so eager were you to indulge in gleeful snark that you forgot to consider the fact that the Afghan grain dealer did not know the whereabouts of a ticking bomb primed to kill literally millions of Americans at any moments notice unless he told his torturers where exactly the bomb had been planted.

For that offence there is no limit either to the amount of torture that might be inflicted nor indeed any limit on the amount of people who need to be tortured because each individual is the only person to know of the existence and whereabouts of the bomb.

I know this is aimed at me, but can't you see that it makes no sense?

Shermy said:

I wonder if the torture debate could screen from public discourse the much more profound and common practice of killing and maiming thousands of noncombatant men, women, and children using the universally accepted (by all politicians at least, and most of the public) rationale of "collateral damage"...How many suspected "safe houses" have we bombed without regard to noncombatant inhabitants? ... It may be agonizing for a man, woman or child to have their legs blown off, or their guts ripped from their belly, but its not torture. Tut tut, its just collateral damage...By all means let's prosecute those guilty of violating torture laws. But if the massive death and destruction we so easily, and remorselessly spread about the world never touches our conscience, we won't regain our soul.

Strategically, the torture war crimes are a good entry point because they have the emotional power (trust me, I know) to get people stirred up that more mundane war crimes unfortunately don't seem to have. But we can't forget the rest of Bush's crimes:

1) He got a million people killed in Iraq. Holy shit.

2) Millions of Iraqis forced out of their homes and country

3) Iraqi women forced into religiously based subjugation

4) Crimes against our civil liberties, e.g. warrantless wiretaps

5) The assertion of monarchical power for presidents

6) Oh yeah: and that motherfucker stole the 2000 election in the first place

Yep, Glenn is petard hoister extraordinaire. But he has not yet hoist me on any petards of my own. Kind of interesting don't you think?

Glenn regularly comments on his own posts. In fact I think he almost always does. But there we were in the middle of a 500+ comment discussion and Glenn didn't make a single comment. He didn't even make an attempt to hoist me on my own petard or anyone else's. Why do you think that is, Laddyboy?

Just because someone doesn't share your extreme pacifist views doesn't make them an apologist for torture. I have consistently and repeatedly and vociferously and professionally opposed Bushco's torture all along. Stop making philosophical differences that apply in only extremely rare circumstances into alleged crimes against humanity.

I get it. You hate torture the mostest. Now give it a rest.

No, Ondelette. The thread is not about YOU and about how YOU hate torture more than anyone else, especially that evil torture-loving Fool.

Have a banana. It'll make you feel better.

Yeah, you're right. Probably just a coincidence...

You hijacked the entire fookin' thread yesterday to find a way to justify torture and then you come up with this? Way to live up to your handle...

I didn't just "come up" with that. It happens to be true and the proof is in my past letters here on Salon. In fact, the proof is in that thread you say I hijacked if you know how to read.

P.S. I love when people make cracks like that about my handle. It hilariously proves that they just don't get it.

you are in very poor form today if you could not plainly see that Ondelette never attempted to make the thread about him or herself

Well, not overtly. But his post about torture "apologists" was ridiculous and fits into his regular pattern of holier-than-thou comments.

Glenn Greenwald's silence on individual comments and exchanges in these threads are due to his feelings on the substance of those comments. After all, it couldn't possibly be "just a coincidence," or any other reason for that matter.

Yes, its always easier to win arguments when you get to put words in your opponents' mouths. I never claimed certainty. It just seemed like an intriguing possibility.

I know how much you hate hypothetical scenarios but I think the following may be true. Of course I don't speak for Glenn or know what Glenn actually thinks or why he didn't make comments on that thread like he usually does but here's what it might be:

1) Glenn is very smart. He may well have studied these philosophical questions and understand that you all were being pwned.

2) But he may also subscribe to the eminently reasonable Pandora's Box view that the kind of questions raised by the ticking time bomb scenario open Pandora's Box and may undermine a taboo about torture that is arguably best left unexamined since the hoi polloi (that would be you and Ondelette and Liberal Artist and Paul D. Ash) will get the wrong idea and not be able to handle the idea of an exception to a rule.

I'm not saying I know this to be the case. Just that I wouldn't be surprised.

Perhaps Glenn will comment and settle the question. But perhaps he will prefer not to open Pandora's Bos so as not to muddy up his important practical mission to hold Bushco accountable for its disgusting war crimes, including, but not limited to, torture.