The arguments made in this article and other articles by Glen are to the point and brilliant. However, there is another side to the whole story. The Vietnam War, as we now know and many knew around that time, was also built upon lies after lies. There were no Gitmos and the enemy combatant detainees in that war but there were plenty of minor and bigger Mai Lai type incidents. The Republican admin that took over after the Johnson admin continued the war. Neither the Nixon Admin nor the Ford Admin brought any cases against anyone in the Johnson admin for the bald face lies about the progress of the war and obviously the invented reason of the invasion.

There were many in the Johnson admin that deserved punishment, there were many in the intelligence and the defense set up during the Johnson Admin, that should have been punished but barring a few hand slaps and a few years of detention to lower level staffers, no big fish was ever brought to justice.

The Obama admin practically has no choice in this matter. It will have to protect the previous admin not just because a democrat admin was protected by the Republicans in past but we don’t know what might happen in the future and this admin might also need the same protection from the next admin which might be a Republican admin.

The only way this I-scratch-your-back-and-you-scratch-mine would end, would be the public pressure and I think people like Glen are doing an incredible job here by keeping the story alive. This will keep the Obama Admin under pressure and at some point in future these efforts might bear fruit.

The Obama admin would be in a major conflict with the security establishment of the country which just a few months ago, was in complete agreement with the Bush Admin. The Obama admin and the democrats are not prepared to fight that battle.

In the meantime, I seriously doubt that the Obama admin will budge more than what it has already over the illegal detentions, gitmo prisoners, and many other issues that are in the courts.

Does that meant it is still torture, even if we're only trying to get straight answers out of the legacy media... including, but not limited to, national pandering radio?

In a comment to an Oxdown Diary on the Shepherd/NPR controversy by ImperialFlow, commenter wigwam had this to say:

One additional, pedantic point. Per the UN Convention Against Torture, which is a Senate-ratified treaty and thus “supreme law of the land” by Article VI:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Emphasis mine.

So, uhm, Ms. Shepherd, the motive doesn't matter. If we are torturing to extract information it is still torture and still illegal.

I included in my list in yesterday's thread, has just posted something new...

Read Bob Cesca on why a public option probably won't be nearly as expensive as the CBO estimates, since of course, none of the Republicans or Blue Dogs will sign up for it, and those that have something similar now will likely switch to one of those all-American policies instead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/if-you-dont-want-the-publ_b_228324.html

While the Greenwald Hypothetical Cultists can dance around screaming he should "release them" if he can't give them a trial, there isn't one politician in either party that would actually do this.

Is your retort here mere political realism (as you see it), or do you actually think it's justifiable to lock people up forever without ever giving them a trial?

If you could, please... try and avoid in your response comparing it to "collateral damage" or people not paying their parking tickets, etc. Lifetime imprisonment without trial is, across the political spectrum, regarded an extremely grave violation of fundamental human rights. If you're going to advocate it, your case should be strong and clear.

Merely calling your interlocutors names simply won't do.

Maddow: Rachel and Isikoff discuss Panetta confession in closed session and threatened veto of Dem bill by Obama (see sig)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

More of same on Countdown.

House Dems vs. the CIA

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/31807746#31807746

CIA deceived Congress

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#31807841

above should read "doesn't mean Obama isn't in a no-win".

Carry on. Obama is just like Bush, there is no law in this country if the Gitmo prisoners don't get trials, etc.

If 'Bush crimes' have left Obama in a no-win scenario, then why isn't Obama (or Obama's DOJ) pursuing the prosecution of these crimes? You can't reverse a system of abuse until you face up to it and acknowledge it.

Because it's Eric Holder's job to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate the torture and lawbreaking, and I expect him to do so.

If an investigation is not begun by the end of the year (or late Fall), then the Obama administration deserves criticism on this issue.

I've been hoping that Team Obama is giving some time so it doesn't look politically motivated (if they appointed, say, Fitzgerald, within six months of taking office).

The Bush crimes must be investigated.

That doesn't mean that Obama is in a no-win when it comes to the detainees in Gitmo who can't be prosecuted. While the Greenwald Hypothetical Cultists can dance around screaming he should "release them" if he can't give them a trial, there isn't one politician in either party that would actually do this.