why stop at one award?

How about a best and worst? E.g., Best: Funniest letter; Best poem; Best research; Best screen name; Worst: Worst cut-and-paste troll letter; Worst misreading of Glenn's blog (oh, there are so many of these); etc.

I can't help it--I like end-of-year lists!

It very well may be a calculated move that relies on the worst of human prejudices -- racism or xenophobia -- to draw a clear line between "real torture," as it was done in Africa, and American torture. The Bush administration needs this as a publicity move that would point the finger at the other (the foreign black man) and symbolically relieve the American people of communal responsibility. I don't doubt that they hope this will render litigation of American torture even more inconceivable in the minds of many people.

This case is an indirect continuation of the undermining of prosecution efforts. And maybe not so indirect.

I agree, and I think the timing of the arrest of Jon Burge points to this as well. It is pointed out over and over again in the various Yoo, Bybee, Levin, Goldsmith et al. memos that there is no case law to use as precedent for the Torture Act (18 § 2340), this is an attempt to get as much stuff on the books as possible, to argue that what the Bush Administration did doesn't measure up.

But the Bush people, if a full investigation of all allegations is actually done, are liable for some extremely bad (just as disgusting, shocking the conscience) actions as well as the 'clean' torture they've admitted to and have memos for. The allegation that Gerald Gray makes ( http://tinyurl.com/6t9sny ) of mass and administrative torture applies to other cases. In essence, the allegation is that the people higher up had too many advisers trained in psychology (e.g. Mitchell and Jessen) and too many references by such people in documentation, in essence, too much knowledge of both the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments. The situations brought to light in Abu Ghraib were typical: people were given anonymity, appeal to authority, and control over prisoners -- and in documented cases asked to 'soften them up' or help 'break them'. The allegation is that this is a deliberate Lord of the Flies scenario, set up to effect torture of a large number of people in an occupied population, while giving deniability to the people in charge.

Zimbardo has agreed on occasion, but is less willing to be outspoken on this than Gray. A finding of guilt in 'conspiracy' or in systematization of this kind would make top Bush officials liable for all of the techniques practiced and remove the effectiveness of the so-called 'Golden Shields'. Only a thorough investigation would bring this completely to light, together with compelled testimony in some cases (i.e. subpoenas and placing witnesses under oath with penalty of perjury).

I'm not so sure about the allegation that they want only dark skinned people to be guilty of torture, I think it more likely they want to conflate in the public mind torture with Rwanda and the Congo and Sierra Leone to put it off the charts, the way people immediately put anything the Nazis did off the charts and ineligible for comparison.

The hypocrisy of our government should be front and center in ALL our news media. Why aren't the media covering this blatant hypocrisy as a story in itself (like Glenn)?

It's as though they are covering up for the Bush Administration and the complicit Congressional leaders, by remaining silent.

I suspect that's the problem: Fox News and the right are obviously covering up for Bush and Co.

But the Left leaning media is covering up for Pelosi and Co.

Unfortunately, the media is as entrenched into our two party system as our electorate. It's no longer "what's best for the country," but "what's best for our party (team)."

Would EVERYONE who's been posting all over this thread PLEASE TAKE A SECOND AND "Buzz Up" to get Glenn's piece read by more people!!! That would be the "Buzz Up" button at the bottom left of of Glenn's post.

I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror.

Talk about blowback. Any chance that he and his allies will surrender soon?

“I know it's conventional wisdom, but I actually dispute the notion that the best way to persuade people is by speaking gently to them and winning them over with kind and incremental advocacy.”

-- Glenn Greenwald

Nothing proves that statement as vividly as the pre-war/early occupation years of 2002-2003 when multitudes of Americans in conversations and on blogs across the nation decided to put their brains on the shelf and replace them with small robotic devices that mindlessly repeated the media's pro-war talking points without questioning any of it: "It needs to be done, damnit!" I have never gotten into so many arguments, with so many unquestioning robotons, as I did during that period. A time when even posing contrary views to the brainless idiocy emanating from Washington terrified many people, to the point that obvious truths (such as Saddam barely had a standing military let alone the possibility to nuke the US) weren't spoken by people who knew better for fear of everything from personal harm to losing their jobs. It wasn’t a time when making gentle, rational arguments swayed some people’s opinion. They were whipped into a frenzy by extremist talk, and only by pointing out their stupidity – harshly – would they listen at all.

Belitting people isn’t pretty, but when someone’s not thinking, I find it often unavoidable.

If I'm not mistaken Greenwald is up for a blog award under "Best Liberal Blogger" category. One might quibble as to how they sliced and diced the blog continuum, how they categorize it, but regardless, GG is on it and should be.

http://2008.weblogawards.org/site-news/2008-weblog-awards-finalists/

There are great commenters here as well, which makes for such enjoyable discussions. It takes a village to raise a comment section, you know...