One reason I believe that the torture that has been committed by this American government is so passively accepted by the media and most of the country is that the historical roots are much less understood and appreciated than today's reality - even by many of those who rail at the current Bush crime family.

Here's a quote by U.S. diplomat, though, that was actually quite honest:

"Have our values been so twisted by our adversary concept of politics...? Is it conceivable that we are so obsessed with insurgency that we are prepared to rationalize murder as an acceptable counter-insurgency weapon? Is it possible that a nation which so revers the principle of due process of law has so easily acquiesced in this sort of terror tactic?"

Thing is that was 1968 and the issue was U.S. policy in Guatemala.

The contradiction is so blatant that no human with a functional brain could miss it.

And yet...

So which is it -- do they see, and ignore, or simply not see?

I find it difficult to believe that that they see and ignore. It is possible, of course, but that kind of core cognitive dissonance takes considerable effort to maintain, and is highly corrosive. It should result in spectacular displays of decompensation -- high-profile moments of matter-antimatter collisions when the "I'm fine, really" facade comes tumbling down. But by all indications, most of them sleep well, untroubled by such complex machinations.

Which leaves only that they are incapable of seeing the massive contradictions -- that their brains are not, in a some essential sense, functional.

I know psychology is in a sense OT, but asking "why" questions is not. And I am very interested in (OK, obsessed by) the next big question: why is it that the logically inescapable is, in fact, escaped?

I understand why you won't go there, Glenn. But I submit that you, and we, will never reach the nub until we do.

And rules for thee, but not for me (we?). That's exactly what's going on here. Infuriating, but so important to recognize. Thank you, Glenn.

New evidence of more bad policy from CNN:

The U.S. Army is investigating allegations that Special Forces troops killed an al Qaeda suspect in cold blood and cut off his finger during an overnight operation near Baghdad earlier this month.

Link at my name.

those dumb Africans were smart enough to get their lawyers to prepare a legal opinion beforehand declaring their actions ok. If only they were smart enough to stick with less sensationalist torture-interrogation- techniques than irons and biting ants. If only they had sent a few low level thugs to jail and blamed it on them when public awareness began to intrude. Then maybe Taylor wouldn't be in the mess he is in. Maybe if he does go to jail it will be a lesson learned for all future war leaders, to follow the Bush Cheney example for avoiding prosecution, so that the stupid lawyers will stop trying to second-guess heat-of-battle decisions, and criminalizing Liberian politics by bringing charges over policy differences.

it sends a powerful message to human rights violators around the world that, when we can, we will hold them accountable for their crimes

As long as they're not, you know, us.

"2) an investigation would only demoralize the intelligence community;" --casual_observer

I'm thinking there would have to be a basis to suppose there is anything remotely moral about that unfettered under-the-scope agency/"family".

You're right, demoralize them if that would sanitize their immoral rendering, enhanced interogations and regime overthrowing.

In their Orwellian fog of confused morality anything is possible.

We Americans have been so demoralized the post 9-11 era- how indeed can we feel any sense of freedom or elation about what being American is?

After all, he blacked out at the very moment that he attempted to tell the Federalist Society that the Obama Administration should not try to find fault with the Bush Administration's actions in the "war on terror." Perhaps he has some innate sense of law, justice and morality that makes it physically difficult for him to defend torturers.

Yes, shooter has this odd viewpoint that no US government official can be charged with a crime because doing so would involve a presumption of guilt. I believe it is a misinterpretation of some perverse opinion he read in the WSJ.

I looked at an online poll over at thenation.com, where those queried would presumably consider themselves to be progressives. Only 10% of those polled voted for "closing Gitmo, ending torture" as their highest priority for the next administration. In fairness, many probably would have ranked it somewhere in the top ten issues, but I think these results show that among progressives, many still don't feel the urgency of a public repudiation of the rampant lawlessness of the Bush Administration and prosecuting the war crimes committed by the executive branch.

a path that has transformed the United States from a country that condemned torture and forbade its use to one that practices torture routinely

The United States has always practiced torture routinely. What's changed in recent times is that we no longer lie and try to pretend we don't. Instead, we now offer excuses for why it's okay when it's us doing the torturing. I guess you could consider this progress if you have a particularly twisted definition of the term.

"Perhaps he has some innate sense of law, justice and morality that makes it physically difficult for him to defend torturers."--overlander

The disease of conflicted conscience in such matters is one to which most of the law-for-others crowd seem immune. I can only conjecture there must be a reason for this.

Did the White House get both the anthrax and torture is good vaccine?

"The United States has always practiced torture routinely"

How so?

Are people really trying to make the case that the aggressive interrogation tactics used by the US on terrorist suspects is on the same level as those committed by "Chuckie" Taylor? Are you people kidding me? I agree that aggressive tactics used by the US cross a line but I also think that there are several more lines to go before it reaches Chuckie Taylor.

The article mentions waterboarding by the US and fails to mention any tactics employed by Mr. Taylor except to say it goes beyond torture. I would think Mr. Taylor engaged in tactics such as gang rape and chopping off of limbs on a mass scale, to mention just a few.

Get a grip.