So, the Attorney General thinks that critics of torture are "hostile and unforgiving."

Good. They should be.

Personally, I'm not interested in the good faith defense. Torture is against U.S. law, against international law, contrary to multiple treaties that bind the U.S., morally repugnant and, to boot, an extremely unreliable method of interrogation. For decades the U.S. has condemned the use of torture by any other state; heck, the U.S. has prosecuted people as war criminals for torturing prisoners. And yet, we are supposed to believe that, desperate to prevent another 9/11, the national security apparatus turned to torture as a way to protect us because it was something they thought might work.

I almost don't know whether to be flabbergasted by the idiocy of it all or just disgusted.

It's hard to imagine the thought processes that led to this conclusion. Were they convinced that torture works by watching 24 and James Bond movies? Did they imagine that other countries, once they found out, would say "well, they really were threatened" and give us a pass (as if every other torturer doesn't say the same thing)? Did they have some idea that it never would come out, so it was okay? Did they think that all the lawyers were wimps? Or did they just want to do something - anything - but didn't have any good ideas?

Honestly, I think it may have been that they didn't have any clue what to do. I find in my profession that a lot of people who do sloppy work try to get away with acting on their first impulses, brushing away valid objections because they don't want to deal with the hard effort involved in coming up with a better answer. After 7-1/2 years of the Bush Administration, I'm beginning to think that's how they operate.

It's not just this issue, of course: you can point to Katrina, the hideous follow-up both the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions and even the U.S. Attorney scandal, which happened in part because Alberto Gonzales couldn't be bothered to get his story straight. But this has to take the prize. The Administration shredded a hundred years of moral authority and ignored well-known legal requirements just because it couldn't be bothered to develop a real intelligence program that would have protected us far better than torturing a bunch of criminals and other people they didn't like.

Come to think of it, I'm both disgusted and flabbergasted. There's no reason to settle for just one.

People are aware that the media lies. I have no reason to parrot them or their Swarm of Officers that are attempting to control the people and government.

Not only has the US condemned torture for decades, but this particular president has made endless hay out of Saddam's torture chambers, never once failing to mention them in reasons why it was necessary to go into Iraq. In terms of frequency of mentions, he's cast torture as a characteristic of evil dictators more than any other US president.

It's like there's a chip in his head that forces him into making hypocritical statements whenever it's at all possible.

randy-khan:

So, the Attorney General thinks that critics of torture are "hostile and unforgiving."

I think the AG is missing half of the equation. When has the government (and specifically those involved in the torture program) apologized or even admitted to any wrongdoing? In order to ask forgiveness you first kinda have to admit guilt and put yourself at the mercy of those you wronged, no?

What moral authority? If you're talking about winning WWII and our success in the Cold War that wasn't a case of people thinking the US had any kind of moral authority, it was a case of "Please, for the love of God, save our sorry ass from the Nazis/Japanese/Russians". The rest of the world contained its contempt for the United States until the big threats with the invincible armies and nukes were beaten back, and now that they don't depend on us for their security, they hate us again.

"What moral authority?"

I mean our moral authority to put pressure on countries that commit human rights abuses and engage in other practices that we deem to be unacceptable. This includes, not incidentally, our moral authority to object to ill treatment of American citizens by foreign nations.

It may not mean much to you, but pushing for improved human rights in other countries has been an important tenet of U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II. When you engage in similar abuses yourself - and don't punish the perpetrators - you tend to lose your ability to object effectively to what other countries are doing.

I'm worried that many Americans supported Bush's policies and many STILL support those policies, in spite of countless facts, figures, and basic human decency to the contrary.

The next Administration will have the almost impossible task of rebuilding America's credibility and moral leadership in the world. This is not a job to be given to Republicans, who when a majority in Congress, refused to take any action whatsoever to rein in the Bush Administration.

I despise McCain for caving in to the GOP hardliners and stating that he "supports most of Bush's policies". I do not agree that it is too late for the Democrats in Congress to push for impeachment or, at least, the censure of Bush , Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell.