My, you are a selective cherry picker aren't you....LOL....

goodbye and good riddance to you as well.

vv

I would rather nuke St. Louis

Than harm a hair on the head of an Islamic terrorist.

-- The Satanic Jews of Hollywood

A good all-purpose post, applicable to just about any topic , so why not repeat it? Oh, wait.....

lol! Read "other letters" . Your arguments with Glenn might get more of a response if you post them on Glenn's blog! ;)

Than harm a hair on the head of an Islamic terrorist.

If this is true, then why were police officers on trial for Rodney King beating? Why are there soldiers in jail for Abu Ghraib offenses?

It's because they are private citizens subject to the law just like the rest of us are.

-- Vox Vocis res Public

You're being completely stupid. Rodney King beating compared to an ambulance or police car or firetruck with lights flashing, sirens blaring and horns honking loudly as they pass through an intersection, as opposed to a private citizen running a redlight at will. Great comparison.

Argue with someone else if you must. I'm finished with your nonsense.

Glenn,

I first saw you on Bill Moyers, a few weeks ago.

I feel yours is the most articulate voice for human rights and freedoms in America, among Internet journalists.

In total agreement with you, I think that the total record of

constitutional infringement of the last eight years must be annulled and then human rights and traditional democratic freedoms must be reestablished and GUARANTEED. It is important to reflect how that can be done.

Constitutional checks and balances must be reset and clearly defined.

Private armies must be abolished.

Torture must be banned.

Individual privacy must be reestablished at all levels.

Illegal detention must be totally halted.

Regulators must be put back in place.

Undue religious influence in the bureaucracy must be eliminated.

The main culprits - a substantial number, alas - ought to be prosecuted and punished for anti-constitutional acts and grand larceny...

Something like a French or American revolution, hopefully in a velvet version, diplomatically handled, are called for.

Glenn, that's where we are. Immense issues are at stake.

Thank you for your alert civic conscience.

NeoConCabal and anyone else who doesn't think that having their "snotty membranes watered" is torture should be forced to endure it themselves.

KSM's torture-induced "testimony" is nothing but baloney, pure and simple. Useless. The poor bastard was waterboarded over a hundred times...

From one of my favorite right-wing sites, prisonplanet (at my sig):

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's alleged confession testimony has been thoroughly discredited after it emerged that one of the targets he identified, the Plaza Bank, was not founded until 2006, four years after the alleged Al-Qaeda mastermind's arrest.

In his confession, KSM claims, "I was responsible for planning, training, surveying, and financing for the New (or Second) Wave of attacks against the following skyscrapers after 9/11: ...Plaza Bank, Washington state."

and then also explain how Japanese officers who waterboarded US detainees were convicted of war crimes.

Trainees in certain military programs undergo waterboarding voluntarily as a condition of their access to those programs. They can avoid the procedure by choosing not to volunteer, and they can drop out at any time. That they choose to continue is a great testament to their courage and dedication. But it completely undermines whatever point you thought you were making.

and two other Islamist Butchers is--GASP--torture??

Funny, I've spent a large part of my life studying 20th Century monsters and their methods, and have never come across the part that said SEAL Trainees at Coronado Island--Waterboarded as part of their rigors--were Eeeeekkkkkkk Tortured.

What's next do'ya suppose? Maybe Non-Muslim chow for detainees at Gitmo? Nope, not so far.

@Reality Kid: "when the Senate Armed Services Committee reports that top government officials were directly responsible for the abuse of detainees, why isn't this a "government claim"? That is, why isn't this the official government position on the subject?

I'm guessing I don't understand the mandate of this Senate Committee, but it seems strange to me that the sanctioned activity of a constituted government apparatus ("bipartisan", as I recall) doesn't represent an official position of the government (perhaps especially if it contradicts the position of another branch of government whose claims are discovered to be false after a more comprehensive inquiry and analysis)."

********

Not only the Senate committee but Cheney himself appeared on national tv almost two weeks ago and said he approved the use of torture, helped instigate it, and he is proud of his actions. He has also recently said, again on national tv, that he and others concluded that the president may do whatever is needed in times of war, even if it means breaking laws. The MSM has been silent, as always.

Cheney also said Obama will appreciate the new level of executive power. I wonder how much of it he will revoke.

As a nation in recent decades, we have become an obese, sedentary people and it seems to have infected our minds as well. Comfort food, instant gratification, the consumer society, like pigs being fattened for the slaughter house. The level of apathy and indifference is like a thick sludge that does not move.

You said:

Really, I am not trying to be phony in my belief just to create conflict. It's just that I feel that there are usually no absolutes in political arguments. If there are absolutes, then why do we have diplomacy? Why have trials for accused persons?

We have trials precisely because there are absolutes - but we don't know the facts in a particular case until evidence is presented to a jury, who decide which of multiple (perhaps contradictory) versions of events is the true set of facts. They then compare that set of facts against the standard of the law (an absolute) to decide if the law has been broken.

Both Paul Daniel Ash and I earlier offered an example of an absolute - involving your rights - and asked whether you would be willing to consider that there is "another side" to that right. Did you answer? I may have missed it. So here again: you say that we "have trials for accused persons" - is that an absolute? If you were accused of a crime, would you be willing to consider the proposition that "VVrP's alleged crime is so heinous that there is no need for a trial - he should be punished immediately"? If not, why not? Is it because you consider your right to a trial an absolute?

And again:

My only point is that there is always someone to argue an alternative point, whether it is torture or stoplights. I totally agree with Glenn's articles against the Bush administration and hope we can get these guys into a courtroom. But I am not willing to deny anyone their right to present their side of the argument, even Bush. (Whom I feel is guilty of horrible offenses)

No one to my knowledge has argued against allowing Bush etc to present their "side" of the argument, either in the media or in a courtroom. (More particularly, there are many calling for exactly the latter.) The point is that each of us has an individual obligation to evaluate the competing claims -- whether torture is a crime, whether waterboarding is torture, whether there is some "commander-in-chief" exemption to the law -- and decide for him or herself whether there is a reasonable debate to be made. My understanding of Glenn's point is that the media has failed by repeating both "sides" of the debate as though they were equally worthy of merit, when clearly they are not.