Legalities

It's called "grace under pressure," something the Bush Administrations have shown far too little of.

Sorry you fainted. I hope you're going to be ok.

Now about that torture thing. How can you say the DOJ and OLC attorneys acted in good faith rendering legal opinions that were intended to redefine and justify criminal, immoral, and war crime activities like torture?

The lawyers good intentions notwithstanding, a grave criminal line has been crossed. In a country of laws, these crimes must be fully investigated and prosecuted where their is merit to the charges and evidence to convict. Consequences for law-breaking, not punishment, is essential if we are to maintain a country of laws. After all, isn't that what we're fighting to defend, a country of laws and equal protection under the law?

Dear Mr Mukasey,
Glad to hear you are better. I don't think you need to be embarassed for fainting. Save your embarassment for where it counts-- you should be embarassed about your position on torture.

Are there not ticking bombs that are worth it? Or much simpler, say you are policeman who arrested a man who molests and kills children. If there's a 1% chance the last abducted girl is alive, how far would go to "lean" on someone?

One more thing on "crime", isn't intent and motive taken into account? Isn't there a point that no venal or perverse motive has been shown, only an assertion to protect the country.

Do you think spies have not be tortured in any of the wars of the 20th century under both Republican and Democratic administrations?

I think you will be profoundly disappointed in the Obama administration. It cannot by statute change the national interest and therefore the dictates of national security. It will surely not let any action go forward that would let any member of government acting in good faith be pursued by accusations of "war crimes" especially by any agents purported to represent "world justice"

Consider Khalid Sheik Mohammed. It's NOT that he deserves torture, though he certainly does as the planner of 9-11 and the personal executioner of Daniel Pearl and others.

There is first of all operational intelligence of which he was in charge. Was there something prevented? That's something we may not know for some time? But of course operational intelligence would fade rather quickly as a line of interrogation as someone replaced KSM

What I find intriguing as an interested observer of terrorism ( as we all should be or else we certainly will be anyway, if you get my drift) is that Al Qaeda itself changed dramatically around the time the West got ahold of KSM and some others in the chain of command. Now in 2001, Al Qaeda was dislodged and many in Afghanistan were killed or captured but not the leadership. And it seemed the "cell" structure remained intact, which allowed for secure worldwide operations.

But after KSM capture came a number of intelligence coups and the targeting of a number of leading AQ figures around the world. Coincidence? Nope.

But even more important than striking at leaders, who after all can be replaced, as some of the news reports would seem to indicate a hopeless Sisphyean task as in once again "A third ranking AQ figure is captured" or once again "Leader of AQ in Iraq (or Algeria or PI) killed in raid". However, what seems evident from the outside is that the "cell" structure of AQ has been ruptured. Why has AQ signed on other Islamist groups as affiliates? You might say that was because of a spread of popularity. But that makes no sense - success by mergers and acquisitions, or opinion polls is not what AQ is about. And joining with another group takes on all their problems including any double agents. But AQ has no choice if we somehow ruptured the communications and confidentiality of the "cells" which was their effective method to plan and execute mass terrorism without detection.

robert b and other apologists for torture:

You may want to know just what you are defending. Think "Nuremberg Principles".