If we were only having to fight off McCainiacs then the majority for the Sapients would still be in play.

You don't know that, nor do I. Personally, I tend to think that the Sapients of the world have never been "in play" as any kind of genuine agents for change. The last thing true believers of either party want is for the underclass to get all uppity, start demanding their rights, and devolve power to the level where it can be limited, responsive and humane.

But you are, again, correct:that ship has sailed. It's my own opinion that things would have followed this course with or without the Greenwalds and Sullivans of the world, and that putting any hope for change in national electoral politics is a fool's game. But it's water under the bridge... plus I've ridden that hobbyhorse, I think, long enough in these threads.

I will believe Obama until he gives me reason not to.

One can no more debate this than one could debate "on the third day he rose again."

The pictures concern torture during the Bus Administration, a practice which has ended under Obama.

Has it? Has it really?

You sure?

And if so... why? Because your government told you? And you believe them?

And you have the audacity to call other people "fool..."

It's the reason why I didn't vote this year, even though I generally - and genuinely - agree with those that say the lesser of two evils is, well, less evil, especially for the very most vulnerable. If Massachusetts' electoral votes had even marginally been in play, I'd have done the old hold-your-nose-and-pull-the-lever.

The question of whether the proliferation of Sapients is worse than a plague of McCainiacs is an academic one, and one that is best left to historians and writers like Harry Turtledove. As far is this goes, though, adnoto is also right that people need to get off their asses, not settle for venting in GG's letters threads, and that donations to the ACLU are probably not enough...

I think there is a vacant apartment building next to your house that can hold all the GITMO detainees.

I already have a huge tower by my apartment filled with psychologically shattered, traumatized ex-combatants.

It's called the VA Medical Center.

It's midnight on the Least Coast, but for as long as she/he is here I designate tomemos as my proxy.

Night all.

I do trust my leaders

The problem is that you also trust my leaders... the chief executive of the United States. That makes it more than just a matter of personal style: it's an issue of morality with real consequences in the lives of many, many, many people.

Obviously, we have different views of the social contract.

Jesus. Obviously. The whirring sound you hear is M. Jean-Jacques Rousseau spinning in his grave at 5300 rpm.

I don't call you a bastard because I disagree with you, I call you a bastard because you "assume [the President's] decisions are based on information, logic and judgment, and that he has the interests of the country in mind."

Free citizens don't "trust" their leaders. Full fucking stop.

If Bush had refused to release photos depicting torture, giving the same reasons, would you have supported it equally?

What ondelette said. Far, far better, as usual. But thanks.

I'm pretty jaded, but even I'm outraged and saddened by the number of voices being raised in this comment thread supporting the decision to conceal these photos.

"No good will come?" Would we even have had an Abu Ghraib scandal without the pictures of bloody prisoners and men cowering in front of dogs? "No good?" Is there or is there not an active debate in this country about whether or not torture is acceptable? "No good?" Did a United States Senator not say just today, in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, that torture techniques have been used for the past five centuries because "apparently they work?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss-4Ah2G8FE

"No good will come?"

Of all the shitty things Barack Obama has done since becoming president, unleashing you pack of bastards on our country has got to be the worst.

You don't want to mention it because you don't want to do it.

So, mention it yourself if Glenn doesn't want to. You have a platform - thousands of people comment and lurk here - use it. Explain what "has to be done."

You haven't done so because you don't want to mention the fact that civil disobedience often means ending up in jail, or worse. And you'd have to advocate doing so from the comfortable confines of an anonymous screen name and to acknowledge the fact that all you want is for Glenn to do your rabble-rousing for you while taking no risk yourself.

You want to take half of their argument and use that for your purposes while ignoring the other, much more important half.

It is convenient as a motherfucker.

Welcome to the struggle, brother.

http://www.clvu.org/

Not sure why you think Glenn would be against this, but never mind that - we could use all the help we can get. Click on the "Get Involved" link and you'll get an email when the next eviction blockade is scheduled.

I managed to get out of the last one with just a fine, but be forewarned: Boston cops are mean.

So, if you would pardon, or at least have a little patience for, those who are trying to tie some pieces together, I think that would benefit everyone except the perps.

Suggest you re-read Crumb's argument. It quite literally benefits no one except the perps.

Matt. 7:6

what exactly is Glenn's point?

Is there something about

Abridgments of press freedom by Iran receive endless attention from the American press while far more severe abridgments by the U.S. are ignored

that you find confusing or hard to understand?