In 2006, the State of Florida executed Danny Rolling. In the fall of 1990, Rolling killed five students from the University of Florida. Here's how MSNBC characterized his killing spree, after saying he "terrorized Gainesville":

The bodies of his victims were found over three days in late August, just as the University of Florida’s fall semester was beginning. All had been killed with a hunting knife. Some had been mutilated, sexually assaulted and put in shocking poses. One girl’s severed head had been placed on a shelf, her body posed as if seated.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15417276/

The prison where Rolling was held and then executed is only a few miles from where I live. It houses inmates at a wide range of security levels. There was no outcry from any of the surrounding area that housing this domestic terrorist at the prison in Starke posed any threat. Here is a link to the profile of the prison:

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/FACILITIES/region2/205.html

The next time a right-wing pants wetter tells you we can't house Islamo-fascist terrorists in US prisons because they behead Americans, ask them why there was no outcry against Danny Rolling. His victims were just as American as Daniel Pearl.

CNN.com just published a commentary piece from Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh of ACLU on Obama's reversal of his position on release of additional torture photos. The commentary provides a little clarification on which photos are at issue here.

The ACLU has sought release of these photos for almost six years. In October 2003, we filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act for records -- including photographs -- relating to the abuse of prisoners in U.S. detention facilities overseas.

/snip/

The photos are a critical part of the historical record. The government has acknowledged that they depict prisoner abuse at locations other than Abu Ghraib, and it's clear that the photos would provide irrefutable evidence that abuse was widespread and systemic.

The photos would also shed light on the connection between the abuse and the decisions of high-level Bush administration officials. As the district court recognized, the photos are "the best evidence of what happened."

In explaining his change of heart, President Obama said that the release of the photos "would not add any additional benefit" to the ongoing public debate about the abuse of prisoners. But the ongoing public debate is rife with false claims, and the photos would expose the truth.

The Bush administration told the public that abuse was aberrational and isolated, and many media organizations adopted this fraudulent narrative as their own. But even President Obama, in explaining his reversal, perpetuated the myth that the abuse of prisoners "was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."

The entire commentary should be read. They pull no punches and make it clear that prisoner abuse was systematic and directed from on high.

If the story of these photos refuses to go away, I think there will be more attention focused on the on Stanley McChrystal at his confirmation hearings. That will not be good attention. Coincidentally, when I checked the Senate Armed Services Committee website this morning, I couldn't find anything about a committee hearing being scheduled for him yet.

I found it interesting that as the conversation was winding up, Boehlert missed the opportunity to discuss the current rift in the blogoshpere that seems likely to outlast the Clinton-Obama primary war and might even exceed it in its vehemence. We see evidence of it daily here in Glenn's comment threads: when Obama's actions are pointed out to be very different from his campaign promises and to in fact align very well with the Bush actions the blogosphere universally denounced in its formative days, we see a faction of Obama zealots racing to his defense. Arguments on this issue, as in the primary war, also tend to go beyond honesty, just as Boehlert pointed out happened in the earlier instance. I hope Boehlert is documenting these arguments for a second volume of his book.

You had one letter too many. It should be:

Busama

There already have been very good responses knocking down the ridiculous argument that Obama's reversal from his campaign rhetoric to his actions in extending the Bush terrorism policies is due to his having seen "secret" intelligence that suddenly makes all this lawlessness worthwhile. However, I'd like to ask those making this argument one question:

How can you distinguish your argument that Obama's reversal is due to his having seen intelligence reports showing that we face great danger and must thus abandon our values from the suggestion that Obama has been privately threatened that he and/or his family will be killed if he doesn't go along with the plan?

Before you respond, be advised that I don't subscribe to that theory. I think he has made the conscious decision to maintain these policies and that we had our warning about him with his FISA reversal before he was elected. Sure, he's gone a lot farther than we might have expected then, but I think his positions now can be seen as a continuation of a process he first revealed to us with that vote.

Now, back to my question to you. You ascribe his actions against what he previously described as his policy as being due to a new and enhanced understanding of the threat of terrorism. How can you be sure those terrorists are the radical Islamists and not the military-industrial-Congressional complex? What evidence do you have?

• No seat at the table for single-payer healthcare

• No limits on executive compensation

• No cap on credit card interst rates

• No restoration of Glass-Steagall

• No effort to support Dawn Johnsen's confirmation

• No action to support EFCA

• Union-busting conditions for automaker bailouts

All hail our Great Leader and the change he brings!