is that I would expect to face legal repercussions for my actions. -- omooex

Not if you were Feinstein or a member of BushCo or other "serious" member of the political class you wouldn't.

"In the certitude of ethical heaven, you needn't worry about such things."

Your scenarios are constructed in ethical heaven, where knowlege is absolute. As you say, we don't live there. In fact--there is no "there".

So regardless of how one would answer your question, it has no bearing on the programmatic use of illegal torture here--in this world--of flesh, blood, dogs, darkness, and feces.

Dianne Feinstein is COMPLETELY WORTHLESS !!

She's what they call a Democratic 'centrist'

Somehow she manages to support the Iraq War, the 'Patriot' Act, War with Iran (Kyl-Lieberman), wire tapping of American citizens, Tax cuts for th super rich, de-regulation....(ad nauseum)

And yet, she still gets re-elected !!

They're even touting her as the next Governor of California !?!

Go figure

I'm the guy asking you to put your money where you mouth is. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and say that everything is flawed and that everyone who participates in a flawed system is supporting the flawed system. That's easy. But sitting outside of the system, you seem from here to be doing nothing.

Here is your chance. You can write a manifesto long as you like about your plan to change things, and steps you've taken to implement your plan. Paste it here. Given the amount of space taken by the poetry and pastings of others, I doubt anyone will mind. You may even win over some converts.

I can't see a good reason why you wouldn't do as I've asked, unless you've got nothing to say and nothing to show for it.

A load of shit huh? Yeah? You and yours won't address it because it's got you by the balls. Quit being such a crybaby.

It's simple. The Military Commissions Act and Bush's Executive Orders are laws. They authorize, to varying degrees, techniques that are torture.

To change those laws requires, by definition, legal changes (or, alternatively, having you stomp your feet and spit on a picture of George Bush dressed as a monkey outside the White House, which would fix it all instantaneously, but that goes without saying, so why aren't you there doing that instead of here?).

Your last post was a pleasure to read. Thank you.

Hopefully it will be properly understood.

But adnoto, go to youtube and listen to the old Beatles tune "revolution" --- only a few will be persuaded by anger and violence. -- heru-ur

This is the last time I am going to address this lie about my position. I normally just ignore their petty lies but when someone like you begins to repeat it... Who is advocating violence and bloody revolution? I don't think you intend to spread the lie but you are listening to the liars who are selling it and in the process are helping to marginalize those advocating peaceful direct action. Is that your intention? If not then just fucking stop it.

I am not advocating violence. I do not want a revolution (if one can be avoided). Period. By attacking me with lies about my position, Greenwald, PDA, omooex, jebbie... (the lot of them) are just attempting to protect the big lie they have sold to themselves and others. It's a self preservation thing for them. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

Lies? I just asked you to state your position. Its the one thing you never seem to do.

Adnoto:

I am not advocating violence. I do not want a revolution (if one can be avoided). Period.

What would a nonviolent revolution, in present-day America, look like?

I assume, since you so stridently press for it here, you have specific and concrete ideas for how it would come about?

(Everyone forgive me if this question has been asked in the past to no avail.)

To change those laws requires, by definition, legal changes (or, alternatively, having you stomp your feet and spit on a picture of George Bush dressed as a monkey outside the White House, which would fix it all instantaneously, but that goes without saying, so why aren't you there doing that instead of here?). -- GlennGreenwald

Why weren't the Geneva Conventions good enough?

And what happens when you write new laws or change current laws to suit your fancy and they are ignored and or broken? Those doing the lawbreaking will be held accountable and everything will be hunky dory correct? Who is going to hold them accountable in this two tiered system of justice that you have written about?

Whether or not the CIA and other intelligence services actually want to be able to continue to torture subjects (and they well might) they have always viewed transparency they way bacteria regard fresh air -- as an existential threat. They no doubt are lobbying heavily that even the general principles under which they conduct interrogations should be kept secret so that no may ever be able to measure their actual performance against publicly acknowledged norms.

As for the Senators. With power comes the threat of being charged with responsibility for events. Heaven forbid that following a new terrorist attack they could be held to have insisted Jack what's his name on 24 tie one hand behind his back and preventing him from stopping the terroist plot seven seconds before it was to be executed. They will want to be able to point to how they were committed to giving Jack "flexibility."

A substantial percentage of the public is never going to believe that refraining from the use of torture is more effective than torture in preventing terrorist violence. Someone (Obama?) has to have the courage to insist that the uncertain increased risk of a terrorist attack if torture is allowed is outweighed by the corruption of our moral identity if we give into our more violent impulses.

I am not advocating violence. I do not want a revolution (if one can be avoided). Period. By attacking me with lies about my position, Greenwald, PDA, omooex, jebbie... (the lot of them) are just attempting to protect the big lie they have sold to themselves and others. It's a self preservation thing for them. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

-- adnoto

Then accept my apologies for misstating your position. I did not intend to put words in your mouth or to build a straw man.

As one who also thinks this country needs a peaceful revolution, I can only say that I still want you to know that honey attacks better than vinegar as granny used to say to me. I know from experience that sometimes it is hard to be "full of honey" when others are attacking --- so, please accept my apologies for adding fuel to the fire by mis-stating your position on violence.