The "I think we all did" is in reference to knowing such people, not believing it was not the time to speak out. I'm just not proofreading right today, I guess.

Bush may be gone, but he is the gift that keeps on giving, such as below. The attacks on protesters and press at the GOP convention were run (I suspect) out of the Minneapolis fusion center. Now one is 'coming to a city near me' and near you as well. If I remember correctly, this center coordinated activities such as the improperly-warranted entry of private homes, etc. in order to detain press and protesters.

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/Grant_creates_local_fusion_center

Question: What determines the ordering of the questions on the opening page of Open for Questions on Change.gov? I'm asking because the Bob Fertik question has 8,844 and the number 2 question on the front page has only 8,657, and no question about investigations and prosecutions is anywhere on the front page.

Maybe one of the Obama people that comment here could fill me in? Is this format a new kind of query rank ordering I should learn for the era of yes we can change?

Fair point about fair-minded, liberal people. What I meant by that paragraph, unfortunately without making it clear, was that a willingness to refrain from punishment can more organically take hold across a population than a willingness to affirmatively wage a war of aggression.

The latter requires more marketing and manipulation, the former can take hold on its own due to the following factors, in no particular order: (1) decisive victory of one's own candidate for president, which contributes to a willingness to "move on;" (2) overwhelming domestic crises that seem to eclipse foreign problems and past crimes; (3) a sense that society has already collectively turned on the perpetrators, which takes the place of genuine punishment (even though many of them are still courted by the media); (4) a mistaken notion that punishment for past actions and achievement of future goals are mutually exclusive; etc.

Again, that's not to say I discount the possibility of collusion. I just think it would require a much gentler push, if any, on this issue - in addition to the natural effects of the media's own complicity in what happened.

It doesn't have to be. But it sure would be strange if an administration that went to such lengths to protect itself from allegations about manufacturing the casus belli, would go to no lengths to protect itself from allegations of major war crimes.

Maybe it's because I watch a lot of war crime related documentary that I notice it, but the squelching of the anti-torture and rendition flicks and toning down of the documentary language until very late in this administration and nearly after all elections has been quite unnerving. It could be just corporate interest, though.

I have no doubt at all that members of the administration and their allies are making a concerted public relations push to propagate the notion that either (a) nothing criminal occurred and (b) criminally prosecuting what they did is simply backward-looking political retribution. I'm just doubtful - again not saying it's impossible - that there's a program or outright collaborative effort in place akin to the Pentagon-media scandal.

Not that I wouldn't welcome any efforts to find out for sure.

Might I suggest you watch "Taxi to the Dark Side," an award-winning documentary about our torture methods.

One thing that may or may not unnerve you - the dispassionate narratives of the MPs.

If, after watching that (it's short, a little over an hour), you still think what we did qualifies Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. for a higher level of hell than Taylor, that's certainly your call.

However, I would prefer to see justice in the here and now. I'm not too terribly comforted by the idea of Hell for them.

That's a really good question. I see what you mean.

At the top of the list it reads "Currently in the lead:" which implies the votes should be determining the ordering, but clearly that's not happening.

Wonder if Obama team is somehow "willing" that accountability question further down the list?

Incidentally, it occurred to me to investigate the jurisdiction issue with regard to Mr. Taylor's trial.

It's an interesting issue that maybe Glenn might glance at. I read a few articles (google: jurisdiction Charles Taylor case) and you get some results.

I wonder how that could play out for the alleged war criminals here and how they may be prosecuted, tried and convicted in another country.

Since I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV (although I read law books for fun), I wonder if this conviction can stick.

The jurisdiction is that Chuckie Taylor is an American citizen, born in Boston, MA. Therefore he may be prosecuted here under the torture act for any act of torture in any other country. It's part of compliance with the CAT.

I believe Obama only answers the top five questions, and that technical glitch you brought up seems to ensure the special prosecutor/accountability question remains question number 6.

Very interesting.

MoveOn is a great group, but I fear they have become so enamored of Obama that they are losing their identity and punch. Obama already has an online community that dwarfs MoveOn (I think this is correct), and it is, naturally, also primarily concerned with supporting Obama's efforts in office.

It isn't so much that MoveOn -- the leaders and hierarchy -- became enamored of Obama. It's that MoveOn -- like so many organizations and blogs -- were able to massively increase their membership rolls, their traffic and their email lists because of the huge infusion of new people who are, first and foremost, Obama Fans. Unions face the same problem, as many of their members have their first allegiance to Obama.

As a result, a lot of these groups (and blogs) are massively hamstrung in their ability to criticize or work against Obama in any way, because their membership/readers won't tolerate it. Obama has annexed a huge portion of the progressive infrastructure -- and many of these groups have nobody but themselves to blame, having pursued the benefits of short-term growth at the expense of their autonomy.

We'll see if, over time, the shine on Obama wears off -- that's the big question -- but for now, many of the groups and other factions that one would count on to push back against Obama simply are boxed in and won't do it. They could, but only by paying a price vis-a-vis alienating their membership that they're not willing to pay.