Each day, more quotes from experts, including interrogators themselves, come out discussing the fact that -- aside from its depravity and illegality -- torture might be the least efficient or productive way to gain information. (Andrew Sullivan has collected some great ones this week.) Furthermore, aside from its other problems, torture has great consequences for our troops.

So, are those who pushed torture as a policy mere idiots, or are they are they depraved lovers of violence? And, even if one accepted that they were doing what they thought was right for the country (which I don't - hello, war profiteering!), don't those same people wonder why they would choose a violent, disgusting and ineffective method to carry out their purpose?

Like I said before, there are no crimes.

-- shooter242

Shooter also believes in Santa Claus.

Or point me to the SCOTUS caselaw that says the executive branch may break the law during time of war. I believe you'll find the recent line of cases on that question went against the executive.

-- Jestaplero

Article 6:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[My emphasis.]

I don't see anything in there where it says the President can ignore treaties in a "time of war."

Of course, the GOP hacks have just decided that the Geneva Conventions, for example, don't apply to whatever they're doing. Speaking of the SCOTUS, however, Hamdan would say differently.

It's starting to appear that being a defender of the Bush administration and living in a reality-based world are mutually exclusive.

Cheney also said he helped authorize interrogation methods used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an Al-Qaeda operative detained in Pakistan and sent to Guantanamo who has confessed to being a top planner of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States.

Sheikh Mohammed was subjected to a forced interrogation method that simulates drowning known as waterboarding.

"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do," Cheney said.

"And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it," Cheney said.

ABC asked him if in hindsight he thought the tactics went too far. "I don't," Cheney said.

The Cheney interview is to air on ABC late Monday and early Tuesday, the network said, as it released an advanced transcript of the questions and answers.

Man, that takes cajones. This is a dude who thinks he is absolutely above the law and will never have to answer for anything he's done. Sadly, he's probably right.

I guess the resident GOP hacks will be back to argue that waterboarding isn't torture. It's really appalling what has happened to this country.

The front and center story on Yahoo's main page for most of the day has been about a guy who owes over $80,000 in parking tickets. On the other hand, way down the page, buried in other stories is this headline: "Cheney says Guantanamo should stay open, waterboarding OK."

Another proverbial "yawn" from the media, I guess.

The ABA Journal's "Blawg 100" (list of the 100 best legal blogs) has UT as one of the 100 under the category of "Politics for Sport."

It's not much of an honor, though, as others listed included Hugh Hewitt, Instapundit (no, really!) and NRO's Bench Memos (at the risk of repeating myself, no, really!)

Link @ sig.

I have to give Gjelten some props for eventually backing down and admitting his mistake (though he did try to defend it). That's not something one sees very often. Of course, something like that looks pretty amazing relative to how the press really behaves, even if it's not something that spectacular when not compared to our current malfeasant media.

This is a really obvious point, but I think it's important to distinguish between torture as a last resort in some crazy-it-will-never-happen hypothetical (and the consequences of such) and having a policy that we routinely torture people. The difference between the two is quite vast, and that should be clear to anyone who's paying attention.

But, as you note, the response (we might need it some day, therefore, we must make it legal) is emotional. Emotion and logic aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but emotions can cause one to lose logical perspective. Just ask the Republicans.

Also, to DCLaw1: I'd like to ditto mutex and say great post!

"Bush: Iraq intelligence failure 'biggest regret'" (link @ sig)

The man is going to lie - and lie big - until the very last second of his term. Or perhaps he actually suffers from delusions.

P.S. Glenn, you have my sympathies - having been recommended for a position by someone who also recommended Greta Van Susteren must have ruined your day. ;)

Turley really is fantastic. Rachel did a great job with her questions, too. I love to see that kind of dialogue in the MSM. Everyone should watch the clip. (It's available at the Rachel Maddow Show page, as well.)

Also, to Glenn, just wanted to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving and thank you for your work, and for being so responsive to your commentariat (I stole that word from the Sadly, No! comment section, I believe). I know you're just doing your job, but it means a lot.