It's tough for me to interpret wingnut, but I think fattagut is saying he holds Lincoln responsible for inciting the Civil War.

Retzillian: I am in total empathetic agreement with what you wrote.

Ondelette: [A big] thanks, once again, for helping me out.

Iokannan in the Well: wrt: “perhaps we've been numbed by the antics of the fictitious Jack Bauer, held up as a model 'American hero'”

Last week I had this conversation with friends who are addicted to that show. I told them that Jane Mayer had written an article in The New Yorker in 2007, in which she said

"[...] In fact, [U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point] and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. “I’d like them to stop,” Finnegan said of the show’s producers. “They should do a show where torture backfires.” [...]"

Read the article:

Whatever it TakesThe Politics of the Man Behind "24"

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/19/070219fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

They listened to me wide-eyed, and all they could say was, “Really? You know I had noticed that they had recently tried to humanize him [Bauer] somewhat.”

They seemed pretty “numbed” to me.

Is there a statute of limitations in the torture treaty?

Try to prosecute the Bush admin for taking appropriate steps in a time of war to protect the country and you will find out that "hicks" will be the least of your problems.

That's always the left's problem. They think anyone who disagrees with them must be a "hick".

If prosecution happens "progressives" will have to start moving to Canada in droves.

Your use of the phrase "rendition into torture" is important because, contrary to popular belief, not all renditions are for the purpose of torture, nor are all renditions illegal.

As usual, reality refuses to conform exactly to lefty demands it follow the path legislated for it. While I understand that waterboarding from 2003 is the end-all and be-all for the revenge and retribution crowd, so what?

Consider that the Chairman of the Congressional tax writing committee, AND the putative SecTreas have both willingly confessed to tax evasion. So what? We're certainly going to let Geithner skate, and probably Rangell too. So what? The general consensus is that they should be excepted. The same goes for the Bush administration.
And why is this going to happen? Because Obama has been slapped upside the head with reality. And part of that reality is that no matter what he does, someone else down the road can come up behind him,(like Glenn) and accuse him of breaking the law also.

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. That's why relying on the letter of the law is not immunity from prosecution or guaranteed pursuit of individuals you want singled out for revenge.

Don't like it? Too bad. Write your Congressman.

I agree with the philosophy of moral relativism.

And I also believe that there is some abstract something called moral evolution. That morality evolves as does nature. That mankind, in order to preserve itself, will someday, through syllogistic logic or just empericism, will recognize that war and torture are self-destructive. But that realization is a long, long way off. And it won't happen if we destroy ourselves with nuclear or chemical or biological weapons before we learn our lesson. Right now, powerful countries like the USA and Israel, under the influence of AIPAC and the neo-cons, feel that they can bring freedom to the world through pre-emptive war and torture; wielding a big stick, i.e. because they possess unmatched military preeminence.

Can a world power dominate over the long-run in this manner? Rome thought it could and it failed. I wonder it there were some people in Rome who thought the feeding of Christians to the lions for entertainment was wrong.

Recently, Mike Hayden and Dick Cheney proclaimed torture effective. Then there are a plethora of wingnut pundits like Scarborough and O'Reilly and Smerconish and Dershowitz and Buchanan all singing from the same sheet of music in a coordinated attack on civilization. I don't think what I just typed is hyperbole. It certainly appears that torture will prevail and Mike Hayden also says Obama will not attempt to prosecute. Obama wants to "look forward." There isn't any doubt that Obama doesn't want to investigate but he may be forced to. I hope so.

IMHO the pundits and the media, individuals like Marcus and Broder, and the outgoing Bushies with their sycophantic elite are pushing hard for justifying torture and are apparently winning.

There is no outrage except for a few bleeding-heart liberals like myself, the commenters here, Glenn and Krugman complaining, but again,there is no outrage! I thought, in 2003, when the rumors of torture started, that the American people would make the "crazies" pay when then found out about it. I was so wrong! Torture seems to make sense to the average Joe. "A little dunk and we save tens of thousands of lives." It works on "24." I heard those remarks on Christian radio today,"where your children can listen to this station and not hear foul language!"

If this losing scuffle plays out the way I think it will, we are in deep trouble and I don't see any alternatives. But at least Bush is gone!

--

Make all the threats you want, the law doesn't change just because we're at war. Funny how you people call yourselves the party of law and order until it's your party that's the ones violating it.

If prosecution happens "progressives" will have to start moving to Canada in droves.

What does this mean, exactly? I mean, I literally don't understand it.

The "Canada" trope usually refers to draft evasion, but I don't think that's what you're saying. Are you suggesting that there will be some sort of nationwide pogrom of people who actually believe the law should be followed, and as a result there will be mass emigration?

You may not have known what you were saying yourself, and this may have been a sort of creative riff on "America, love it or leave it," but I'd appreciate a little clarification here.