An absolutely superb column that, in conjunction with the McClatchy/Youssef article, puts a human face on this ongoing miscarriage of justice - exposing the rot and the human suffering it causes. Absolutely vital reporting and commentary.

Nothing more need be said...except thank you!

Thanks, Glenn, as always.

Imagine that. Imagine this article, the McClatchy's article, were endlessly syndicated through hundreds of local and national news sources. Imagine how different the debate over our "War on Terror" would be if the media were to consistently report the truth about what's happening at Guantanamo, Bagram, and on the fields of battle in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The average small-town conservative Christian would, in my opinion, be decidedly against what is described in this article. These "Don't Tread On Me" types live in constant fear that a totalitarian police state will be imposed on them by the Fed. This issue could unite the disparate threads of the US against a common injustice.

But then, I don't suppose anyone in the establishment would want that.

From my conversations with a retired ex DoJ attorney, the DoJ is 'dead.' The good and capable people are gone, and what remains is a mass of Republican hacks. I don't know how quickly Holder can make inroads into that mess, but I don't have much hope for anything improving in the near future.

What you wrote:

You state the McClatchy piece is too long at 1300 words. What are we, morons? Your piece talking about the article was 1200. -- ccputnam

What Glenn wrote:

(it's not very long: roughly 1,300 words)

You may not be a moron, but you could very well be held up as an example of how well the right has succeeded in destroying public education.

the Bushevik Regime was quite Revolutionary. It was not, by any means, an "incrementalist" effort. Basically, it was an overthrow of what remained of our constitutional republic and the rule of law (which were already gasping in extremis as made abundantly clear during the Clinton years).

The Bushevik Regime was revolutionary -- and it was successful. You can thank all the usual suspects later. But our New Normal is now what they, the Busheviks, set out to do.

And we just accept it. We may -- or may not -- oppose it, but Bush rules are still very much in effect, they are being expanded, institutionalized, codified, and permanentized. The elites by and large are thrilled and delighted. This is the way things are supposed to be according to their beliefs and values.

As the Shepard Thing (and so many other Things) demonstrated, as far as the elites are concerned, "Bush" still rules this country. He doesn't have to do it in person any more; even his éminence grise Cheney doesn't have to make personal appearances any more to show who rules this country. You notice that all of a sudden Cheney and his spawn disappeared from the airwaves? Well, sure. They'd made their point about who -- and what -- was really in charge, still, no matter your quaint little "elections." Got it? Good.

It's good that McClatchy and other print media outlets (like Vanity Fair, Harpers and Rolling Stone, et cetera) can still report honestly on various matters but McClatchy is in serious financial peril. They are one of the many media conglomerates that went the "squeeze every dime" of profit route and they are paying for it now big time. What happens if they expire? Then there will be no daily print media outlet for the truth in this country at all. Oh well... there are always overseas outlets. Thank doG for the Internets, eh?

The question arises: why, after all the lies and distortions and after all the outright propaganda they spew, are the New York Times and the Washington Post still relied on by almost everyone for news? Oh, sure. Every now and then, they run something informative and truthful, but so did Pravda. But Pravda wasn't granted the kind of overwhelming confidence that the NYT and WaPo get in this country. It was known and understood by everyone that Pravda was a propaganda organ, and most of what was in it was... well... false -- or at least self-serving of the Party.

Why is it not recognized in this country that the major media outlets are almost all the domestic equivalent of Pravda under the Soviets, and why aren't they always regarded with as much skepticism as our Soviet comrades regarded Pravda?

It is a striking mystery that the NYT can pull the same shit over and over and over again (as Glenn points out) and yet they are still held in such high regard. And when it is pointed out that sometimes their main function is propagandistic, their defenders insist (as does the NYT itself) that their propaganda is an aberration and it won't happen again... till next time. People, the NYT is not a reliable news source. Really. It isn't.

As for the WaPo, it's been little more than a Court Circular at Versailles on the Potomac for years; much of its propaganda is directed at the Palace denizens themselves. The "salons" they are now being excoriated for have been going on for at least a generation. They have a place in the Palace hierarchy, they always have had. They act on it. You are a spectator. Lucky, eh? But why should this gossip, backstabbing, and court manoeuvering be given such credence?

Again, the WaPo defenders will claim that all the Palace intrigue nonsense is only "part" of what they do, and there's solid news and reporting in there, too. Well, yes, and there was in Pravda, too.

I get really tired of hearing the argument that some detainees down at Gitmo are too dangerous to release. Well if we can't convict them of a crime, then they need to be released. That's what America has always stood, Justice. If you can't convict someone of a crime, you don't get to imprison them anyway. However that doesn't mean we can't keep tabs on them after we release them. If they try to commit a crime, we can arrest them again. But this time instead of torturing them, we might be able to get them to confess without coercion. That way their confessions can be used in a court of law.