Certainly reasonable people do disagree. I am hoping it is not enough in this case to impede prosecution.

The real reason Truman nuked Japan was more complicated than you indicate.

You see mookie, life and history is not only more complicated than you understand; it is more complicated than you can understand. But that's okay, we understand. It's not your fault that you are stupid.

Mokusatsu (黙殺) is a Japanese word formed from two Chinese characters: "silence" (moku, 黙) and "kill" (satsu, 殺) and means the act of keeping a contemptuous silence. Some argue that the word was misinterpreted by the United States when the government of Japan used it as a response to American demands for unconditional surrender in World War II, which may have influenced President Harry S. Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[1]

Premier Suzuki Kantaro used mokusatsu to dismiss the Allies' Potsdam Declaration in 1945, during World War II

Though rarely used these days, the word was employed in the morning edition of the Asahi Shinbun during World War II on July 28, 1945 to designate the attitude assumed by the government to the Potsdam Declaration. Later that day in a press conference, it was used by the Premier Suzuki Kantaro to dismiss the Potsdam Declarations as a mere rehash of earlier rejected Allied proposals, and therefore, being of no value, would be killed off by silent contempt (mokusatsu). Suzuki's choice of the term was dictated perhaps more by the need to appease the military, which was hostile to the idea of "unconditional surrender", than to signal anything to the Allies.[1]

The expression can also mean to just let a topic or subject die by refusing to follow up on it. The reasons for the "mokusatsu" response could as easily be contempt as embarrassment, discomfort, or even simply not knowing what else to do in response. - Wiki

It's kind of like this, if I ask a Japanese guy where the money he owes me is, he might say, "Mokusatu". If I were Japanese I would understand that he means it is too embarrassing or difficult to talk about, and we would both understand that he will pay me my money. Understand?

Truman's people took "Mokusatu" to mean, "Nuts!" or something like that and nuked Hiroshima. Nagasaki was bombed purely for revenge, to test the plutonium bomb, and to send a message to the Russians...

If it was Ronald Reagan who signed it in 1988... at that point he was utterly non compos mentis, his wife's astrologer was running the country, so he could not have given informed consent, and the law or contract is non-binding. Next question...

Sorry, couldn't help it.

Assuming I agree with Greenwald's entire article, which I don't entirely, I think there is a position that should be considered. The word "torture" for most brings scenes of the Inqusition, and there is evidence that information gained is not always accurate.

Assume that 100 terrorists were subjected to waterboarding and one out of the hundred made possible an intervention that caught an otherwise viable plan to nuke New York City, thus preventing the deaths of several million people. Would you still want to prosecute the one who waterboarded that terrorist?

We are in a new world of possibilities and need new world solutions, as well as new thinking about permissible interrogation procedures. It is a slippery slope, but many lives may well depend on our solution.

The niceties of civiliazed behavior are sorely tested in any war. We must balance the true possibilities against our moral conscience.

"On to something"

...meaning, maybe they had a rational reason for their prejudices. Maybe they had rational reasons for their stereotypes. Maybe the Jewish population in certain societies did things and said things that were unfair, and criminal.

You know, when we were attacked on 9/11, and the Bush Administration, and our media, told us that “they hate us for our freedom,” that is when I really started to question my history lessons. Because if a people can be lied to this blatantly, right in front of their faces, then how much more easy it would be to re-write history. It made me realize that maybe the biggest history revisionists were the Establishment.

I have always wondered why the Germans turned against the Jews. Now, hear me out. I DO NOT condone violence against Jewish people! I DO NOT condone discrimination or hatred towards Jews! I do not group all Jews together into one monolithic people or belief system. The Holocaust happened, and it was horrible. My point is, we have been told the Germans were just mad about Versailles, so they took it out on the Jews. We have been told that the Germans were just white Europeans so they of course they hated Jews. I don’t buy it anymore.

We can see the overwhelming representation of Jews in our media today. We can see the overwhelming influence of Jews in our financial industry today. We can see the overwheling influence of Jews in our foreign policy and defense establishment today. And we also see the degradation of journalism, and we see the corruption and degradation of finance, and we see the use of torture and a new Gulag. So maybe the Eastern Europeans saw the same thing? Maybe in certain sectors of society in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century, Jews were practicing favoritism, and oppressing and ripping off people on a massive scale? Ya think it is possible? I do.

That is what I meant by “on to something.”

This is an ugly topic, and I don’t feel too comfortable talking about it, because I know how easily it can become something it is not, or taken out of context, or used against me to destroy my life. But you asked, so I answered.

Neocon responds by pointing out that you can kill your enemies out of uniform, hence you can and should torture them.

Neocon sure posts a lot for someone with such poor reading skills.

A perfect example of that is Crawford's ruling. The methods used were legal and approved, but she call it torture anyway, making those methods illegal....

You should tell your cat to stop walking on the keyboard. She added some nonsense characters there. I think you meant to say: "The methods used were approved, but she call it torture anyway...."

Which adds complicity, not absolution.

Cheers,