deserve the protections of civilization.