Perhaps Mr. Greenwald doesn't view Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow as superstars, but millions of viewers do view them as such. This past week both of them have consistently spent most of their hour long programs on this hot issue of torture etc. and they have both plainly labeled the actions as "torture", illegal, and have called for thorough investigation and prosecution. So there are a few "media stars" who are telling it like it is. In fact, I'm quite sure Chris Matthews has said the same thing.

Glenn,

I believe that Obama has a plan to lead us to demand torture investigations. It is clear that the use of torture is obhorrent to Obama, therefore it would seem against his nature to oppose investigation. I believe Obama's stance currently comes about because he knows the uproar from the right that would follow. Therefore, he is following a roadmap, if you will, through use of revelations, clashes of supporters and dissenters, and public debate. Cheney himself has become a useful tool in this debate, I would think with much amusement to Obama. As soon as the public and political climate demands it, Obama will "wash his hands of it" and bow to the will. It is cold, calculating, and definitely Obama.

I would be very surprised if by this time next year, investigations into the torture question have not begun.

And, Arnie, what about all of those very necessary laws which were supposed to prevent the boss from getting free blow jobs from the help?

What about that, my frem? Why did he get a pass? Can you imagine some big shot corporate executive having his own personal blow job specialist intern doing him in the inner sanctum of his corporate executive suite?

Hello, Arne? What would happen to him, my frem?

You would not be like all of your other leftoid frems reporting for duty here, would you, and indulging in very selective bouts of outrage, sir, would you?

It goes on and on and on and on..............and on and on and on and on.......

and on and on.......

In the meantime, Glennn says nothing about his fellow journalists jailed without cause in North Korea and Iran.

Does he have any idea what is happening to them? Does he care about them?

Does he remember a previous lady journalist jailed in Iran. Her body made it clear she had been raped and there were no fingernails. But our fearless journalist Glennn praises a fellow leftoid who went to Iran and found only happy Jews there.

And, what of Dr. Oscar Biscet in Cuba?

Can someone explain the obvious alliance between the left and Islamic extremists?

Do mens like Glennn look forward to being castrati in their courts?

Torture is both illegal and ineffective (since the results will be a lot of lies - this has been known for a very long time). It's also cruel and inhuman, since it drags the torturer down to the same vile level as the purported terrorist.

That people, especially journalists (I am one myself, since 30 years) are willing to defend this, simply makes me cry.

I wonder if they'll torture the next Unabomber if they catch'im before a bang-bang? Terrorism is terrorism, after all. Why not waterboard the fuck out of some of these bizarro Kaczynskites and save the ol' USofA some massive coin?

;}

That was the real story:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66805.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/

Why is Glenn Greenwald, intrepid investigative reporter, ignoring the real story?

Could it be that it is deliberate?

I'm hazy on the details but I do know that they have British Armed forces personnel working in Omaha, Vegas or were ever the fuck it is operating the killer drones. And I think the reason they use foreigners is because of some law or other that forbids American nationals killing people abroad from inside America.

They can do it from wherever they want nowadays. They've implemented a new protocol: HSSTP (High-Speed Streaming Targeting Protocol) to carry the video and commands. It's RFC69.666. Look it up.

Cheers,

Would prosecuting torture mean that Bush (sorry, Ashcroft) should have prosecuted Clinton for letting Osama go to Afghanistan? Inquiring minds need to answer that question before supporting criminal investigations...

IOW, no. I doubt you could find a U.S. statute that made such an (alleged) act by Clinton unlawful. In fact, I know you can't.

But if you can find some law that Clinton broke, have at it. I'd support a conviction if the facts and law warrant such.

Cheers,

I'm hazy on the details but I do know that they have British Armed forces personnel working in Omaha, Vegas or were ever the fuck it is operating the killer drones. And I think the reason they use foreigners is because of some law or other that forbids American nationals killing people abroad from inside America.

Sorry I can't provide confirming links. Perhaps some one else might know more.

More importantly how could low level operatives have just so coincidentally and randomly acted as a "few bad examples" might when their actions so closely resemble what was sought to be legally authorized?

Exactly. "fear up", phobias, enforced standing, humiliation, forced nudity, etc.; the list of Abu Ghraib abuses (and the techniques such as slaps, and sleep and sensory deprivation in the memos) reads almost exactly like the Rumsfeld memos previously turned up.

Graner and England didn't come up with this themselves (and IIRC, they claimed as much). They were told how they should "soften up" detainees by the "pros" ... the "contractors".

Rumsfeld is a liar and a sadist.

Cheers,

"The CIA has assured us that the interrogations at issue here do not take place within the sovereign territory or special maritime and territorial jurisdiction (SMTJ) of the United States. As relevant here, we believe that the phrase 'any territory under its jurisdiction' certainly reaches no further than the sovereign territory and the SMTJ of the United States. Indeed, in many respects, it probably does not reach this far" ...

See Boumediene v. Dubya.

It was a ridiculous argument to begin with. The Guantánamo treaty with Cuba grants the U.S. complete jurisdiction over the base. The "sovereign territory" was a dodge, trying to implicate Johnson v. Eisentrager. But rightly, the court held that when the only courts with jurisdiction there are U.S. courts, those are the appropriate courts to hear cases. Carrying that a bit further, in such cases, U.S. law applies as well.

Creating legal "black holes" were no laws apply should be considered the abject lawlessness that it orima facie is, and rejected as unworthy of any country that believes in the rule of law.

Cheers,