It's either Deadeye Dick or one of his fanboys.

Assuming I agree with Greenwald's entire article, which I don't entirely, I think there is a position that should be considered. The word "torture" for most brings scenes of the Inqusition, and there is evidence that information gained is not always accurate.

And thus, the bullshit begins. One, the Inquisition (as well as the witch hunts) used water torture to get people to "confess" to things that not only weren't true, not only things that did not happen, but to things that were physically impossible, like flying on broomsticks and turning people into toads.

One of the people Bush had tortured "confessed" that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were allied against the US and that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks. That "confession" is in part responsible for the deaths of over 4000 Americans and a million Iraqis.

Assume that 100 terrorists were subjected to waterboarding and one out of the hundred made possible an intervention that caught an otherwise viable plan to nuke New York City, thus preventing the deaths of several million people. Would you still want to prosecute the one who waterboarded that terrorist?

I don't assume anything is possible when it only happens on moronic TV shows. Why not base government policy on I Dream of Jeannie while you're at it? [click my name below]

http://daltonator.net/durandal/blog/?p=102

Besides Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay has more basis in reality and is more entertaining.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONMoVMMnR_U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G9ta7AHsIU

We are in a new world of possibilities and need new world solutions, as well as new thinking about permissible interrogation procedures. It is a slippery slope, but many lives may well depend on our solution.

There's nothing new about torture. It was stupid, perverted and evil thousands of years ago and still is today -just like those who condone it. You know, YOU!

They might as well bring back animal and human sacrifice, too.

The niceties of civiliazed behavior are sorely tested in any war. We must balance the true possibilities against our moral conscience.

Hitler couldn't have said it any better:

Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle.

--Adolf Hitler

Looks like you're not the only one who thinks morality can be ignored during a struggle.

It's my understanding that if a person confesses freely to a crime, then they cannot plead not guilty in court. Bush, Cheney and the other have confessed in public that they ordered and/or condoned torture.

Does this mean a trial would be a open and shut case?

I brought this up last week and I'm glad to see Glenn Greenwald agrees. The reason the establishment media at first pooh-poohed and are now wetting their pants at the very idea of war crimes trials is because THEY would find themselves in the dock, just as Julius Streicher was at Nuremberg.

He even supports the use of the same tactics the SS used in Eastern Europe, such as the razing of Lidice:

http://www.counterpunch.org/menetrez02122008.html

So anyone using him to vouch for torture might as well invoke Himmler.

Charles Taylor Jr was just sentenced to 97 years in prison for torture.

http://daltonator.net/durandal/blog/?p=169

It's obvious that the Democrats in charge are scared to death of a real prosecution since they are neck deep in torture, just like the Bush Junta. Now we have Obama who claims to oppose torture, but (a) won't prosecute and (b) wants to set up kangaroo courts that use evidence obtained under torture.

I wonder if the media's support for torture is based on what happened to Julius Streicher at Nuremberg. He ran a newspaper that advocated all the war crimes carried out by the Third Reich and was hanged along with those who did the dirty work. Are they afraid of ending up in the dock, too?

Glenn, it would be very interesting for you to contact Kondracke and ask if those very same acts, "under orders and with patriotism", would be worthy of punishment if they had been unsuccessful and we had been attacked.

Another question for those who think we should let bygones be bygones when it comes to war crimes:

If it's just too "traumatic" and too much of a distraction to prosecute war criminals now, do they think the trials at Nuremberg and Tokyo were a bad idea, too? Do we owe the men convicted of war crimes and their families an apology?

As this article shows:

http://daltonator.net/durandal/blog/?p=154

Goldfarb smeared Pvt Beauchamp and accused him of making up stories of despicable acts by US troops in Iraq. One of the sources used to smear Beauchamp was 1st Sergeant John E. Hatley, who has been charged with ordering his own men to murder prisoners execution-style and dump their bodies in a canal.

Click the link by my name for more.

As far as Gaza is concerned, it's obvious that the reason it's considered just for Israel to slaughter a hundred Palestinians for every Israeli killed is because most Americans regard Arabs and Muslims to be sub-human. Don't believe me? Could you imagine if the RAF had bombed the Republic of Ireland, killing 100 Irish people for every Briton killed in an IRA attack? Could you imagine American public officials flocking to Britain to cheer on the massacre and IDF camp followers like Michael Bloomberg and Gary Ackerman have done? How about if the Spanish goverment had blown away Basques in such numbers in retaliation for ETA bombings?

That's because the Irish and the Basques are considered members of the human race and Arabs are written off as Untermenschen -especially Palestinians.