If no action is taken against Bush/Cheney for their many abuses of power while in office, it will be extremely difficult for the legislative branch to hold President-elect Obama accountable should he elect to simply continue some of those same unchallenged past practices. I'm not speaking of torture here (Obama has made his opposition very clear on that subject), but rather to Bush and Cheney's disregard for limitations on presidential power. Does the Legislature Branch, and Republican politicos in particular, really want to crown Obama king?

It's good to see the Bush DOJ playing by my old high school gym coach's rule, no blood*, no fight (or torture in this instance). Surely stress induced heart attacks, psychological torture, and physical abuse that does not result in immediate blood loss (hard slapping included) are acceptable, if not refined practices of modern international conflict.

• *Rule does not apply to instances of blood drawn by guard dogs.

Pardon my ignorance, but 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).

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.

What are these "lines" you're talking about. Are they like yardlines on a football field? How many prisoners in US custody need to go blind, be driven insane, or be murdered, before you're satisfied?

Do you believe that the law is a "line"?

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

Not my quote, GMS.

But, he makes the point, I think, that America held higher ideals than most, but not without a degree of hypocrisy, to be sure. You are convinced as most here who have seen reams of evidence that the US has put out in the open ( a rare, grudging phenomena in the Bush era) that torture is a policy that's good for the safety of American citizens.

I do agree with you and that other guy at the same time.

Once the decision is made to cross that line, the rest is, as they say, merely quibbling about the price.

except to say it goes beyond torture

What does this mean? What torture is beyond torture? And I'm glad to see you parrot the "aggressive interrogation tactics" line used by your own government. If Orwell were alive, why, he wouldn't be turning in his grave right now.

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.

You have no knowledge what the US did to captives, apart from "helping" them die. Someone earlier spoke of a finger being cut off. But maybe digits aren't worth as much as limbs, huh?

Good Lord, what are you defending?

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?

No.

But if you rob just one bank, you will be charged. Why should torture be any different?

I get very tired of this argument: "See? There is someone worse than Bush. What the hell are you complaining about?"

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.

-- Jeff_S

It's the old "Saddam had rape rooms and killed his own people and used weapons of mass destruction and will again" defense.

The US government has killed people and driven people to insanity by using torture on them. What more do you need to wonder if your "get a grip" comment isn't directed at the wrong people?

Not my quote, GMS.

"GMS" meant "JoeMommaSan"

My apologies.

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.

There are many lines you can cross in the torture spectrum, but the on that matters most is the legal one. Just because the US methods may not rise to the level of unimaginable depravity does not mean they are not criminal. You can and should prosecute people for murder even if their murder(s) don't rise to the level of, let's say Dahmer. Just because the US methods aren't as bad as Taylor's doesn't make them not criminal. What line is it the Bush's techniques have crossed?

Yes, I know I'm one of several who will land on you like a mongoose on a cobra, but Glenn did specify at least two types of torture that Liberia used: fire ants and hot clothes irons.

So you're arguing that the US is punishing Chuckie Taylor because what he did must be worse than what the US does, because otherwise the US wouldn't be prosecuting him? Back in Logic class, that was called a circular argument.

And is it your viewpoint that the US can torture using tactics "not as bad" as Liberian government, excuse from accountability the officials who authorize it, and still retain the moral authority to prosecute Liberians for torture?

The "oh God, this is so not a big deal, you're boring me with all this torture accountability crap" argument has really lost its potency in many places, including this one. May we weaken it everywhere it is used.