He keeps coming up with "proof" that torture and illegal government acts work. You all keep shouting him down, saying "torture doesn't work!". But the problem with torture is not its utility...unless you are a utilitarian. There may be circumstances where torture "works" (begging the question, of course, of what if the interrogator had used another technique, would that have "worked", as well?).

The point is, there are some things civilized people don't do. One of those things is torture. The great works of art, the great philosophers, great theologians, the heroes of our world, all show us that some things are worse than death. We remember "give me liberty or give me death" because it calls out to that within us which recognizes that some things are worth fighting and dying for...and the "hero" is he (or she) who resists the easy way out of a situation and stands up for principle, even at the risk of his/her own life, and maybe even that of others, as well. There is a line that must not be crossed because to do so renders everything one believes in, everything one strives for, as meaningless. Are we all craven cogs in a the big machine, out to save ourselves at whatever cost? Or are we humans, who believe in something and stand up for our beliefs because it is the right thing to do.

NoOB is a utilitarian, apparently. Whatever works for the greatest numbers of his tribe is all that matters. Don't buy into his "torture works!" gambit. The issue of whether torture "works" or not is tertiary.

If the Republicans believe that the Bush Administration was right in doing everything it could -- including skirting or breaking laws -- to "protect" the American people from The Terrorists, then they should be completely amenable to having the memos released. Nor should they have any trouble defending the contents of the memos, nor those who acted on those contents.

Why are they blocking them? Are they ashamed? Have something to hide? I thought they were proud of what they were doing.

The question you should be asking yourself, Omooex, is not whether refusing to vote for Obama helps restore the rule of law in this country. What you should ask yourself is, "How do I expect the rule of law to be restored when I vote for somebody who has a proven track record for further dismantling it?"

I voted on principle starting 1968, refusing to give either of the War Parties my vote. Also worked on a local level to advance my principled stand. (You can see my principled stand changed the world.) Then in the 2000 election George Bush was put into office over Al Gore -- neither of whom I voted for, of course. Some people might say that Al Gore would not have been any better than GWB, but if I could time travel and change the outcome of that election, I would do it in a heartbeat. Would Al Gore have been the shining knight who shared all my principles? Not by any stretch of the imagination, but I do believe that had he been the president from 2000-2008 far fewer people would have been killed by the U.S. We would not be enmired in Iraq. It is possible FISA would still be operative and that the Patriot Act wouldn't have been passed. The list of things that Gore wouldn't have done, or would have done better than Bush is huge.

Obama, with his many serious flaws, I believe to be a far better president than McCain would have been. Obama may be an imperialist statist, but he is intelligent and not insane.

Nuance and degree do matter. If I'm going to be mugged, I'd far prefer it to be the guy who shoves me to the ground, punches me in the face, takes my purse and runs, than the guy who shoves me to the ground, batters my head with a tire iron, rapes me, takes my purse and runs, leaving me for dead.

I no longer vote solely on my pure and holy principles, having belatedly discovered that small differences in governance can make huge differences in outcomes for millions of people. There IS a lesser of two evils.

Look, it's all very well to quote "Steven Bergstein, a New York lawyer who has appeared before Judge Sotomayor several times". However, that implies an appreciation of fact. We're not interested in fact, Glenn. We're interested in opinion, sound bites, talking points and being able to make stuff up. Please. Get with the program.