I agree with the philosophy of moral relativism.

And I also believe that there is some abstract something called moral evolution. That morality evolves as does nature. That mankind, in order to preserve itself, will someday, through syllogistic logic or just empericism, will recognize that war and torture are self-destructive. But that realization is a long, long way off. And it won't happen if we destroy ourselves with nuclear or chemical or biological weapons before we learn our lesson. Right now, powerful countries like the USA and Israel, under the influence of AIPAC and the neo-cons, feel that they can bring freedom to the world through pre-emptive war and torture; wielding a big stick, i.e. because they possess unmatched military preeminence.

Can a world power dominate over the long-run in this manner? Rome thought it could and it failed. I wonder it there were some people in Rome who thought the feeding of Christians to the lions for entertainment was wrong.

Recently, Mike Hayden and Dick Cheney proclaimed torture effective. Then there are a plethora of wingnut pundits like Scarborough and O'Reilly and Smerconish and Dershowitz and Buchanan all singing from the same sheet of music in a coordinated attack on civilization. I don't think what I just typed is hyperbole. It certainly appears that torture will prevail and Mike Hayden also says Obama will not attempt to prosecute. Obama wants to "look forward." There isn't any doubt that Obama doesn't want to investigate but he may be forced to. I hope so.

IMHO the pundits and the media, individuals like Marcus and Broder, and the outgoing Bushies with their sycophantic elite are pushing hard for justifying torture and are apparently winning.

There is no outrage except for a few bleeding-heart liberals like myself, the commenters here, Glenn and Krugman complaining, but again,there is no outrage! I thought, in 2003, when the rumors of torture started, that the American people would make the "crazies" pay when then found out about it. I was so wrong! Torture seems to make sense to the average Joe. "A little dunk and we save tens of thousands of lives." It works on "24." I heard those remarks on Christian radio today,"where your children can listen to this station and not hear foul language!"

If this losing scuffle plays out the way I think it will, we are in deep trouble and I don't see any alternatives. But at least Bush is gone!

--

Let's forget about prosecutions for a minute.

And the technical and lawyerly conversations here go beyond my grasp.

Doesn't there have to an investigation as to who was responsible for what and why when these acts were done?

It seems to me that an investigation is required, followed by prosecution if it determines that war crimes have been committed. Can't there be some kind of method to determine what actually happened?

The torture chambers and the admissions by the high level administration officials indicate there is evidence of war crimes. Simply asked, why aren't those facts enough to conclude that an investigation is required?

If everything that was done has been publicly acknowledged then a determination by Holder and Obama should be made. The republicans obviously don't want to open a can of worms and they are fighting it, but can Obama just ignore the crimes and say "let's be friends."

It annoys me that Obama wants to look forward without even a glance at the past. But still, why would he thwart an investigation? What is preventing an investigation?

Why am I so confused? I'm trying to figure that out.

What justification is there to not have an investigation and what is preventing it?

Thanks for the response.

"And all the while, Miles Davis-fashion, he plays to the hazy middle, and perpetually keeps his back to the left side of the audience."

My gut tells me Obama is a smart guy. But I can't figure out why he is ignoring his supporters and why he trying to seduce his enemies.

IMHO war crimes should transcend politics but that isn't reality. How sad!

It appears to me that Shane is really unaware of what you're saying, which I find impossible to believe. But he just doesn't grasp that even an iota of criticism directed at him is valid. You make a very plausible argument, yet he only sees you as a parasite.

I know the guy has to be a very intelligent and aware journalist, not like Kristol, so I am truly amazed at his ability to see only his own point of view. It got me to thinking about how much time I've wasted writing emails to Marcus, Kurtz et al.

If you can't make a point with your ability to clearly state your disagreement, I am surely lost in a sea of futility.

I thoroughly enjoy your blog and the issues you raise.

Thanks a lot for your efforts in trying to bring some reality-based criticism to the MSM.