I'm not sure if it's possible to overstate the importance of "American exceptionalism" in engaging in any debate about U.S. actions/foreign policy. I imagine Glenn is familiar with Chomsky's argument, for example, about what would have happened to successive post WWII U.S. Presidents if the Nuremberg Laws were applied. Just think back to the atrocities and war crimes committed in the name of winning the Cold War and defeating Communism. How many countries were invaded? How many Presidents toppled/assassinated? How many death squads supported? The unwillingness on the part of so many (not just the right wing blogosphere) to even use the word torture these days shows the systemic nature of the problem. If U.S. troops were subjected to the equivalent treatment, do you think any of these people would hesitate to use the term?

I would also add that I doubt torture was permitted only to get information on potential future attacks (not to say that this is a legitimate reason to violate human rights). I think that part of the unspoken rationale is the notion held by some that "it's better to be feared than respected." There seems to be at least some anecdotal evidence for this, as some "hawks" attributed the 9/11 attacks to perceived U.S. weakness in response to terrorist attacks in the 1990s. Torture for them equals getting tough and deterring would-be attackers. Obviously, it doesn't matter to them if the facts don't bear their hypothesis out. I mean, of course torture would be a deterrent to a would-be suicide-bomber!

The NY Times makes clear in its editorial that it has no expectations that Obama will do anything to initiate war crimes prosecutions. They've already let him off the hook and he's not even President yet.

Does anyone actually think this is going to happen? You think senior Democrats want this to happen given some of them were being briefed and said nothing? Obama will likely follow through with some sort of truth commission that the Times recommends later in the editorial. After all, he's a uniter, the country is dealing with bigger problems, etc. etc. Conventional wisdom will abound. "The important thing is to make sure this never happens again." "Obama needs Republicans' support to rescue the economy." "People need to remember that this happened after 9/11."

America - where voting for the lesser of 2 evils = democracy, and where locking up troops who carried out orders = supporting the troops. Seriously, the only good thing about this is that anybody who doesn't demand pardons for the troops who got sent to jail for torture can objectively be called anti-troops. It's a nice stick to poke in the eyes of the right-wing blogosphere, but it ain't justice.

I will be more than happy to eat crow on this.

Haven't read the comments, but since Glenn was asking, the drug war comes to mind. I'm pretty sure many Democratic Party supporters would favour decriminalizing at least pot, not to mention favouring harm reduction more over criminalization. It's pretty incredible that thousands of Americans are still put in jail over pot-related offences.

Not sure if this has been raised, but Israel has engaged in collective punishment practices, for example house demolitions and deportations of relatives of terrorists. It's obviously not on the same level as killing people but the "deterrent" principle is the same.

See: http://www.btselem.org/english/Deportation/Deportation_to_Gaza.asp or

http://www.btselem.org/english/Punitive_Demolitions/20080703_Letter_to_Mazuz.asp

Worked so well they had to build a giant wall.

Personally, I would recommend Friedman travel to Gaza with Marty and Michael as his bodyguards and ask Palestinians if they feel like making nice with Israel now. Something tells me the problem in the Middle East is not a shortage of violence, but I'm no expert like Friedman.

A couple of points: 1) the people who are opposed to trials for politicians over this issue but who aren’t simultaneously demanding full exoneration for the soldiers who were punished for abuses are disingenuous scumbags. 2) Chuck Todd seems like a nice guy but he’s awash in cozy establishment groupthink. Governments have a duty to uphold the rule of law. The Obama administration made so much clear when it excused its disgusting brief in defending DOMA. So when Todd is told by some lackey in the administration that there are concerns about politics that might trump upholding the rule of law, it should be his first instinct to call bullshit.

All this and that said, none of this is a surprise. Every government, Democratic or Republican, puts law first when it suits them politically. The establishment media, barring few exceptions, has never cared about this and never will, because they are de facto part of the establishment. I applaud Glenn for caring but this is like railing against a clock for telling the time. Todd is part of a filthy machine that is doing exactly what it is meant to do.