shooter: I don't know how you can make that balance out in favor of people who have declared us unworthy of living, as part of their belief system.

Interestingly, that is precisely what Osama bin Laden said about about the "Jews and Crusaders" in his 1998 fatwah (http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen2.htm).

It is thoughtful of you to go out of your way to point out that your values are the same as Osama's.

Some of us still adhere to principles advanced by Eisenhower in his "Cross of Iron" speech: "No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice." (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9743.htm).

That is how we can make the balance and we accept your statement that you don't know how as an accurate assessment of your own lack of shared humanity.

Jim White — no new verses, but it seems to me that the refrain would scan better with "Camp Xray" rather than "Camp Gitmo" (and it has the advantage of being factually correct if perhaps less well known). Otherwise, it's ready to go.

Jim W says: As Frankly has pointed out, "Camp Xray" works better than "Camp Gitmo". I think "Gitmo Bay" also works and would be more recognizable.

Yes, Gitmo Bay works for the scan, but from the point of view of pragmatics it is important to have "Camp" in the lyrics because it will bring to mind, if only subliminally, other "camps" such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau, Therisienstadt, Treblinka, and many others that most people would like to forget about but shouldn't be allowed to.

But I would have taken exception to the letter writer's use of the expression those who tortured in good faith. There is no such thing as torturing in good faith. According to the UNCAT neither the President of the United States nor any of his officers can order torture legally under any circumstances whatsoever. Shooter is always pointing out that he is not a lawyer (as if it needed pointing out) and that legal language confuses him, but there is nothing confusing about the language of the UNCAT:

• No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

• An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Anyone who can't understand this language needs to be asked "What part of No exceptional circumstances whatsoever don't you understand?

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.

— William Shakespeare, Othello, Act III, scene 3

The loss of America's good name may not seem important as long as it is the only superpower, but it may take on a different complexion when China is the most trusted name in superpowers.

Considering that for years now, Americans have been loudly denigrating the US and it's leadership here and abroad, it appears the theft of our good name is an inside job.

I presume you're talking here about the scandalous attempt by the Republican Congress to impeach Clinton.

Demanding that America be despised for all this time, it's not surprising if it comes to pass. If you're going to fully participate in something, however self-defeating, take pride in it's accomplishment.

Let me guess — you lifted that from a Goebbels speech from about 1944 and just changed the names.

Or don't do it.

Funny thing, that's what most of the sane people said about the invasion of Iraq.

THE HALLS of Congress are too often filled with cowardice and groupthink. So it is reassuring when not one but two lawmakers show the moral fortitude to defy party politics to take a stand on principle.

Yes, I believe the principle was established by Vidkun Quisling (sorry Arne).

The law is written by Congress and it is interpreted by the courts

... and ignored by the executive branch. So far none of the egrigious violation of federal statutes (FISA, torture, war crimes) have been prosecuted so what the AG thinks does matter. It's not a question of whether a torture aficionado is willing to prosecute torturers, it's a matter of whether someone who finds torture personally abhorrent is willing to prosecute torturers who are on his team.

Remember when Harry Reid shut down the Senate in an attempt to force Pat Roberts, then chair of the intelligence committee to finish part 2 of the investigation into the intelligence failures around the invasion of Iraq (part 2 was supposed to report on misuse of intelligence by the WH in making the case for war)? (See http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Reid_takes_Senate_into_closed_session_1101.html) Well, Roberts more or less agreed to finish up the report but that didn't happen. Now that Rockefeller is chairman of the committee, I wonder how the report is coming. One doesn't hear much about it. Perhaps Harry should close down the Senate again to try to force Rockefeller to finish the report.

Rockefeller has gotten his opprobrium the old-fashioned way — he earned it.

eastriver: It would drive them literally batshit crazy.

They are already literally batshit crazy.

And I'm sure shooter will be along shortly to make exactly that point.