Thank you, ethwc, great opinion article. I would add one thing only. There are different kinds of evil - there are the bullies, who use their words, like a weapon to beat everyone into submission. These are perhaps the worst threats faced, since their voice is like a cannon that has no target, except submission.

"In addition, senior members of Congress including Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman were briefed and offered no objections." I just re-read your excellent opinion article and have included a portion of which I would like to respond. I believe this is proof, we need to change our representatives in Washington DC. It is appalling that, even while these tortures were being committed, in the name of "freedom", that Senators, like Pelosi could approve of such horrors. I can only imagine this has given fertile ground for the Taliban to grow. And perhaps, ample reason for them to despise the US. I can only speculate the damage done by these actions, but I am forced to believe that in the end, they did far more damage than any of the information extracted from these victims. I use the victims, since I can only imagine how I would feel, if someday the US were under the control of the Taliban - I have little doubt they would use these same techiniques on us and say, it is justified because you have done it to us.

In the end they may have a point, which is all the greater reason for these tortures to stop, now!

As I have said in the past, we lose if we become the same as the enemy whom we despise. Granted, beheading is worse than slapping; however, at what point in the span from slap to beheading does one draw the line. In my opinion, it is before the slap.

Excellent article, thanks for taking the time to write it, Ethwc.

Torture is a hot-button issue for me too. I think it is hard to find something more "un-American" than torture. Partisan lies aside, it has NO military/defense value. The info is garbage and that is well-known in the professional circles concerned although the viewers of '24' believe it can save cities. Another really sad thing about this is that the poor guys who actually had to do the deeds were not happy about it but they're the ones stuck living with the horrific memories.

After watching the last year of legislative (lack of) action, it is not much of a surprise that the Dems who knew didn't have the guts to object. People in our country are insane on the subject of security. People have an entirely inflated notion of the likihood of risk from a terrorist attack. We loose tens of thousands of citizens each year to preventable medical events because of our disfunctional healthcare system, but most people don't worry about that happening to them. This in spite of the fact that a majority of folks who have to file bankruptcy for medical bills had health insurance.

The big problem we have is that good ole Wee Bush left us with a military steeped in kool-aid. Everyone else had been drumed out. This whole business with the Generals leaking their views to force Obama toward their view is a pretty scary thing. Hilary asserted that Iran was becoming a military dictatorship, to which they responded that we already were one. They have a certain point, it is worth considering what is going on with our military/industrial complex.

But another thing that bugs me is that some GOPers seem to find pleasure in the torture of our enemies for its own sake. That's why they don't care that it is actually a hindrance to winning.

It is not comfortable to offer protection of the law to those who are obviously guilty of heinous crimes. When the Civil Liberties Union represented the Ku Klux Klan and their right to engage in what most of us find to be objectionable speech. However, if we allow our government to regulate speech, then we no longer may rest assured of our right to this activity. The same logic extends to the need for all of the rights found in the first ten amendments.

It may be appropriate to address speech limitations in private areas when those limits are placed by the host of the space or the owner of the home. It seems to me that the same rights that allow for me to be free from limits by the government allow for me to limit speech BY THOSE ON OR IN MY PROPERTY. This means that I might be able to say highly objectionable things in public but, on a web discussion site, the host might limit this and delete my comments. As a participant on a hosted site, I might well object to this form of censorship; however, this is not (in my opinion) an infringement on my Constitutional rights. For the record, I would prefer that sites limited only speech that is obscene or uses profanity. Since I do not host any sites, that is simply my opinion, not my action to take.

Another thought occured to me, while reading your comment, ethwc, i.e., "It may be appropriate to address speech limitations in private areas when those limits are placed by the host of the space or the owner of the home." Yes, I concur to a degree, yet when is it not appropriate to limit speech? My answer is only when that speech abridges on other people's liberties. Another place I feel it appropriate to censor is when people use their words like clubs to beat everyone else into submission. There is little doubt in my mind both of these can, if taken to the extreme, result in cases where limiting speech is appropriate. There should exist some means of checks and balances within government to address the egrigious harms done by a vitrolic few members of society. ethwc, you point to case, where the KKK was defended by the ACLU. Perhaps their reasoning for acting in defense of these thugs cand be exlpained this way; even the dull and ignorant are entitled to their day in court.

Now, if we could only get the military and the government on the same page, we might truly learn to live in peace.

Jefferson was being "savaged" by the press and his opponents. Lies, fabrications, innuendo, etc were all being used. He was asked by a foreign leader why, as president, he did not take action to stop this. I don't remember his exact words but he basically reaffirmed that were he to take that type action, freedom of press and speech would no longer be cornerstones of our freedom.

Public speech is limited when it incites to violence or other similar actions. Vitriol, ignorant attacks, and even racism cannot be limited by the government unless we are prepared to see gradual movement toward what goes on in dictatorships.

Put differently, call the president any obscene or otherwise derogatory name you wish. However, should you allude to injuring him, be prepared to go to jail and stay there. Also, if one uses the derogatory terms to describe a president, be prepared to be watched closely for threats or perceived threats.

Interesting to note that the investigation of the two primary authors of the "torture memoranda" have now been cleared of any wrongdoing. The final outcome seems to be that they performed poorly but did not engage in unethical or illegal conduct.

I tend to agree that persons who perform to the best of their abilities should not be subject to criminal punishment or ethical sanction. However, I find that I cannot fathom how it is that a man found to have performed in a subpar manner as a lawyer can be hired as a professor of law (Mr Yoo is now a professor of law at UC Berkeley) or a Federal judge (Mr Bybee).

The Washington Post has an interesting analysis of the permutations of this outcome (see http://www.washin...id=topnews ). The increasingly obvious (to me anyway) problem for the legal profession is how does that profession maintain and enforce a system of ethics when faced with the conflicting forces of satisfying clients, maintaining client privacy, respecting the rule of law, and getting rich (I just through in the last for laughs).

These two men provided the "legal" advice and Constitutional interpretation that their boss wanted. Basically, it seems that they fully believed the line from "Frost and Nixon" in which Nixon says something to the effect of "I'm saying that when the president does it, it is not against the law." Contrast that concept with the line from "A Man for All Seasons in which More says that "If you have abrogated all the laws in order to arrest or destroy evil men, what will then protect you from those evil men who arise then?"

I would be fascinated to learn, if many our freedoms have not already been abrogated by the passage of laws, like the Patriot Act and others enacted over the years to "protect us". I am concerned about specious laws, which when enacted are little more than affronts to our personal liberties. I believe, if Jefferson or others, were alive at this juncture in time, they would be deeply dismayed at where "their more perfect union" had led us.

Seaman, clearly our rights have indeed been diminished by the Patriot Act. We are on the slippery slope of being those who would give up liberty for freedom and will end up with neither if we're not careful here. But this might not be the best time to hero-worship Jefferson. Haiti was not exactly his proudest hour. In fact, some of their troubles can be traced to his betrayal of them and their quest for freedom.

Ethwc, yeah it is amazing that those two not only skate away unscathed, but land great jobs after that fiasco. But how about Chenney demolishing the Bush defense by openly admitting that the lawyers were told what to decide. The man is unbelievable, he admits to crimes on national tv.