I am encouraged to support your take on the wealthy and their lapdog Press, the example being Mr. Brooks. I think it is very easy to draw this distinction between those who work on behalf of the Establishment, and those like the poor, who are screwed by them.

I have questions about this though. How come the individuals of the Press are not different? That is, how come there aren't reporters who don't work so much for the establishment but tend to look at what's going on and try to expose corruption.

Do you think Mr. Brooks is an extreme example where most of the Press is a little more independent?

I'd like some more I.F. Stone independents. Maybe a few Gary Webbs.

I wonder whether we, in fact, do have a lot of serious reporters who try to figure out what is going on and report on the corruptions and bad decisions. But...they are marginalized and otherwise ignored. They work for niche press. They work for regional press. They work but they do not have the resources to go places and do the work needed to find out and document what's going on...as you would like.

I am not happy with the Press, because I think it is responsible for much of the mess we're in, by their not doing their job.

But, I want to look around and see if it is the Press and the reporters, in general, or just those who are the 'upper crust' who now serve the National elites and disserve the country.

You were discussing how the political class has as a whole acted as though we had not signed any international agreements against torture, but now, some have advocated ignoring them. So, we get the recommendation that we pardon Bush officials for their advocacy and acts of torture.

I am struck by the supposition that these same establishment types would have a different story for the treaties and agreements they have saddled us with that demand the moving of American industries overseas. I have thought these laws enabled the slavery taking place in these other countries. They also have made us a debtor nation like many others.

Would the establishment go along with our advocating these treaties be ignored? Would they agree that they were worthless and even harmful to the country? I doubt it.

These treaties were fashioned and signed in order to force our economy to behave in such a way their buddies in the corporations would benefit far far into the future.

It is my understanding that the IMF and world bank get small countries indebted and then force them to sign on to some repayment plan involving restructuring of their economies. These agreements saddle those countries with debt repayments that hurt their populations forever.

I suspect the torture provisions were pushed just so they could stomp on us when the econonomic crisis they produced gets worse. It is easy to believe these are long term and connected strategies dependent on the idea of class warfare.

I am not sure that you have made clear what the elites who are arguing we ignore the torture and rendition crimes think is at stake.

If they lose and some of them are prosecuted, yes they will suffer the indignity of jail time. But is that all?

I suspect they want to make sure that their war making ability is also free of any kind of review.

So, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, or Iran, or whatever, may have been for false reasons, they may have lied to get us into these invasions and wars. Maybe someone would like to bring them to trial for those kinds of war crimes.

I'm sure all the people who wanted their draft status reviewed would have liked to have had the courts review their evidence that the VietNam war was illegal.

Maybe there are laws against hiring assassins to kill foreign leaders. Suppose some evidence could be obtained that tied an American politician or CIA official to some such killing. Wouldn't that be reviewable in court if the principle is upheld that torture is reviewable?

I suspect there's more than just the killings and the illegal wars, but maybe the sabotage. It is my understanding that CIA guys poisoned Cuban livestock. I hear that Clinton destroyed a pharmaceutical laboratory.

I may be wrong about the details, but this wide range of foreign behaviors lies behind the argument that you can't prosecute people for torture. If you can prosecute people for torture, if there are legal remedies for it, then you can start reigning in America's thugs in countless other issues.

The elites wouldn't want that, I imagine.