"According to military investigations, over 100 "detainees," none of them found GUILTY of ANYTHING, DIED as direct consequence of torture. The military concluded that those deaths were HOMICIDES."...Really? According to one of Greenwald's links, the military couldn't draw a 'definitive conclusion' as to the causes of death. I guess you, in your infinite wisdom, did your own little private investigation..... As for the waterboarding, uncomforable as it may be, I'd undergo it, knowing of course like everyone else, that I wasn't going to die or be permanently injured. But what's the point?

As for the rest of your ramblings ......."A system of laws, and not of men." -- John Adams. In a democracy we conform to the principles of due process of law, beginning with "innocent unless and until proven otherwise".....True, but in that case, enemies taken on the battlefied don't qualify for equal protection under the law as civilians. You may like to think they do, but they don't. By the way, what exactly do you picture these poor innocent folks doing before they were taken prisoner; shopping at the local mall? Or trying to kill American soldiers?

Still can't answer that pesky "what to do with them" question can you? Oh well.........

And Saddam Hussein?.....Yeah OK..the mother ship is waiting for you. Have a nice flight....

Lack of public outrage?

Hey, no problemo.

We've got a group of wackos here at Salon who are so outraged, they gang up on poor Garrison Keilor every week when he's trying to write about potato salad or the inherent grace of young girls.

It seems that Mr. Keilor had the temerity to say (several months ago) that it might be counter-productive to try and put Bush people on trial because it would intensify partisan hatreds at a time when we all need to work together.

Is one of the nation's most unrepentant Zio-fascists actually deigning to join the rabble on Salon?? It once would have been an honor for a Washington Post editorialist to join the discussion here, but in that paper's current unrepentant Neocon form... Well, let's just say it's not a pleasure and your dogmatic, discredited, dishonest voice is already amplified more than enough in the places where you're actually paid to write!

"You can believe that Pelosi and the American public underwent a radical transformation from moral normality to complicity with war criminality back to normality. Or you can believe that their personalities and moral compasses have remained steady throughout the years, but changes in circumstances (threat, knowledge, imminence) alter the moral calculus attached to any interrogation technique.

You don't need a psychiatrist to tell you which of these theories is utterly fantastical."

Most psychiatrists will tell you that extraordinary circumstances and the feeling of being threatened, or being involved in a mass movement can often strip the individual of their normal moral/ethical poles and commit behaviors they never would have in normal circumstances. Where do you think the phrase "Good Germans" comes from?!?! People, probably including Democratic congressional leaders, can be weak and overly submissive to power; they often prefer to go along to get along than to stand up for what is right. The situation after 9/11 was no morally different than on the 10th... Rather, the climate of fear, fostered by the Bush administration, and re-enforced by the unsolved, homegrown Anthrax attacks (against the free press and Democratic congressional leaders) led people like Nancy Pelosi to abandon principle in favor of expedience. It's easiest for legislators to defer to executive power and to avoid being seen as weak in the face of terrorism than it is for them to do the ethical thing and affirm our long-established democratic principles. Should Nancy Pelosi be accountable for any tacit approval she gave to the torture program, warrantless wire-tapping and other offenses against the Constitution? Certainly, and if she broke any laws in doing so, let the chips fall where they may. Of course, whatever her offenses (or Rockefeller's, Feinstein's, Harman's, etc.), they simply pale in comparison to those in the executive branch and armed forces who actually designed and implemented these criminal policies. There is plenty of good reason to suspect that any information Congress was given on these crimes was EXTREMELY selective and even dishonest, so it's nothing but a lie to state that every beating administered by a US agent in the "War On Terror" was actually directly approved by Congress.

As for the ticking time bomb situation you cite, there are numerous reasons it has no application to anything whatsoever. First of all, was there a solid time frame given by the terrorists? "Release our friend in 48 hours or Waxman dies"?? International kidnappings (known in some circles as "extraordinary rendition") are serious business, but they are in no way "ticking time bomb scenarios", in that they are not explosive devices or other sources of widespread destruction, they do not have a "ticking time" element, and those in custody are the only potential victims. I'm sure Waxman's death was tragic for his friends and family, but it was no way "another 9/11".

Also, since he died DESPITE Israel's unethical, undemocratic, inhumane use of torture against one of the suspected kidnappers, is this really a model for success we want to use? Would it have been just fucking peachy if the FBI or CIA had tortured Zacarias Moussaoui, found out exact details about the 9/11 plot and still not managed to stop it? No matter how much you want to twist the heinous actions of American and Israeli armed forces into a protective image, if torture was so effective, we would have thoroughly demolished "Al Qaeda" and the Taliban 7 years ago and Naschon Waxman would still be alive.

RIP Washington Post

I can't decide which outrages me more: the fact that Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Addington, et. alia engaged in such heinous activities, or the fact that "public outrage" and political considerations are even remotely taken into account when it comes to pursuing warrants, subpeonas, and indictments against people who are suspected (and in Cheney's case, have admitted) of unconstitutional actions, breaking the law, and war crimes (not to mention incredibly immoral acts).

"Public outrage." Good lord.