I still think that Lindsey Graham should be a major point of investigation on these issues. Here is Graham back in 2004, when the Abu Ghraib story first came out:

"The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges."

Then, in 2007, Graham spent time on active duty in Iraq. It seems possible, from where he served, that he might have been helping the JAG Corps "dispose" of abuse cases arising from Abu Ghraib.

Finally, this year, when ACLU had achieved a court ruling for more of the photos to be releaseed, Graham joined with Lieberman to throw a tantrum in the Senate to make sure the photos won't be released.

Graham's involvement here is very fishy to me. I think he may well have been a prime player in making sure only low level personnel received punishment for the abuses that occurred. The vehemence with which he reacted to the ACLU victory makes me think he has a lot to hide from his participation in the coverup. An old diary I wrote on this subject is linked at my name.

Getting to the Colbert bit, I was watching the broadcast last night. The name of the segment got me interested, and then I wondered if Colbert was ripping Glenn off when he started making fun of Todd. It was a real treat for him then to switch to the audio from the Salon radio interview.

Congratulations, Glenn. Colbert is the best satirist out there and your interview with Todd gave him some of his best material ever. I hope the video goes viral on a very large scale and people well beyond the Colbert Nation see it.

[My only regret is that there was no "30,000 feet" reference.]

I know that others have pointed this out before, but I still shudder at the bad logic behind the idea of preventive detention. The problem is that it is assumed that we "know" that the suspect is a danger to the US. I would counter that we only truly "know" this if we have evidence that will withstand a standard criminal prosecution and jury trial.

The reason that confessions obtained under torture cannot be used is because any information obtained with torture cannot be trusted. If we are talking about putting a human being away indefinitely we have the obligation to make sure we only do so on the basis of information that can be confirmed by an otherwise disinterested jury. As others have mentioned, there is nothing to prevent maintaining a close eye on those who must be released but for whom we have strong suspicions.

The message inherent, then, in allowing the government to practice preventive detention, is that the government knows all and is infallible. Once we reach that point, the courts become unnecessary.

all they can see is the one and only face they have ever loved.

Others see the rest of humanity standing behind them, and ask what they can do to help.

Thanks for the link to the YouTube from The Ox-Bow Incident. That was very powerful.

Sadly, our country has killed many innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan, some in very similar ways to the hanging in the movie (the "long time standing" torture involves the prisoner being suspended in a way that they die very similar to crucifixion). Who will ride off to help the families left behind by those deaths?

I'm changing my name for today only to "LiberalOuthouse".

So that would make me Jim Wipe.

I'm in.

here's the link to the song for which ondelette just provided new lyrics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKLF3-Qvk84

McClatchy has an article this morning on the status of closing Guantanamo and the interim report. In the article, they have this quote:

"The Obama administration must not slip into the same legal swamp that engulfed the Bush administration with its failed Guantanamo policies," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Any effort to revamp the failed Guantanamo military commissions or enact a law to give any president the power to hold individuals indefinitely and without charge or trial is sure to be challenged in court and it will take years before justice is served. . . . A promise deferred could soon become a promise broken."

That is a very interesting observation by Romero. If (when) Obama follows through with new military commissions and indefinite detention, these actions certainly will wind up being fought out in the courts. The Bush versions of these approaches fared miserably in the courts. That explains part of the motivation to get Congressional backing, but of course, the original Military Commissions Act didn't fare well in court either.

Why can't Obama see that each case eventually will be resolved in the US justice system as long as the detainee is alive and martial law has not been declared? Send them to court now or release them, because that is what the system will dictate eventually.

that our President is capable of looking into the heart of a person and knowing if they present a danger to our country. Even if there is not a shred of proof that would withstand scrutiny in a criminal court.

Obama is establishing the Ministry of Precrime. The fiction was written by (Philip K.) Dick. The reality was written by Dick (Cheney) with final editing by Obama. Sadly, if it is allowed to come to fruition, it could represent the final chapter in the American approach to justice.

Note the media response to the death of Walter Cronkite and compare that to the wall-to-wall weeks long coverage of the death of Michael Jackson. That will make a very interesting PhD dissertation some day...