"Do we torture him in order to save hundreds or thousands or, in the case of a nuclear scenario, possibly millions of lives?"

-- The Fool

Absolutely, 100%, no! Not EVER! You can't torture him, or his wife, or his children, his neighbors, his dog, or anyone else without committing a crime. This isn't a fantasy world we're talking about, where pussies suddenly become tough guys, and evil doers are the only "bad guys" even when they're tortured.

If Hollywood is so "liberal" why does the rightwing follow it's teachings closer than christianity?

You'd think torture apologists would be embarrassed to keep screaming out asinine arguments that begin, "Imagine you're Jack Bauer, right, and it's almost midnight, and 3 thousand people are on a runaway train full of nuclear explosives, and your holding the guy that can fix the brakes.. " The rightwing and torture apologists can’t understand those of us who live in reality. They see the world through the eyes of Hollywood - from John Wayne to Ronald Reagan to 24 – and, in their bizarre world, those who don’t aren’t “Serious”.

To all the people making up bullshit scenarios to justify torture: Have you noticed that none of them ever becomes reality?!

"The sheik's behavior--terrorizing the populace to frighten them into never cheating him or angering him--is more akin to what Saddam Hussein was doing at Abu Ghraib than to what the US was doing."

-- Old Poor Richard

Who took over the Abu Ghraib franchise after the 2003 hostile corporate takeover?

While MSNBC is probably the least rightwing of the 24 hour news channels (despite Scarborough, Nora O'Donnell, Andrea Mitchell, etc), it's interesting that during the week they have people like Pat Buchannan screaming there can't be prosecutions for torture (we must look forward not backward, etc) then, almost every weekend, MSNBC runs it's 24 hour 'Prison Fetish' series filming all the people we "looked backward" at to prosecute and lock-up

If you replace the word "country" with "Republican Party" you'll find what they're saying makes sences. It will tear the Republican Party apart. It will do untold damage to the Republican Party. The Republican Party doesn't want to go through this ordeal.

How could Neal Katyal realistically be considered for Solicitor General?

Neal Katyal's so dumb he failed a blood test.

Neal Katyal's so dumb he thinks manual labor is a Mexican.

Neal Katyal's so dumb he tried to create voice mail be yelling into an envelope.

Neal Katyal's so dumb, when I said it was chilly outside, he ran out with a spoon.

Neal Katyal's so dumb when he asked me what jeans I was wearing, and I said "Guess", he said, "Levis? "

Neal Katyal's so dumb he thought MCI was a rap group.

Neal Katyal's so dumb when I asked him what comes after 69 he said, "mouthwash?"

Neal Katyal's so dumb when I told him that summer was right around the corner he went looking.

It's pretty well known, even if no one wants to go on the record to say it... To be honest, I personally don't know anyone who would defend Neal Katyal.

Are you saying that it’s OK for Rosen to write an article for TNR (ostensibly implying that it's unbiased) with such a rigid, unalterable agenda that he refused to let anything that deviated from that agenda interfere with what he wanted to say?

I don’t think Glenn’s argument is that Sotomayor is the most “exceptional legal mind” for the Supreme Court, it’s that Rosen decided to write a piece for TNR with a specific, unalterable agenda that refused to consider any information that didn’t comport with his agenda.

"If we ever pass out as a great nation we ought to put on our tombstone, 'America died from a delusion that she has moral leadership.'"

- Will Rogers (1879-1935)

The mindless use of the term "moral" to describe the USA (or, more precisely, Eli Lake's desire that the actions of the GOP can somehow appropriate the actions of United States) is repulsive in the extreme. Cloaking the last 8 years of morally bankrupt policies in "christianity" and "moral values" doesn't magically absolve excessive degenerate behavior.

"That's right. I will believe Obama until he gives me reason not to."

-- wbgonne

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy ... I was able to get a sense of his soul."

-- George W Bush

"Nothing pains some people more than having to think."

-- Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr

"There WERE those of us who tried to tell you Hillary was a better candidate, but NOOOOO! You have to go with a guy with almost NO experience at all."

-- chiefpayne

Yes, Hillary would never do something as craven and spineless as suppressing the torture photos, which is why she has been such a strong voice in opposition to suppressing information.

If only Hillary was here to say something. She would never be a coward, with all her experience and principles (green-lighting a war of war of aggression that has killed over 4,000 troops and upwards of one million Iraqis. Boasting to “obliterate” Iran for crass political gain, etc.) It's really too bad she's no longer around.

Either the detainees are so vastly superior to Americans that America is impotent to defend itself against them in a court of law or the detainees are no better than Americans and can be prosecuted without treating them as superior.

Not surprisingly, right-wingers and conservative Democrats have laid themselves at the feet of Middle Eastern men and are acknowledging that Middle Eastern men are their superiors.