Now if, as Glenn says,

Half of the American citizenry is now explicitly pro-torture (and the question even specified that the torture would be used not against Terrorists, but "terrorist suspects") ...

then, by God, they'd better be prepared to look at the result of what they're supporting. It's offensive in the extreme that people can say, "Sure, I can support that," but not be forced to see the outcome.The photo Lucy's objecting to is of alleged Iranian abuse, not American.

It's valid, I think, to question the use of that photo in connection this post, but I'm fairly certain that Glenn has no say at all in those decisions.

Furthermore, the president has stated unequivocally that torture will not continue under his watch.

Which is exactly what George Bush said, and there is no reason, other than rank partisanship, to imagine that Obama's is any less of an unequivocal lie than Bush's.

the decision seems to me a pragmatic one, not one based on principle.

I'd urge you to re-read what you yourself wrote, and ask if that statement doesn't support every criticism made of Obama on this issue.

Obama namechecking Nedā Āġā-Soltān from the Presidential podium made the obvious point - if proof were ever needed - that when something is personalized, people connect with it emotionally. When we think of Tiananmen, we think of the guy standing in front of the tank... when we think of Kent State, we think of the girl screaming in anguish.

And when we think of Abu Ghraib, we think of the pyramid of bodies. Not the Conventions Against Torture, or the ACLU, or a thousand well-reasoned (and entirely correct) blog posts.

If we want change - in whatever aspect of our political system - it needs to be personal.

After they build a fleet, sail out of the Gulf of Terrorstan, get past the Coast Guard, the Navy, and the Harbor Patrol into Massachusetts Bay, survive a land invasion of Southie and make it through Boston traffic to my house without getting run over, shot in a drive-by or ticketed by the Massachusetts State Police for not having a valid inspection sticker, then I'll be scared of the Evil Terrists. Not before.

Jeez, Americans used to be made of sterner stuff.

I am fairly confident that the last thing on Nedā Āġā-Soltān's mind was neither the US response to the Iranian elections nor our policy vis-á-vis Georgia and Ukraine.

some who should not be detained under our current laws, but have been identified as being unstable in regard to potential future terrorist actions, if released.

This one's good.

The NeoCons can also be called "Straussians" because the philosophy which they follow was conceived by Levi Strauss.

It's the hipsters who worship Levi Strauss.

what is motivating obama to continue these policies?

Power.

Just so.

I strongly believe that those who trade liberty for safety get neither, but I can't prove it... the old 'you can't prove a negative' thing. But I think there's ample evidence to support the proposition.

The people who wrote the Constitution, the Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen, the UDHR... these were not wimps. Their mouths did not write checks their asses were not able to cash.

We should be willing to do no less.

the policies ARE NOT WRONG. They worked, they continue to work

People who are guided by a functioning sense of morality judge things according to a hierarchy of standards. Whether something "works" is certainly valid. However, it can't be the only standard. If we wanted to be free from danger, we'd put security cameras everywhere, forbid anyone but a cop or a soldier from being able to own a weapon, and outlaw martial arts.

Likewise, even if torture, government secrecy and constant surveillance were productive of increased security (which I dispute) such acts would still be invalid because they are unacceptable violations of human rights.

I credit him for wanting what’s best — but only as he sees it.

By which Andy means: Obama has the audacity to hope for everyone to be free to live under shari'a... to aspire to the dream of every father to see their daughter in her very own chador. Also: William Ayers, socialism Chávez re-education teleprompter.

acknowledging the existence of eye-contact

I've lived in Philadelphia, Miami, San Francisco, San Diego, Boston. It's urban defensive behavior, and not generational. Crazy people make eye contact.

Walking downtown, you'll make eye contact maybe one out of 25-30 people you pass

I can't remember the last time I got a hail-fellow-well-met from anyone downtown who wasn't bugshit insane, be they Boomer, GenXer or Millenial.

I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of teens-to-thirties who are actually motivated for change has remained constant since the sixties. The numbers at those protests were swelled by passive observers and guys looking for "easy" hippie chicks.

Intergenerational flamage is tired. There's plenty of blame to go around for American political passivity.

Most, if not all, of the people quoted in the post would stand firmly opposed to anything that smacked of "moral relativism": the wishy-washy, gray-areas thinking that suggests one should take the broader context of any situation into account when judging its rightness or wrongness.

Could there be anything more "morally relative" than the idea that what matters is not what was done, but who was doing it?

Most likely that there were fewer hits to the site and that was a result of less interest from Democrats concerning political issues.

If so, if that were the reason, then why didn't they say: "we canned Froomkin because his blog was not getting hits" - that'd pretty much have ended any debate about his firing. They'd only use weasel words like "may have" if there weren't fewer hits, or if - inexplicably - washingtonpost.com just doesn't bother counting pageviews.

It makes complete, logical sense if you think about it for more than 30 seconds.