... that some of the people who were tortured were bad guys and that they meant harm to the US, but that doesn't change the fact that the US is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture which specifically bans torture even when bad guys are being tortured, even for information that would save others.

That is all.

President Bush and his administration had access to the best legal counsel money could buy--though really access to Wikipedia would have been enough--and, it appears, they decided to go ahead and torture anyway.

Surely this at least merits a special prosecutor at least as much as allegations that President Clinton and his wife did crooked deals to make money at Whitewater.

If a Democrat president had tortured and the present incumbent was a Republican, there is no doubt at all that a special prosecutor would already have been appointed.

The fact that the Democratic leadership is shilly-shallying over this almost makes me want to vote Republican next time.

Almost.

Sharing so much in inappropriate circumstances is, I believe, less a question of poor social skills as it is of a blatant lack of self-confidence and understanding of flirt and how you get to like someone.

I would pretty much agree with this. Remember that in the case under discussion we are talking about very young people.

While men may talk freely about their penises in a barracks room setting, where there is a macho air of bravado, I am not so sure that it is common in general.

My preference is not to make such personal revelations with casual female acquaintances for a couple of reasons:

1) If women are attracted to you, they will project their own beliefs onto you, so it is best to be a clean slate for their imaginations.

2) I would not want my personal information to be passed on unnecessarily to unauthorized third parties.

If a woman I had just met in a social situation started telling me about her recent abortion, I would assume that she was self-absorbed and was more interested in seeking medical advice than a sexual partner.

I don't know what the big deal is about the leaked photo. You can see thousands of similar photos on the Web or in newspapers and court reports. Mostly they are public records.

The leaking of the photo is no shame to Rihanna, but is a terrible indictment of Chris Brown. Globe magazine (for what it is worth) suggests that when Rihanna appeared in a rhinestone-encrusted eyepatch last year, it may have been an earlier case of a black eye from her boyfriend.

If this is true, this makes him a serial batterer and the world's #1 poster boy for domestic violence perpetrators.

At the age of only 19, he is hardly more than a child himself, but may already have done irreparable damage to a promising career. As a result of this case alone his opportunities to travel overseas and perform his music may be curtailed.

Rihanna, on the other hand, has everything to look forward to, provided that she puts Brown behind her. Hopefully the courts will make it easier for her to do this. She will not be short of suitors.

Bring back Kenneth Starr and the Starr Chamber, or appoint some other special prosecutor.

Interrogate John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales,and any other lawyers who advised Bush on torture, and have them go through the UN Convention Against Torture line by line and explain what advice they gave to the President. Have them explain their research procedure and how they go about giving legal advice to a distinguished client.

If they refuse to testify, then they get the same treatment Susan McDougall and Webster Hubbell got. Lock 'em up until they squeal.

Then go after The Decider and give him the same treatment.

If she'd done it to a boy she would have been a very popular, and most assuredly undisciplined, girl.

You think they have co-ed classes in Juvie? You really have been watching too much porn.

@Blunderdog

Yes, if child pornography was available, the US would rapidly become a sex-tourism destination!

I expect the Library of Congress has a collection of kiddie porn stashed somewhere so that interested legislators, preachers, and antipornography campaigners can check some out for the weekend to get a grasp of the problem.

I don't know where you live, but would you be prepared to promote a referendum in your state to allow ethically prepared kiddie-porn? Perhaps you could have a vote yes for pee-wee porn sign on your front lawn. But you would probably need to board up your windows and fire proof your house first.

The simple answer, of course, is that we live in a democracy and the vast majority of people don't want kiddie porn freely available. In fact they don't want it available at all. Not even for officially registered perverts.

In my opinion (not worth much) the availability of kiddie porn would make it more likely that immature teenage boys would try to have sex with even more immature female children.

I stay out of jail by obeying the law, of course. How do you :-)? I don't ask permission before falling asleep, but if I snored in class and distrubed others I would feel embarrassed and apologize. Wouldn't you? Or would you fight for your right to snore in class?

Ex-actly, you stay out of jail by obeying the law. And that is what these kids need to do. Threats of charging them with child pornography are intended to put the fear of God into them.

On planet America threatening to charge people with something ludicrously exaggerated is normal practice in the world of law enforcement. Possession of a bottle of Dasani water at an airport checkpoint will lead to threats of banishment to the gulag for terrorism suspects. Everybody knows this, except, apparently TC-F.

I don't even have a right to snore in bed. Perhaps you could have a word with my wife on my behalf?