I went to the link and read the whole piece that Glenn is commenting on, and I have to say it's taken hours to try to formulate any kind of response to the naive drivel that some editor actually allowed to get to print.

All this angst over whether or not torture is "OK", yet zero perspective beyond "gee I was upset after 9/11" at one end of the spectrum and "maybe Krauthammer was a bit excessive in saying torture was an imperative response". In between those two points, the only fleeting reference to what most of human history has struggled to attain -- you know, laws prohibiting the torture of human beings -- is the suggestion that the writer may have been told somewhere that Bush and his cabal really have engaged in torture, yet only “with the backing of seemingly dubious interpretations of the laws”.

“With the backing of seemingly dubious interpretations of the laws.” What a convenient way to dispatch with any need to consider the crux of the problem and instead turn the entire discussion into “how I feel about this and whether it’s OK with me.” This phrasing allows the author simply to ignore any of the historical reasons for banning torture, circumvent any of the international repercussions of renegade torturing by the U.S., overlook the risks to American service and civilian personnel abroad, and even disregard the ramifications to the rule of law itself when the executive branch of government arrogates unto itself the unilateral authority to disregard existing laws, not to mention pesky existential concepts such as “right and wrong” – but that’s OK, because all our author wants to think about is whether maybe in this instance “these guys are bad, I’ve been upset, it seems like I’m safe and warm at the moment, so I won’t complain.”

I dunno. Maybe the reason this guy was unable to find anyone articulating “the sheer muddiness of [his] thinking” in some pre-existing post is because, well, his thinking is self-indulgent, stupid tripe. Let’s hope others see it that way, because this kind of “thinking” is naïve to the point of embarrassment.

But the article also mentions that our esteemed author is 23. At 23, that means the anger and retaliatory animus he recalls after 9/11 was the thinking of a what, 16 year old high school sophomore who had just watched the World Trade Center blow up? And it must have created a strong image – a strong image reinforced by Jack Bauer and followed up by the President of the United States in a flight jacket on an aircraft carrier. Torture the bad guys? Why not? And then, even the Democrats were voting with the President’s stated desire to eliminate habeas corpus, or to wiretap (and immunize previous and admittedly felonious wiretapping). So if the President said that the “interrogation” methods were not governed by laws and principles we have all known since birth, well then, if it later turns out that some might call such statements “seemingly dubious interpretations of the laws”, certainly you can’t hold that against the President or be bothered with figuring out why there are laws against torture and whether it matters that the President’s “dubious interpretations” were anything other than a fraud.

Maybe it’s just easier to ignore all that messy “law” stuff, chalk it up to “policy differences”, and cut right to the really important thing: does it really bother me personally that some bad guy got tortured or killed? No, not really, I guess. Publish it in The Atlantic and wonder why nobody else said it as well as you just did, pal.

Maybe we really do get the government we deserve.

Jessop gave a moving speech, Jessop clearly felt it was more important that his mission be accomplished than that he adhere to concepts like obeying the law.

But Jessop got arrested at the end. He was wrong, the Rule of Law won over his personal "belief" in his own infallibility. It had to win for the system to survive. "Don't call me son. I am an officer in the United States Navy, and you're under arrest you son of a bitch."

That seems like kind of an important point, too, as we watch Bush & Co.'s apologists today.

Another fine line from Shooter: "I subscribe to the idea that rough men are required to ensure you sleep comfortably at night."

This is used to justify acceptance of the Bush Administration's actions, whether legal or not.

Reminds me of Jack Nicholson's colonel in A Few Good Men: "You want me on that wall; you need me on that wall ... You can't handle the truth!" Except how did things turn out for him? Oh, that's right, arrested. For violating the law of the land. Moral: there are rules, and being dedicated to protecting "America" does not justify ignoring them.

For the principle you're grasping at, Shooter, may I suggest you go with "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" from that wimp Thomas Jefferson? That articulation carries with it an implicit recognition that what you're protecting has an element of moral truth to it, and is not just based on fear.

And, ultimately, I am reminded by your last exposition of nothing more clearly than Jonathan Turley's observation when a bare majority of the Supreme Court ruled that habeas corpus couldn't be vitiated at the President's whim because the Constitution applies even in "difficult times". Professor Turley said of the President's position and the Court's vindication of the Constitution: "even an idiot-proof system still has idiots."

That about sums it up. You go ahead and advocate having "rough men" do whatever it takes for you to sleep at night, and I'll keep asking our government to respect the Constitution even while they're trying to keep us safe. Because if your thought process prevails, the people who disagree with you shouldn't be so comfortable trying to sleep at night, now should they?