It's not good enough to release them in camera. Just as was done in Nuremburg, we need open and transparent investigations for the historical record that demonstrate that we as a people know what exactly was done in our name, and that we take responsibility for those actions.

The major differences between what the Nazis did in WWII and what we did over the last eight years are ones of scale (they killed more people) and of outcome (we didn't get conquered). Degree and kind are the same: we imprisoned and then tortured to death people, some of whom were innocent. Even the most guilty ones (KSM, probably) deserved due process and a fair trial. There is absolutely no wiggle room for a civilized society when it comes to that kind of behavior.

Although I realize my opinion is not commonly shared, I don't feel there's a difference in kind between setting out to murder some unspecified number of individuals of a culture (say, Muslims), and setting out to murder them all. That's more semantic than anything though. I Godwinned us because we deserve it.

none of the folks posting those comments make mad bank. All those guys are out banking. The people doing the crying make 40k/year, live in a doublewide, and live vicariously by pretending they're members of the oberclass. Democracy in action, baby.

Quackadoo and "Suzanne Somers is crazypants". I made the last one up. But just look at that woman!

when I find myself in agreement with Newt Gingrich. "The fact is, she either didn't do her job, or she did do her job and she's now afraid to tell the truth." (link in sig)

And because of this, at least partly, the frigging President of the United States is building Rube Goldberg machines that would do Kafka proud. Thanks lady.

And I think Pelosi should resign. I'm one of her constituents, and utterly shamed by her complicity in this. If the entire Democratic leadership, complicit in the torture of innocent human beings over the past eight years, resigned, I would still say they should be prosecuted and jailed if they've violated the law, right alongside our former President. This is a black and white issue.

Let's hope Obama pulls his foot out of this beartrap before he too becomes a war criminal, if he is not in fact already one.

I've been warming up to the opposition of socialized healthcare, in this country at least. That is, by pushing the boundaries here, the techniques we pioneer have a good effect on the rest of the world. Someone, somewhere has to do that pushing. Why not us? We bad.

It's nice when I can see the opposition point of view, still disagree with it (pretty much), but know that the dialogue is actually rational. Now if only we could do away with our differences on things like abortion and the torture of human beings..

That hardly ever happens. Lucky guy..

Instead of proceeding along the negative z-axis, they've now turned ninety degrees and are proceeding along the negative imaginary axis.

That has to be the most apt description of the situation I've ever read. Seriously, if you have no idea what color, empathy, respect for boundaries even are, of course what the man says is madness.

I hate to have to say it like that. To campaign on transparency and an end to the abuses of the past 8 years, and then to commit so completely to perpetuating the worst of them (unchecked executive power, no punishment for those who break the law if they happen to "have our best interests at heart") is worse in many ways than what GWB and company did. It proves there is no one and nothing for the civil-liberties-oriented voter to turn to.. no matter who you vote for, you're screwed.

I thought, for a while, that Obama would lead the effort to reinstate the rule of law in this country. Shame that isn't so.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

Obama can say whatever he wants. It's what he does that matters. What proof will we have that torture has ended? He'll bitterly contest any effort to put independent observers into the secret prisons at Bagram, Guantanamo, and elsewhere. He'll continue to assert executive privilege that has no basis in law, much less common sense. Set against that, statements that profess his respect for the rule of law are less than meaningless.. they're properly Orwellian.

No. We have to release them because we can't trust the government, in an absence of court-admissible proof provided in a court which then convinces a jury of the defendant's guilt, to properly administer justice.

This has been proven over and over again in so many fora it's unnecessary to ever consider the question again. We can never, ever trust government to get it right when secrets are kept. There is no principled case, it's a matter of simple (ahem) pragmatic, empirical knowledge. No trust ever. Doesn't work. End of story. Nothing to see here, move along. Just let them out of jail, we screwed up.

I blame all this on the public education system. That one semester of civics in high school really isn't enough.

Correct, in the sense that it's a philosophical position adopted because of many empirical examples. Much like the Constitution itself came into existence as a result of sober consideration of the consequences of monarchy, republic and Athenian democracy over the preceding couple thousand years. I don't believe the Founding Fathers were necessarily right in every word they ever wrote, much less that they actually agreed on things (see Hamilton, A.). I do think we ought to base our governance on more enduring and empiric principles than the poll numbers or the 24h-news cycle.

On this I think we agree ;].

Agreed. It means the "moderate" policy will be forever defined by which wingnuts can push the furthest, to drag the middle along with them.