Name me one person here who has suggested giving detainees milk and cookies. Shows how much respect SOME of you far righties really have for the rule of law.

Anyway, thanks for that completely ridiculous observation.

I do condemn the Obama administration for not prosecuting torturers. Waterboarding is torture as defined by US law and anyone who took part or authorized it should be prosecuted. And I condemn the Bush administration for allowing torture in the first place.

That said, Obama in January ordered that government agencies must abide by interrogation limitations in the Army Field Manual, which bans waterboarding.

On a final point, if the torture (waterboarding) issue were as clear-cut and black-and-white as you argue, then you should condemn the Obama administration for not bringing these criminals to justice.

Which is worse, an administration that tortures or its successor who tacitly endorses that torture by not seeing justice done?

I refuse to be ruled and motivated by fear. And that’s different than seeing or not seeing reality and how one responds to reality.

The answer to your question is that, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (we are a signatory and ratifying nation, and we honor the international treaties we sign, right? That’s the American way, right?) prohibits the return of people to their home country if there is reasonable belief that they could be tortured. We obviously have to take that into consideration.

The Convention also REQUIRES signatories to prevent torture within their borders. Under this Convention, waterboarding fits the definition of torture. Actually, the bar for what constitutes torture is set quite low.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

Iraq and Afghanistan both have governments now that can hold trials and executions within a week or two for all of those people held in Cuba.

Well, taking you at your word, that seems like a legitimate concern, if somewhat theoretical. But a concern to be balanced against others. To me, a civilian trial of these terrorists is our best, smartest, and most effective response to the greatest mass murder on American soil. NOT invading some country that had nothing to do with the attack. NOT creating overseas gulags and suspending our Constitution in ways major and minor. But showing the world that American justice and liberty are impervious to terror and that we can exist on a far higher moral level than these psychos and still defend our safety. The more we argue about it, the more brilliant it seems.

And let me say, you are a better sparring partner than Crowley or the Grate One or Barney Frank’s dining room table (all interchangeable and uncomprehending.)

What 9/11 does is force people to confront ugly realities of life – war, terrorism (specifically, fanatics driven by an religious ideology that sanctions mass murder). That is reality. You may choose to remain warm and cozy in a moralistic cocoon that ignores that reality. But, history and reality require questioning how these things fit into our moral frameworks.

The framework of international martial law reflects human history. You can choose to ignore it. But, the human reality is ugly. We, Americans (unlike many people in the world) understand little of that reality – war, hunger, death.

If you have a hard time with it, then you’re in good company. Philosophers and theologians have struggled with it for millenia.

Too bad I can’t share your moralistio snuggie.

If a person being waterboarded believes they are going to die, can you tell us if mock execution (threat of imminent death) is illegal under U.S. and international law?

A 1994 federal law prohibits U.S. nationals from performing torture upon penalty of up to 20 years in prison. In that law, torture is defined as;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340—-000-.html

Substituting one’s personal morality for law is the hallmark of a “liberal” (so-called), to whom rule of law means nothing. If liberals don’t like the law as it exists, they should go through the proper means to change the law.

Otherwise, you’re just engaging in sanctimony.

Morality? Please explain your moral framework for war.