Doing this exercise helped me to realize more deeply both my ambivalence towards torture in particular, and from articulating my true feelings on the other issues, reminded me that reflexively countering what I feel are often over-wrought extensions and exaggerations of positions that I basically do agree with has led me to be too virulently negative and in some of my responses. This has also led to me leaving a false impression of where I do actually stand on many issues.

And while I definitely disagree with you on many basic issues, and even the details on a lot that we do agree upon, I will take this opportunity to admit that I have made too much a sport of denigrating you, and launching ad hominem attacks.

I apologize, and will try to tone it down.

A belated thank you for your responses to my finger jabbing. I appreciate your caring enough to do so.

AR's got my head spinning.

Any president worth his salt, if he truly believed he needed to do something illegal ASAP in order to save the naton from immediate threat, would just do it, and face the consequences, no matter how harsh. . A bunch of weasels, hiding behind wiggly legal memos to save their hides, not the nation, do not qualify for protection or excuse making.
One illegal act, would induce re-evaluation at the pause. .Legal cover ecourages a continuation of these illegal acts, wihout reconsideration.
The legal alibi is the worst crime of all.

Going forward, there certainly are gray areas about where torture begins and ends.
i understand there has been some consultation trying ot get consensus with other countreis, and it's been difficult
That's for the future.
We're talking here about the past, where there was no ambiguity. The aim was to torture to get information, and it was done..

Chris — though you now may have second thoughts once more (see Kucinich above), yes, I am sane.

But there is.

It doesn't matter where on the line you want to draw it, but for each and every one of us there is a place where we say 'that 'X' is definitely torture, and that 'Y' is definitely not.' The questions are where is that line for you, and do you see any shades of grey at the boundary line or not.

The 'legalities' you claim I am trying to hide behind are not mine; I was speaking of the Office of the President (not even Bush specifically)

Anyway, my position, as confusing and uncertain as it is even to me at times, is what it is.

Or to our soldiers, or to our citizens abroad, or to our citizens here at home …

or in accounts of what the GESTAPO did, or the Soviets did, et cetera.

Legal technicalities there may be, and these merit respect, but “waterboarding” is torture and some of the other “harsh interrogation techniques” (a euphemism that seems to me ordinarily to be deliberately evasive, the typical reason for such terms as substitutes for plain language) in a list I have seen are torture as far as I am concerned and I wouldn't quibble about it. To me these seem as clear as the abuse or brutality at Abu Ghraib.

I call it “bashing” when that's what it is — be it more directly related here to the issue (though the reasons for willingness to work with this administration are the same as with other administrations) or when it happens and has nothing to do with Bush (like blaming Bush for Bhutto's assassination). It's not I would be involved in lying (as I accurately call it).

Every time you refer to legitimate criticism of Bush as “bashing” or “hating” (and you have done it frequently) then you are functioning as an apologist. If there is any “lying” involved, then perhaps the liar and the object of the lie are one and the same.

I'm not an apologist for that administration and haven't acted as one; I have taken Shaun's neurotic excess properly to task (as well as answered why Israel and the Saudis still have relations with that administration, the USA, and oil interests. Anyone saying I am an apologist or have acted as one is lying.

“You ARE excusing the actions of the Bush administration. How else to interpret your bellyaching about my unwillingness to do so?”

How about interpreting statements about *** YOUR *** bellyaching truthfully?

We're waiting.

It is why they tried to get Ashcroft on his sickbed to sign off, remember that discussion?

It makes me physically ill to see the moral writhings used to justify torture and even defend it. No wonder so many conservatives (circa Goldwater) are raging because Republicans are destroying the conservative movement, principle by principle.

Even though Reagan is still their deity, he is not for me. He also showed signs of sacrificing principle for expediency and party power. Iran-Contra, anyone?

Defining torture is a slippery slope, so we can't oppose any torture? That's writhing of the highest and most wriggly order.
Yoo's legal writhings have been thoroughly dicredited by legal and Constitutional experts, but he is still the authotity of prefenence. They should be ashamed to invoke his name. Any old ambulance chaser could have done as well as Yoo.

These are the same kind of people who rant about moral equivalency.
This is theater of the absurd.

CHRIS, good job!

Honestly, I'm having a hard time believing this is America.

With a memo from Justice declaring that it was legal, whether you agree with that memo or not, then you cannot claim he authorized a known illegal act of torture.

That's just proof that the Justice Department is also complicit in war crimes. Which AG Gonzales tacitly admitted.

Let's put it more simply, since I know you're probably dealing with a headache. You ask your lawyer to write you a note saying that you can kill your wife. You kill your wife with said note in your pocket.

In that situation will the court…
A) Let you off scott free?
B) Send your dumbass to jail with your accomplice lawyer friend?