Names have been thrown out for a while at various blogs. I don't see the need for someone commenting on a story to then lay out how they would do it - it would get tiring quickly. But if you are interested, that information is out there. Heres a start: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3933/twenty_two_to_know/

@Serafin: yeah we're just cowering in our beds over the stimulus package, the support for the workers in chicago, massive electoral gains, etc etc. Damn you right wingers always manage to win somehow!

The Hayden thing has gotta be someone in the intelligence community floating that. I can't see why - would that really ever happen? That would be absolutely rediculous in light of Obama's speech on the floor and forcing out Brennan.

I am worried about the "cabinet members don't count" meme going around though. I am reading Globalization and its Discontents by Joseph Stiglitz right now, and he describes a few episodes where Summers and Rubin and that crowd were not only wrong but comically (or chillingly) so, while also laying out just how much power the Treasury has, and even more so now with the TARP program. With Geithner making disparaging remarks about Bair, who has been a staunch ally of homeowners, I'm worried about the economic team. I hope that despite people's hope for Obama, the mantra becomes "trust but verify" not "cheerlead". That was fine in the general election maybe, but there is a wholesale shift in attitude that needs to take place now that we're through to the transition.

I believe it was Digby or Atrios that brought up the following scenario: even if there was a so called ticking time bomb scenario (leaving aside the fact that perfect security is impossible and an open society will always be open to attack to some extent), lets say Jack Bauer really did have Ali Shaheed Muhammed in the airport because he caught some bomb dust in Ali's shoes when he took them off to walk through security, and now Jack has him in the torture room, ah, enhanced interrogation room and has good reason to believe Ali's friends put bombs on various other airplanes. If Jack tortures Ali, gets the information, saves the airplanes, would this man seriously be prosecuted or harmed in anyway? Look how many police officers get off scot-free or with the lightest of punishments for serious brutality cases. Even if he were to be charged, the results would have to be taken into consideration. Hell even if he were prosecuted, you don't think there would be a massive outcry to pardon this man? While not a perfect scenario or a pleasant one to think about, this type of case by case judgement is infinitely preferable to condoning torture. Maybe someone can poke a hole in my scenario but I'm just pointing out that actively pursuing legislation for a ticking time bomb scenario is dumb and only really serves the culture of fear these intelligence officers, politicians, and military-industrial complex people use to further their own interests.

As others have stated, stating that torture is immoral but gets valuable results is contradictory. As others stated, if what we get is valuable, then the means themselves must have some value. You can't oppose torture but value the results because then you open yourself up to torture in many situations where it is at best counterproductive, and at worse complete destruction of the psyche of innocents for no gain and huge moral cost.

Second, you still won't address rendition. You yourself acknowledged it to be a separate issue entirely in the interview, but now seem to be ignoring it. Regardless of whether Brennan supported torture explicitly or not **by US officials/contractors** (you seem to think he didn't; others disagree), rendition to another country is obviously a backdoor method to torture, or at the very least, appearence of torture, which amounts to the same thing in the eyes of the world. Do you really think intelligence officials wouldn't say one thing about American policy but leave the door open via rendition? Without opposition to rendition it is fair to call someone a supporter of Bush torture policy.

I am interested in these intelligence officials though. Obviously you trust them but do you really take them to be unbiased? These are men and women who labor under constant pressure, who receive highly unfavorable press frequently, and almost no favorable press, who are expected to magically come up with results that others will take credit for but are expected to take the blame for all failures (witness Bush recently blaming Iraq on intelligence failures....what a cheap shot). Most are patriots and understand the law, but under that type of pressure, moral codes have been compromised before and will be again. Short term gains are often illusory enough to drive humans places they never thought they would go. The only defense against that type of human weakness is the fully articulated unconditional opposition to torture. If you are still around, I'd love to hear some more from you about your impression of those people.

Just wanted to comment that I enjoy the long form of your blog postings very much Glenn, the depth and obvious dedication to each topic is very much appreciated. All I can do is cheer you on like, er, a cheerleader I guess, but just make sure you are taking care of yourself as well like Heru said. I personally wouldn't mind seeing 10 long form GG posts a day but that probably wouldn't be very good for your health.