I'm only halfway through the letters but haven't seen the most obvious comment....

If you didn't believe the Iraq NIE, why should you believe this one? They're intelligence gold all of a sudden? Heh.

Unequivocal support from the piece of shit that argues it's OK to torture Arabs to death.

FOAD, shartstain22%.

There is a ticking bomb in New York City...

There is no logical difference, whatsoever, between the argument that Jestaplero is making with respect to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the argument Alan Dershowitz made with respect to the ticking bomb. Absolutely none: A grave danger exists if we follow the rule of law, a relatively painless one time exception can be made that will eliminate the grave danger as long as you can accept doing one illegal thing in exceptional cases, we should do whatever we have to do to eliminate danger, because that is in the best interests of the public security.

Carry on.

How predictable.

Welcome, Glenn, from a fellow member of the racist-antisemite club.

Glenn, you said Obama "...explained that he can't close Guantanamo until there is a new "process" allowing "tainted" evidence to be used.

I think you may be mischaracterizing his position here. I think what he was trying to say is that we have a situation in which there are potentially bad guys in custody that we have evidence on, but that since the evidence is "tainted" through use of torture, there is no good way to try them in court. That same "evidence" also may indicate it's dangerous to let them go; therefore, we need to figure out what the hell to do with them in the meantime. I think Obama has committed to at least giving everyone in Guantanamo a chance at a fair, American-style trial, but is still trying to unknot the legal disaster the Bushies are leaving down there.

Greenwald:

"So what's the justification for Obama's inflammatory and obviously consequential (though seemingly baseless) claim on national television that the Iranians "are pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race" when the consensus of American intelligence agencies is that they are not doing so?"

You know damn well why. It's because of the over-riding necessity to appease the right wing in all things. You damn well know that Greenwald. It's the same reason he's capitulated on virtually everything, and essentially rubber-stamped the entire bush agenda. And, yes, I know you have been tirelessly warning us for 35 years that he's always been a fascist (sorry, 'centrist').

So, the real question is, "What's the justification for Glenn Greenwald asking 'What's the justification...'?

the ONE time I actually responded quickly...and now it looks like a non-sequiter...oh, well.

"There was actually a question of mine you didn't answer: in general, is justice served when, as in that 1935 Supreme Court case (and many cases applying the exclusionary rule), an actually-guilty defendant is acquitted because tainted evidence is disallowed?"

"aah ... not if they're on our shitlist ... or we really want them to be guilty ..."

Seems to be the answer ... hmmm, they kinda look the same, don't they?

I have another question tho: Don't any of the defenders of torture (esp. those who defend it on the grounds that they mysteriously "know" these guys really are guilty, so it doesn't matter) ... don't any of them know the long and glorious history of innocent people being tortured into confession?

Are they ignorant, or stupid?

I recall some ancient anti-capital punishment thing about "better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged" ... but the arguments being made in favour of torturing the guilty look (a) self serving, (b) circular, and (c) woefully incomplete ...

was long ago debunked on right wing radio and in the pages of the Weekly Standard and The New Republic?

And the New York Times never endorsed it.

The Senate and House Republican caucuses rejected it.

The Bush White House ignored it.

Cheney denounced it.

Democrats timidly tiptoed around it, until the PE gave them permission yesterday to amplify the positions of the hysterics in Jerusalem, AIPAC, and everyone else who matters and go along with the Palace consensus that Iran is developing nuclear weapons (for the immediate purpose of wiping out Israel and all the Jews, secondarily to hold America hostage once again, and we don't want that.)

All Obama was doing, in other words, was validating the Palace consensus so as not to be distracted from Important Matters once he ascends to the Throne a week from tomorrow.

Whether he believes this claptrap remains to be seen.

There has been much good that has rarely been reported about our presence in Iraq. We have done much good,maybe not enough in many eyes . There is no doubt thier future is better today than it was regardless of how we went there.This cannot but pay dividends in the future relationships with Iraqis regardless of the lack of a Kumbaya moment that would have satisfied you.

The rush to condemm Obama because he just isn't laying down the sword to the extremist is a curiosity,especially with regards to security.I question the motivation.I question the expressed "expertise"of people who have never held a security clearence but may be blinded by thier vision of an ideal world.I do this for the sake of my children and grandchidren.I commend Mr Obama for approaching this with prudent caution.I keep an eye on those who are so quick to attempt to sway public opinion and I wonder what the motivation is to rush .We should be celebrating this time and allowing President Obama the chance to lead rather than undermining him before he is ever sworn in.This is the right thing to do in my heart.I wonder why more don't feel the same way.

The NIE determined with high confidence that Iran had halted its nuclear weapon design work. Iran continues to enrich uranium and perfect its enrichment capability. Iran is not fully cooperating with the IAEA and Iran confinues to be a major proliferation concern of the IAEA. See http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-59.pdf, for example.

Obama's statement was been inappropriate in implying certainty in Iran's aims, but substitute "their behavior represents a serious non-proliferation concern" for "they are pursuing a nuclear weapon" and you have an accurate statement. The difference between those two is large enough to merit comment, but not all the bluster in this post and comments.