It was a bad call to go in, but only in retrospect- there was intelligence that indicated Hussein was developing WMD, and he had already proven that he would use them. Hussein was given every opportunity to avoid conflict, but he proved to be repeatedly recalcitrant.

The psychos that really need to be invaded are North Korea and Iran. Those are the guys that are going to detonate the next nuke. Both leaders are almost certainly clinically insane.

Thus anyone involved should be tried and thrown in prison in accordance with the Rule of Law…

you know, because “our respect and reverence for the rule of law” pretty much dictates that we must.

OR, we could make excuses for them.

Or, we could let bitter enders like you play politics with the judicial process. What fun, eh? Forget national security. Forget fairness. Just apply your draconian idea of “justice” using your absolutely unproven thesis - as partisan a take on the Iraq War as can be advanced - and realize the enormous satisfaction of seeing your political opponents thrown in jail.

Thus begins a cycle of criminalizing political disputes that will have no end.

ed.

Let’s assume that is absolutely true (and I don’t dispute that). It has no bearing on whether those that ordered torture thought it was legal or illegal.

Well, yes and no. Yes, pacifism stands against just war theory… but this definition of pacifism is nonsense.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pacifism

1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.
2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one’s principles or beliefs.
3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war.

Obviously, a person can be opposed to strapping down a powerless person and pouring water into his nose without meeting any of these requirements for being a pacifist, let alone a radical one. Pardon me, but THIS what you call torturing the language!

Maybe Sun Tzu had a point about the nation that is known for destroying it’s enemies being rarely attacked– but I’ll bet the nation that is known for torturing prisoners is rarely surrendered to. Faced with the prospect of real or imagined torture, combatants, it seems to me, will choose to fight to the death. I mean, duh!

Sure, neither liberals nor conservatives will be satisfied with a presidential commision. Those guys are never satisfied by anything. It doesn’t matter what anyone wants, the truth is what we need. Prosecution and punishment should only be meted out in the most heinous cases possible, and perhaps not all,but we need to know everything about what happened.

I feel sorry for those in the CIA in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the extent to which people went to defend their country. Preventing another attack seemed to be the primary concern at that time.

The CIA is now entirely out of the interrogation business - there is an article today in the WaPo how morale is down. who wouldnt be demoralized after being played in a game of political football ?

The enormous hubris of the anti torture absolutists is insufferable. Strike that.. it is tortuous.

And if another attack happens on this country, the CIA will once again be accused of not being good at its job.

Lose-Lose.

Sad but true. It reminds me of some advice I once heard given to newly-weds: “You can either be right or you can have peace.”

Personally, I think the investigation is a pure political move intended to rally Obama’s base. And I think it will backfire in the long run. Time will tell.

Is this based on any of the available evidence, and if so what?

As the timeline seems to stand, they decided to do it, did it, and then “sought” justification for it (I’m being generous here). That would belie the idea that they thought they were acting in a legally correct manner. Rather it suggests that they were well well aware they were in violation of the law and tried to get cover.

As I said, if there’s something that indicates this isn’t correct please direct me to it.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTMwYWM3MmZkNmQ0NjZiZTlkOWM4YTMzYzI0MmVlZTQ=

It really does have a valid thoery on the events at hand.

Here is an excerpt:

“The principle at work here is casuistry, in the proper sense of that term. Under casuistry, a just society adheres to certain moral norms. There are times when one finds exceptions to these norms, but the norm remains — and the exception must be justified. For example, the Ten Commandments teach us, unequivocally: “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet most of us agree that there are circumstances in which it is both moral and ethical to kill another human being. If a policeman sees a criminal who is about to kill an innocent person, he may use lethal force to stop him. If a foreign enemy threatens your country, it is permissible to go to war to defend it against such aggression. The norm — killing human beings is wrong — remains. But in some circumstances, killing — indeed, organized killing by the state — is morally and ethically permissible.”

In my opinion this exemplifies the thought processes in place at the time. The article goes on to explain that concept in detail. Even going in depth and saying:

“Some disagree with casuistry and take an absolutist position on these moral questions. When it comes to matters of war and peace, we call such people pacifists. The critics of the CIA program are effectively arguing from a position of radical pacifism. Against pacifism stands just-war theory, which argues that society can prosecute war so long as it adheres to certain standards: discrimination and proportionality.”

I have to think that the US is a just and good country. There are times when the means required to defend the country cross the lines with everyday rule of law. I understand this is a potential slippery slope, but I believe that the American people are such that we will constantly monitor this for abuse.

Keep in mind that if we are constantly at war or being attacked we cnnot concentrate on domestic matters. I believe that Sun Tzu was correct when he theorized that a nation that is known for destroying it’s enemies, will never be attacked. I desire the US to continue being that nation.

President Bush was responsible for defending the country. Many of the politicians complaining today were advocating the same policies during that time. It is one thing to question a policy after the fact. It is quite another to brand your political opponents as criminals years later.