What's interesting to those with an IQ above room temperature is the remarkable insistence, and even a lighter-weight form of obscession, Cheney is demonstrating by his fixation with defending torture, a highly specific element of his administration's policy (rather than addressing multiple elements, or the policy in general, as a “strategic” subject), which is what normally would be done and would be expected.

The few really smart liberals join a few cynical conservatives in asking aloud, given he continues this unusual degree of fixation on defending these acts (what the irrational libs neglect), is it to forestall actual, serious problems or criminal charges later?

As far as I know it's still unlawful to conspire in a cover-up of a third rate burglary.

I don't think the burglary would be needed to record conversations in a hotel room now, and it's hard to say what's going on when officially gathered information has no judicial review.

I have yet to hear their view on torture

As an organizer for one of those, I can tell you it's mixed. I have to fight that one from the libertarian perspective, not the tea party side.

As far as I know it's still unlawful to conspire in a cover-up of a third rate burglary. The tapes were probably the tipping point for those Republican congressmen that knew they had probably been taped. One wonders what the tipping point will be for current congressmen. Maybe the tea party activists will finally free them from the religious right's influence, but I have yet to hear their view on torture. Note: I discount Ms. Palin's remarks since I think she is far removed from most tea party activist's goals.

Like Hess, Bormann, Kaltenbrunner and the curious case of Julius Streicher – Sentenced to death. Streicher served as Gauleiter of Franconia 1922-1945. He incited hatred and murder against the Jews through his weekly newspaper, Der Stürmer.

Weren't all these important men of power and influence too?

Mr. Holder is not Mr. Gonzalez and I expect better of him. The Democrats have no say in what the independent Attorney General's office does. And the FBI has had a War Crimes Task Force in place since 2002 gathering evidence all this time. So Mr. Cheney is being very foolish to admit on national television that he approved of both waterboarding and “enhanced techniques”. Had Mr. Cheney ever studied law, he might have known better.

Because “our torturers” are important people with a lot of power and influence. If they are threatened they tell lies to Americans (and the world) to stir up public sympathy for them, making it political suicide for anyone (all Dems in general, regardless of their individual positions) who does want them prosecuted.

The Dems are spineless snakes who can't stand up for the rule of law and truly protect the US Constitution, when others break laws and shred the US Constitution.

Obama is doing the same things as Bush? First I've heard that Obama supports torture.

As far as opposing Iraq… I don't know what the big deal is… Obama said all along in the election that he would withdraw the troops from Iraq and he has. All the GOP did was throw more troops into the fire and the “surge” that wasn't only got more of them killed. In case you haven't noticed Iraq is not a rose garden and Obama has to be careful in withdrawing the troops. Otherwise things would really deteriorate. And let's not forget that in the many years that Bush had troops in Iraq, Bush did not fully fund them, could not even provide some basic armor to many, causing even more to die.

Is Obama following some Bush policies? Yes. He is and he has to. It's dangerous to become the most powerful man on Earth and throw away everything your predecessor did. Dubya was the “anti-Clinton” and we see where that got us.

Is Obama doing everything Bush did? No he's not. And I'm tired of the meme that people on both the left and the right (for their own weird purposes) are crying out that Obama is following Bush's policies lock-step. He's not so get over it. And be thankful that Obama is taking a measured approach in instituting his changes.

Obama is not the new Bush.

Furthermore, it has been shown that it wasn't the “opinion of skilled interrogation experts” to resort to torture, but rather of some Bush White House lawyers, some other neocons, and–of course–our dear Mr. Cheney.

In Watergate, we had a clear instance of law-breaking, a special prosecutor (and his assistant) with integrity – enough to get fired for it, and a congress that had the guts to prosecute even their own party's administration. Justice was done, for the most part.

In this case the laws were muddied by fallacious interpretations by administration counsels and by a justice department that was anything but independent (or had integrity). As far as congress,I have yet to see a Republican stand up and say “Enough!”, but maybe they did and I missed it.

“Now lie down here Dick. Tell us what you know about the connections between your agendas and the coreographed appearances of bin Laden. No? Grrrrggglllrrgggghhh! Ahhh! OK, how about now? No? Grrhhhggggllllleeccchh! How about now?”

And so on..

Sound terrible? I hear it is.

why should our torturers not be tried?

This is just one of many times that I wish there was some way to get officials investigated. “Equal under the law” is supposed to apply across the board here.

I'm sure you are an exception in your own mind. Also, for a squid type commentator you don't know squat about “our backbone”. Feel free to transfer your 99.9% negative commentaries to a more appreciative audience of your peers. We don't want you to dirty your fingernails over here.

Oh so high. You and your pals don't?

To ignore such an important fact and as a result place our troops in danger by using the false information seems to be even more egregious than using an illegal (per both national and international law) method.

One can only imagine how much blood and treasure has been unnecessarily spent relying on this false information. Those that should have known better should be called to account.

The FBI certainly did not ignore that information in their interrogations and were appalled at what they found at Guantanamo and overseas prisons. In fact they started a War Crimes Task Force as early as 2002.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20986…

To those that would torture, you must answer the question – If our enemies have tortured our captured troops (and they have) should they be tried for war crimes or not? If not why not? If yes, why should our torturers not be tried?

Most skilled interrogation experts who really are, objectively, skilled interrogation experts do not support the use of waterboarding or other forms of torture precisely because it doesn't result in actionable information.

Nor should waterboarding be used to extract confessions, and in fact information gathered from waterboarding should be excluded from court.

What would you call it when a person tells his torturer whatever he thinks the torturer wants to hear so the torture will end? Would you consider that a confession? If not, what do you call it?

Also, I'm very curious to know why you think information gained through waterboarding (and presumably other kinds of torture) should be excluded from court. Why, if such information is real, true, legitimate information, should it not be considered evidence that can be used in court?

This is not rocket science, DaMav. Really, it isn't.

I am in favor of waterboarding when necessary in the opinion of skilled interrogation experts to extract actionable information to save lives. Waterboarding for punishment only, such as was advocated above for Dick Cheney is morally wrong. Nor should waterboarding be used to extract confessions, and in fact information gathered from waterboarding should be excluded from court.

If you proposing that al Qaeda is in some way inhibited from doing whatever it wants to do because we are treating detainees according to the Kattenberg/Spencer Code of Superior Values, you are working from a faulty premise.

Try to blow up a plane full of civilians => no waterboarding, Miranda rights, free legal services, 3 squares a day, arrow to Mecca, special halal diet, family flown over and given visitation rights. “Fluff that pillow for you, Mr Underwear Bomber?”

Advocate waterboarding when necessary => deserve to be waterboarded while the morally superior folks dance around gleefully. He dared challenge our high moral values!

Now I have to be careful let the Tiger claim my impartial observations be 'strident' and he pull out the Garden Hose of Moral Righteousness and train it upon me.

Actually, I'm not perplexed at all. Like every other population on the planet, your actions tend towards evil the more upset, collective and outraged you get.

Next time you speak of American exceptionalism, you should remember that when push comes to shove, you have no more of a backbone or moral high ground than your past nemeses.

As we have seen by Ms. Palin's statements, you are free to say anything (and someone will believe it), but no one will charge you with a crime – not even libel – if the speech is political.