"Wouldn't want to ruin a good party by inviting too many people, would we?"

Agreed.

I think of that sentiment when I hear the Capitol Hill royalists pontificate about, "America has the best health care in the world". (If you can afford access to it without relying/unreliable emergency room care as your primary care practitioner).

May I rework your words--

"Wouldn't want to ruin a good party by inviting too many people (into high quality, affordable health care), would we?"

"What to do with these American Christians?"--Pasquino

I'm more comfortable using "Christian(ists)" referring to the torture invoking crowd.

I, as a former hellfire breathing pugilist against the evil souls inhabiting this fallen world, it is my thesis that the evangelical doctrine of torturous hell for the eternal punishment of the iniquitous permits complacency for all kinds of painful/torturous deeds by America's "faithful" right.

OR

Comfort with the justness of hell breeds contempt for the sanity of compassion.

That so-long-ago-it-seems era of religious right (Moral Majority) crusade under Reagan was still typified by the perceived menace of communism's inhumanity, secularism and authoritarianism.

The US/Britain had the luxury under the guidance of pontificates like Reagan, Falwell and Thatcher to appear sane for their repulsion of the tyrannical, humanest regimes.

Now, the fashion to justify those same atrocities is so much easier (where Glenn, in his "Ronald Reagan: vengeful, score-settling, Hard Left ideologue") demonstrates that cowardly, unprincipled shift away from the golden era of decency for its own sake.

A toast to the--torture does not ever make right Reagan--mythological as he may be.

"How about some relevant ones? Ones that constitute a violent act against another, potentially innocent, human being?"

Here, here!

You nailed it. We, like the Inquisitors and Salem witch hunters will prove those suspects of some evil connections. If we have to drown them, tase'em or bruise their brain enough on the wall--they'll give us something.

Suspects, innocents and contraries be warned; the US does not force any techniques on your body or mind that would not be endorsed by religious zealots or desperate, terrified patriots.

Good comments--IMHO.

And when that caged TweetyBird knew that that "Ticking Bomb" in Sylvester's hand was meant for the mice and not him/her.

Enjoyed your observations.

It occurred to me as I read your comments that the metaphor for moral urgency is now "the ticking time bomb". A country that invades, occupies and "blows up cities" would find reasons to do so out of coercive measures inflicted on their conscience by more lies--the first being that we kill and torture them because we can feel powerful doing it.

Not to trivialize your compliment (well-deserved) for Glenn--

he's a good documenter and no one is taking this stuff in stride except a few names we've come to expect.

Glenn documents--we decide and sometimes stridently.

"If they're that inhuman, that sociopathic, why would they fear being tortured?"

Another good point that shoots down the efficacy of torture.

When the madmen have nothing to lose (prior, decidedly, committed) why, if they die on the inquisitor's table is that their loss?

As you say they gain the advantage of running out the clock.

The litany of rationalizations for prying people for information gets sloppier and more vacuous with these Clanceyesque scenarios.

"Uh, because it hurts really bad?"

Admit it, you're an "advanced interrogator" in training.

Your statement sends chills up my spine like Dr. Frankenstein jolting the monster.

"Hurts(ing)" is too broad a descriptor. Try sadistic, irrational, illegal, power, role-playing used by miscreants to rob humans of body and mind for causes wrapped in lies.

"Let it stay illegal and if my nightmare scenario were to come true, I'm sure people would do what they had to do and no jury would ever convict."

You must love to be quoted.

Speaking of "jury(ies)"--and judges and gods who get to decide who's to be tortured or exonerated from the illegalities and consequences--you're welcome to volunteer yourself, children, grandparents and pet for scrutiny (torture) if you think it will make the case stronger for such. Holdouts will be honored with laurels and figs.

The brave adjudicators of righteousness need time within the dungeons of despair.

"...soft on torture" as a weapon against Americans of conscience and the politicians who represent them."

Doesn't that "tortured" (sorry) logic sound familiar? The GOP is still the best at taking something noble, honored, and pure (certain individuals, people or groups) and disfiguring the accepted image into one of filthy, grotesqueness.

The predilection to bring dishonor to honorable and vise versa is one not equaled except within GOP politics.

They place the meek (in their estimation) alongside the conquered and boast of their arrogance to do so.

Carter, Kerry, and (the defeated Senator from GA in 2002?) could speak to this dark psychology.

"We are, after all, the United States."--Glenn

The sum of the your obvious US indiscretions contrasted with UAE crimes against humanity are amplified by our lawless example.

"We are,.." the CIA, MIC, DOD, DARMA, FBI, ("Homeland") that is permitted to destroy tapes, e-mails, memos, and all incriminating data that exposes how very dark our practices of making war on terror have become.

I'm hoping your described irony and US hypocrisy are too apparent for even the victimizers of sand eating to miss.

"...torture for pleasure and those who torture in the belief that they are some how doing so for the eventual advancement of Good Over Evil"--Jebbie

Though there is a distinction, the qualification is lost on the victim. He/she is not the least soothed in knowing the inflictor has the good of mankind in mind.

One questions whether giving such power to Presidents, generals in arms and hard-core patriots is wise under any motivation.

Many hungry for the quest for right devour the crumbs left for the wasted starved.