Y'know, a "satirist" who could find humor in the torture of Garrison and the Keillor children. Hey, as long as the Muslim columnist mocked Republicans at the same time, right? And throws in some p.c. multiculti references? I won't hold my breath.

People have been misled by the popular mischaracterization of torture regimes and their enablers as humorless brutes. Dick Cheney is by all accounts a charming man who can tell a joke. Argentinians disappeared within the context of a sophisticated society with a cultured elite (and that too an American CIA show). The Nazis, did not simply have socialism in their name, they offered extensive social programs. Were there intelligent, cultured, satirical Nazis and sympathizers? Of course.

What Keillor is doing here is a combination of minimization, dissembling, and distortion. What did the torture memos say? In one, Yoo suggested that crushing a child's testicles would be legal under American law (and later stated it would be legal under international treaties). As someone already noted, is excusing that falsehood really on a par with Garrison crankily complaining about cat owners?

Garrison's summation of his complaint as limited to the lawyer's memo is also a distortion: Read Keillor's previous column on torture and you'll find that the "cranky character" went much farther than simply excusing the lawyers, and tried to justify the torture itself.

Keillor will eventually incorporate these torture columns into another of his dreadful novels adding a further buffer against complaints of bigotry. Keillor always leaves room that it may be a character that says these awful things, not Keillor himself. OK, fine.

But couldn't we hear some other voices in the media? There are so many voices now that seek to normalize torture against Muslims, or who, while opposing torture per se, refuse to acknowledge the underlying bigotry (and the history of that bigotry) that made it possible. Keillor, charming and humorous though he may be, is a dime novel a dozen.

Anyone.

Why do people who were not tortured feel that they can tell people who were tortured to "move on" "forget it" "forgive" "let bygones be bygones" "trials would just be show trials" etc.

How many of the tortured, the dead from torture, their families, are saying "forgive and forget," "ha ha, it was no worse than cat ownership, trust me."

Maybe we could ask them.

Oh, that's right, the Obama administration isn't allowing them, or their lawyers, to speak.

Now our generals run the DOJ.

Each photo likely represents particularlized, invidual crimes. So yes, each photo is necessary.

If your only chance to prove a crime had happened to your brother was a photo in the possession of the US military, and the US miltary said, "we're not going to releast that photo because we released similar photos of similar crimes before. Oh, and those crimes made us look bad"--how would you react? Would you say: "yeah, you're right, enough with the photos already." Or, "my brother was an individual and crimes against him also deserve to be revealed."

Those photographed may have no idea they were photographed--been blindfolded or simply too stressed to notice. They may well feel they have no case, particularly since the US has been so careful to make them feel that way. Only if they do see the pictures might they bring any action or lodge any protest, judicial or not.

And we cannot trust the US military, which is now determining policy for the Department of Justice.

What is up with Obama's doubletalk? The photos are too horrible to release. The photos are not particularly horrible.

Which is it?

Torture

Domestic spying

Nafta

Bailout

Stimulus

Cap and Trade...

The generals are using the wars to set the national agenda.

Obama deferred to the generals regarding the torture photos, allowing the military to decide the level of its own accountability. Guess what--the military isn't accountable to anyone. The Department of Justice is accountable to the military.

The military is engaged in an adventure in Afghanistan and Pakistan that will suck America's wealth and strength, and, given an entirely possible set of circumstances, end not only the rule of law as applied to torture, but our political viability as democratic nation.

Military spokesman Barack Obama yesterday announced the decision by US President General Gen. Ray Odierno to suspend the publication of photos that showed "a few" soldiers who had "carried out" some unspecified actions "in the past."

Spokesman Obama assured Americans that the photos were not particularly sensationalistic.

I'm wondering if the photos even still exist, or if Generalissimo Odierno may have had them destroyed, or messed up a photoshop job so bad they couldn't be released.

I'm not a conspiratorialist, particulary for conspiracies that would require the cooperation of so many (and so likely to fail), but what else explains Obama's various comments--particularly the "not particularly sensational" comment.

Obama seems to believe that these photos will never see the light of day. He also seems shook. If/when these photos get coughed up, SOMEBODY will find them "particularly sensational." Obama seems to believe that no one will ever see them. Why?

Now that Odierno has made it clear that he's in charge of not just the military situation in Iraq, but American judicial torture investigation evidence, US foreign policy image and who knows what else, where does it end?

Off to cross the Khyber...or the Potomac?

Is that Obama wants the court to "force" him to release the photos, as a way to please both sides.

But, that doesn't make sense of his "not particularly sensational" comment. Unless he knows the photos have been completely whitewashed/shopped into a family trip to Disnelyand Baghdad.

I note that Obama pairs his decisions (trip to CIA/release of memos). Here the pair was fire general/don't release photos.

But that is also goofy in this case.

I can't make sense of it.

If so, Obama really does need a headcheck.