From Glenn' last link, which is an article by Malcolm Nance, a former chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School:

1. "One has to overcome basic human decency to endure causing the effects [of waterboarding]. The brutality would... leave you questioning the meaning of what it is to be an American."

2. "Is there a place for the waterboard? Yes. It must go back to the realm of training our operatives, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines - to prepare for its uncontrolled use by our future enemies."

3. "Our own missteps have already created a cadre of highly experienced lecturers for Al Qaeda's own virtual school for terrorists."

and finally, showing that this article appeared a year ago, before McCain voted against a bill that would have curtailed the CIA's use of the technique:

4. "I agree with Sen. John McCain. Waterboarding should never be used as an interrogation tool. It is beneath our values."

In short, McCain, who once claimed that he survived torture in captivity through a belief that his country stood for something better than those who used it against him, was, at least at that time, a champion for those familiar with torture who saw that its use would "br[eak] the seal on the Pandora's box of indignity, cruelty and hatred in the name of protecting America."

Too bad McCain has since changed his position. He was against torture... before he was for it.

There is a very sad article in the San Antonio News yesterday that describes a family's reaction to finding out that their son was likely tortured by his Iraqi captors after being kidnapped in an ambush in retaliation for the rape of a "14-year-old Iraqi girl" in a case in which "U.S. soldiers... have testified they took turns raping the girl." The soldier's father is then quoted regarding his view of the possibility of the Iraqi government trying the suspects in his son's death:

"While Army officials have vowed to work with the Iraqi government to prosecute the suspects, Charles Meunier said “that’s BS in my book” if they plan to let the Iraqis try them for political reasons. “They’ll just write it off as part of war,” he said. “Well, that’s not a part of war. You don’t do the atrocities that they did to other human beings.”"

The article goes on to say that the father is "also bitter over a 6 1/2-hour delay in communications surveillance that occurred three days into the search [for his son in Iraq.]. While some Republicans have blamed the holdup on federal rules on eavesdropping, Democrats blame the delay on inept wrangling by legal experts in the Bush administration and difficulty reaching then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to give oral consent to begin surveillance."

So "some Republicans" blame the soldier's capture not on the events pictured in the photos Glenn showed, or on the rape of a 14 year old girl by U.S. soldiers but on "federal rules on eavesdropping."

They no longer even need to "round up the usual suspects;" they just blame those pesky federal eavesdropping rules.

The article gets even more absurd when it quotes "a retired Army officer and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary’s University" saying that "if the suspects are linked to al-Qaida, they fit the definition Congress set in 2006 of “enemy combatants,” and could be taken to the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay... which disposes of cases much faster than a federal court."

Apparently there is a "rocket docket" in Gitmo as they aren't encumbered by those pesky federal rules, that NYT article today that says "none of the scores of cases brought by detainees have been resolved by any judge" notwithstanding.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/Family_fears_son_knew_real_horror_of_war.html

... editorial in the WSJ today about this case, entitled "The Terrorists Next Door: Justice Kennedy's consequences;"

It states: "While their situation is unfortunate, the choice is between continuing to hold them at Gitmo in special housing or releasing them here. Judge Urbina's attempt to impose the latter is a raw display of judicial supremacy."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122360571398721971.html

...the University of Nebraska just cancelled a planned speech by Bill Ayers, citing safety concerns.

The University received emails stating that (if William Ayers comes) "it will be done," that "you better have plenty of security," and one from "Lee Harvey Cornhusker" stating "Give me a sniper rifle and a good firing position."

An official, however, downplayed the death threats, stating: "When people spout off a death threat, you can manage that"... "It's more you have a bunch of angry people saying they're going to show up and be disruptive. . . . We realized it would require a considerable amount of security."

Casting much doubt on any future prosecutions, the UNL Chief of Police later stated that it will be difficult to track people who sent e-mails or posted on blogs.

So Palin and McCain accuse Obama of palling around with Ayers the Terrorist, the press is later penned up at their campaign events, and later a speech by the supposed terrorist is cancelled due not to the death threats made but to "a bunch of angry people saying they're going to show up and be disruptive" and it's not news.

Can you imagine if Obama had called Liddy a terrorist, accused McCain of palling around with him and a planned speech was cancelled because of a "bunch of angry people" threatened disruptiveness? Malkin would have exploded.

But it's happening here in the "heartland" and, so far, no one's noticed.

(link at signature)