Thanks Advocatus, that was perfect.

Garrison is a soft bigot, of a type I know well. I hope others now see the danger behind the faux-ksy Americana that Keillor preaches behind literary cover, not so very different than the German educated class' obsession with the Volk in the early 20th century.

Lake Woebegone still blows the fire siren at a certain hour, as many Midwestern towns once did, to note the onset of curfew. People of different backgrounds than Keillor, Ted Stevens, or George Bush had best leave town or face the "rough men."

But even Lake Woebegone, there are those with good hearts, willing to stand up to terrorists, torturers and socially respectable bigots like Keillor alike.

No cases currently referred to the Justice Department rise to the level of constitutional consequence as cases involving law breaking by officials in the Bush adminstration.

Many of us will be watching for the cases that Obama and Holder feel are more important to prosecute than torture. Imagine the cynicism if the administration adopts the argument that, with 10,000 referrals, by gosh they just didn't have time and money. Heck, maybe torture just slipped Obama's mind, what with all the photo ops with Bo and all.

Obama swore (twice!) to "the best of [his] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Holder swore a similar oath. Moreover, Obama promised an "era of responsibility." Since that moving statement, both have argued that they should not have to uphold the plain language of the constitution, and have repeated Bush arguments to the court in the detainee cases. This may prove both a constitutional and tactical error.

No matter the legal course the administration chooses for the detainees, the Constitutionally important fact that the American government tortured them will not neatly fade. Obama's desire not to get bogged down in the Bush administrations problems is beside the point. Torture may have been the Bush Administration's fault, but it is inevitably Obama's problem. By needlessly identifying with Bush, Obama is quickly making torture both his problem and dirtying his hands with culpability.

The best alternative is to execute all laws, even if the lawbreakers are elites. Obama should be a substantive partisan of the constitution as he seeks to disentangle a constitutional mess. Instead, Obama offers reconciliation based on nothing but his perceived likability and the anti-American argument that elites like himself are above the law.

If not for the inconvenient fact of the detainees, perhaps Holder and Obama could have sidestepped their sworn duty just as you describe.

Obama can shape his daily message as much he wants, schedule as many smiley photo ops with Muslims abroad and torturers at home as he likes, but the sticking points are 1) those tortured who deserve to be convicted but for whom the evidence is tainted by torture and 2) those tortured (and some killed) whose crimes were either relatively small or nonexistant. Obama himself has set a deadline for closing Gitmo in one year: Tick, tick, tick.

The evil that Bush did lives on after him. Obama would do better to substantively confront that evil than assume Americans will look at a pretty new Presidential face and forgive and forget.

Readerreader, the torturers and torture apologists may not have all been Christians. But the tortured were Muslims. And this our media would not have condoned this torture if the victims had not been Muslim.

There is an assumption among anti-Muslim bigots like Frum, that torture can be contained, limited to those they feel are expendable and undesirable.

But torture regimes eventually begin to widen the circle of targets, it is the simple cold unalterable logic of fascism.

You complain about the expense of prosecutuion. I'd note that poorer countries--Chile, Argentina, South Africa--have felt it more costly not to confront their pasts, to put a stop to their torture regimes. Obama is wrong to think reconciliation means nothing more than a hero-worship photo op for himself at CIA headquarters.

We need an award like the Righteous Among Nations, you know, the Yad Veshem program in Israel for the heroes who opposed the Holocaust. Some very brave people, soldiers and FBI agents and the like, opposed the torture and refused to participate. They should be recognized. Currently our President is praising the torturers, calling them courageous, and there needs to be some effort to correct his mistaken notions, and reward the real heroes during the Torture Regime.

Let's have an objective discussion. Maybe Frum is holding the missing link between Sadam and Obama. Who knows? How can we know what Frum knows until we strap him down to a table and drown him 186 times? Or threaten his family? Or slam his head against a wall? Or lock him in stress positions during the next debate? Or lock him in a tiny room with ear-splitting music, naked and hung from his wrists for weeks at a time?

Why isn't Frum talking about what he knows about the next terrorist attack? Is an attack imminent? Why is he silent?

Should we take a poll to see how many American would like conservative TV talking heads renditioned to prisons in Syria?

How many Americans would like to poke a hockey stick up the arses of Canadian-born pundits telling us how to run our country?

Can other countries "defend" themselves by waterboarding? Can the Italians waterboard Roma? Can the Russians waterboard Chechens? Can Palestinians waterboard Israelis, Mr. Frum?

Should the Iranians, Cubans, Taliban, North Koreans, etc be allowed to waterboard Americans with impunity, so long as waterboarding is effective in defending their counteries?

Maybe we can't know unless Frum tells us. And how can we really know what Frum is hiding unless we ship him off to a black site and let the dogs loose?

Just asking, y'know, in an objective, rational, friendly fashion.