Something has changed: elite views on torture used to be different. When the Abu Ghraib story was breaking at the beginning of 2004, no one jumped up to defend torture, they denied that it ever happened or said it was a few bad apples. Back then it seemed to be the consensus that torture was bad.

Now it seems its all relative. The Village has decided torture is a necessary evil. I think they kid themselves that it isn't used much and only in what are ticking time bomb situations. But we know its used a lot more than in just the cases of a few people like Khalid Sheik Muhammed. The slope is slippery and getting more slippery every day.

And even in his case, which is touted as the paradigm case of allegedly acceptable torture, it is far from clear that we knew about any ticking time bomb. Did we KNOW that al-Qaeda had a bomb planted and we were just torturing him to find out where it was? No. We were trying to find out IF there was one at all.

This suggests a much broader universe of acceptable torture cases than the alleged ticking time bomb "justification". By this criterion we may as well not pretend we're really limiting the application of torture and just admit what we're really doing. We're saying its ok to torture just to extract information from someone without KNOWING that he knows the location of a ticking time bomb but who MIGHT know about plans involving bombs that haven't yet been planted and that MIGHT never even be planted. This is a "preventive" ticking time bomb siutation, if you will.

That's not much of a restriction at all. You don't even need the legal wizardry of a John Yoo or a Jay Bybee to fit just about anyone you want into that loose a set of criteria for allegedly justifiable torture.

We also know that the use of torture is far more widespread than just a few Khalid Sheikh Muhammeds. There are something like 40 or 50 people who were outright murdered in our custody. Did they all know the location of ticking time bombs? Obviously not.

Something has changed. Torture used to be bad. Now the Villagers who rule us say its ok (if regrettable). Those people have no morals.

This is fast becoming an issue like slavery in the 19th Century. Either you get it, morally, or you don't.

Yeah, dude, I get angry when I see them cutting off Daniel Pearl's head.

But unlike you neocons, we liberals don't jack off to it, revelling in that anger.

He got more Americans killed (in Iraq and New Orleans) than Osama bin Laden and more Iraqis killed than Saddam Hussein.

IOKIYAR

You said, "the Fourth Circuit's decision, which upheld the President's power to detain even legal residents inside the U.S. (and therefore U.S. citizens) as "enemy combatants"

Can you please explain that "and therefore U.S. citizens" part? I'm pretty sure you have before, but I can't recall the reasoning.

This is a crucial debating point with many audiences. I found myself discussing this with relatives when I was home over the holidays. They are generally moderate-to-liberal, but not all of them are above discriminating against non-citizens. Rhetorically, it makes this point much stronger when it has implications for citizens as well.

The flagrant violation of the core rule of law principle that the law applies equally to everyone is obviously indefensible and a matter of sheer hypocrisy.

But Glenn points to another phenomenon which wideranging effects on everything from domestic to foreign policy. Its the combination of self-righteous provincial tough guys (and gals like Sarah Palin) along with cowardly politicians who don't really support their policies on the merits but go along out of fear that they will be seen as cowards and weaklings. This explains phenomena ranging from ridiculous drug sentences here at home to the million dead people at the crime scene in Iraq.

There needs to be a movement toward electing more people of conviction rather than strategic climbers and triangulators.

Personally, I'm libertarian on this issue and don't think there should be any mandatory minimum when it comes to marijuana. But if you're going to have a mandatory for minimum for pot, I would recommend at least 5 bong loads a day.

"First, we have a distinct Constitutional system to address political crimes, impeachment."

Torture isn't a "political" crime, its a felony. We already have a legal system to deal with felonies. Might as well use it, don't you think?

Scorpio69er noted upthread:

"Vincent Bugliosi, in his book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, has outlined the legal case that will allow any of the 50 state attorneys general -- or any county prosecutor within a state -- to bring Bush up on murder charges."

What about that Glenn? Does that comport with your legal understanding of who does and does not have standing in these cases -- not just murder but all of the many crimes Bush could potentially be charged with?

Should we start a movement to find and motivate the best prosecutor(s) to get these suits underway? Is the ACLU doing anything like this?

Longer Kagan:

Well, John the Baptist after torturing a thief

Looks up at his hero the Commander-in-Chief

Saying, "Tell me great hero, but please make it brief

Is there a hole for me to get sick in?"

The Commander-in-Chief answers him while chasing a fly

Saying, "Death to all those who would whimper and cry"

And dropping a bar bell he points to the sky

Saying, "The sun's not yellow it's chicken"