Suppose, just suppose, that I knew for a fact that a terrorist had planted a nuclear bomb in a major city but had been HYPNOTIZED such that he could not remember the location or secret code to neutralize the bomb EXCEPT that I knew for a fact that there was a chance that the only way to get him to remember the location and code was to strip naked and do an Irish Jig at Market St. and Montgomery while chanting the Hare Krisna thing [the hypnotist was VERY clever and had a strange sense of humor]. But I also knew for a fact that an asteroid was hurtling towards Earth and would strike precisely at Market and Montgomery. AND I have reason to believe that the bomb is planted in a city where a woman is pregnant with the 21st Century's version of Hitler.

Hey, I'm just throwing out an extreme hypothetical. And if it weren't for the baby Hitler thing I'd say it would be completely irresponsible to not demand mandatory ethnic dancing lessons.

"What does it have to do with torture?"

You haven't seen me dance.

LMoE

"So I should imagine Elaine on Sienfeld?"

Are you implying that I've watched Seinfeld? I never said I watched Seinfeld.

My Point is that there is no evidence that torture works in a ticking time-bomb scenario if you haven't done the Irish Jig first.

Duh.

LMoE

"p.p.s. what if the baby Hitler was really the Messiah?"

That seems unlikely.

LMoE

The way I read this, Harman isn't being at all hypocritical. Wiretaps, warrantless or not, of ordinary plebeian citizens is fine. The outrage is that they would dare wiretap a member of Congress or some other beltway patrician.

As she said:

"...hope that he will investigate whether other members of Congress or other innocent Americans "

As long as you understand the basic division between the members of the royal court (politicians, D.C. press corps, lobbyists, big corporation CEOs and the rest of the cocktail circuit) and the great unwashed masses, this is entirely consistent.

It is SHOCKING that a member of the court would be wiretapped (legally or otherwise), just like it is is unfathomable that a member of the court would be subject to the rule of law (e.g. torture investigations, retroactive immunity, etc.). The law only applies to the plebes, except when it is supposed to protect them.

LMoE

Bravo to Wanda Sykes for rubbing the DC Insiders' noses in their Courtly Manners. Remember, this was the crowd that was aghast and offended at Stephen Colbert's speech a few years back, which was easily the best and funniest piece of political humor since George Carlin's heyday. The fact that they either couldn't understand the truth behind the humor, or recognize the humor in the first place, in Colbert's (or Sykes) routine shows how fundamentally insulated and self-important the Insiders are.

What surprised me was that they would have invited Sykes or any other comedienne with a career independent of the DC cocktail circuit. I imagine that, just as after Colbert, they will demand a return to stale yet safe, clean, and TAME acts such as Rich Little (isn't he dead yet?), Mark Russell (ditto?), or the Capitol Steps. If they're feeling frisky they might go for Garrison Keillor or Dave Barry. I'm sure they've all got a GREAT Gerald Ford golfing joke warmed up.

LMoE

I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that, when faced with the suggestion that some of these photos may depict child rape, we are arguing about whether releasing them will harm our national PR (really our own sheltered self-image) or constitutes distribution of child porn rather than the implication that our government has been raping children.

Forgive me if this sounds too fucking obvious, and I may be preaching to the choir, but if anyone believes that these photos contain evidence of sexual abuse of children and is praising, excusing or OKing Obama from not releasing them without immediately and aggressively opening a comprehensive investigation and prosecution of those directly and indirectly responsible. has seriously misplaced their moral compass.

The FOIA compels the release of the photos. The ONLY acceptable circumstance (to me) for limiting (but not withholding) their distribution is if the government acknowledges the content of the images and is aggressively pursuing justice against those responsible. Only if and when the rotten bastards who executed, conceived, justified or otherwise enabled these policies and practices are brought to justice will these photos need to be kept from our ever-so-delicate eyes.

If the photos depict a crime [torture, rape, murder, etc.], criminal investigations and charges must ensue. If they don't, the American people presumably are OK with the acts and conditions depicted, and thus should not be too shocking for release.

Unlike the shrinking violet DC Villagers, the American people are adult enough and strong enough to know what our government is doing.

LMoE

FYI- Pelosi voted against, not "with very enthusiasm for the invation of Iraq!"

The national disgrace of the torture policy needs to be investigated and those responsible, directly or indirectly, should be held accountable (indicted and tried) to the degree they were accountable. If this nets Pelosi and/or other Democrats for enabling the torture policy through their approval or acknowledgement and inaction, then fine.

But the KoolAide smokers who think that this would bring down Pelosi without snaring the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush war criminals is kidding themselves. Pelosi is, at most, small fry compared to the big fish responsible for crafting, authorizing, justifying and promoting the torture policy.

The Right's focus on Pelosi strikes me, ultimately, as gloating about the fact that Bush et al. are able to get away with blatant criminality (and literally, murder) and won't be held accountable because of the political timidity of Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Sadly, they may be correct; Pelosi and Reid have amply demonstrated their spinelessness and have never been keen on risking their own political fortunes to hold anyone accountable for their crimes.

LMoE