You apparently didn't quite absorb Jim White's last sentence , or his essential point.

"...Until then, we have to keep pushing, every day."

Jim agrees with you . If in doubt , read his other letters, and posts on Open Salon, & elsewhere .

http://humanityagainstcrimes.blogspot.com/ ( Pardon the blogwhoring, but it's pertinent :)

Jim is definitely not a part of the Let's-all-get-along-and-put-the-past-behind-us crowd.

I don't think you absorbed my point.

I wrote to Jim: "I agree 100%." :)

I was more or less seconding his post. He made a very good point.

Call Up, thought you were disagreeing. #$%@@%& tone-deaf Itertubz! :)

Who said:

With special prosecutors carrying out separate investigations on torture, illegal spying, intelligence manipulation, politicization of DOJ, the destruction of records and manipulation of the financial markets, the Obama administration will be free to go about its business. The prosecutors do the work and we stop hounding him. Until then, we have to keep pushing, every day.

I only wonder whether the Obama administration will care about being "hounded" any more than W's did.

One other thing I would like to know more about is our government's use of Private Military Contractors like Blackwater.

See ya later

At the Secret Policeman's Ball.

Here's to better years

Short recessions

And sharp downturns

In irrational fears.

Essentially, you could replace the label "witches" above with the label "terrorist", and you'd essentially see that the same logic being used today for torture hasn't changed from that being used in the Salem Witch Trials.

They are torturing alleged to get the information they need to convict them, find others, and ultimately protect the community.

-- The Call Up

Exactly - and then each made-up-to-stop-the-torture "confession" is counted as a "terrorist plan disrupted by this vital tool". Thereby "justifying" its continued use.

I think the Bushwhacker's entire administration needs to be prosecuted for conspiracy, crimes against humanity, and numerous war crimes. I also feel strongly that the soldiers who were prosecuted for following orders and carrying out the acts of torture should be fully pardoned. After all, THEY WERE FOLLOWING ORDERS!

I also feel strongly feel that the two Border Guards that did there job in trying to protect our southern border, who are serving prison time for trying to do their job, should be fully pardoned. After all, THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOB!

Shooter you're just not getting it are you?

Our justice system has always been about "innocent until proven guilty"

NOT

"Guilty until proven innocent"-the GW/Cheney justifications for torture..

(what if someone is bringing a bomb in?)

Not even wartime can change this either..because we see now what happens:

Many more innocent people are allowed to be tortured-and thus destroy the credibility, morals,ethics, and good name of millions of Constitutionally-respectful, Law of the land US citizens.

The lines are incapable of being drawn fairly and without bigotry or prejudice for the apprehended, suspected "prisoner"-hence the reason that Cheney and the neos/GOP had to use loaded Straussian words like "Global war on Terror"(over naming a specific country where borders are id'd-ie-extradition/rendition flights)), enemy combatants (over simply "prisoners".

You are taking this language literally-just as many fundies take the Bible literally-without further realizing you have already prejudiced your own mind of guilt-become a hater- against the prisoners, enemy combatants--just like a horse is led to water..without the jsutice system involvement to determine guilt or innocence..

If you say "military courts"-please, give me a break.

You kinow as well as I do-that as GW is CIC of military-he can alos stack the courts/judges with his own loyalists-as he's done to every other dept of the govt..

This partisan policy has left no accounting for checks and balances-it has left no sense of "ethics-or morals" in YOUR mind, Shooter-and others brainwashed to tout the easist defensive "fight-words" that give the Presidency extraordinary powers ie=extraordinary powers to really Eff things up as well..

And eff up-GW/ Cheney have:from Katrina response to rationale for invading Iraq,to Pakistan FP, to handouts for Corporate buds and lobbyists..

Sorry but you are in the 20th percentile of the nation-those defending GW still..

and the rest of the nation and world have awoken a while ago..

Suggest you wake up to reality as well-and quit hanging on to dear life of your dog-eared GOP cliche Bible..

Becasue it is the very reality of FACTS-like most judges throwing out many of the very cases/reasons GW/Cheney said they were justified in torturing, the flood of info we have now about what exactly GW/Cheney have authorized, and the very public elections throwing many GOPers out becaue of "said" policies like torture..

Facts=Reality.

Cliches/ideology/unwillingness to let go of biased/prejudiced thinking/fear do NOT..

So the next step is for you to face the mountain of evidence now about the torture/rendition program: that YOU ARE FLATOUT WRONG.

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.