Huh, funny thing is I seem to remember one of McCain's greatest sources of personal shame is that he did finally crack and give them what they wanted on at least one occasion.

But I should probably just ask you if you really equate going years malnourished, disfigured, and in solitude with preventing someone from sleeping for 48 hours? I see a difference. One = discomfort the other is permanently scarring.

This is what McCain wrote in his memoirs:

McCain explained that after refusing an offer of early release, North Vietnamese soldiers "worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me." While McCain did not go in to detail during his speech, he explained in his memoir Faith of my Fathers that the information he gave the Vietnamese after being "broken" was out of date, fabricated, or of little use to his captors:

Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant. Pressed for more useful information, I gave the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, and said they were members of my squadron. When asked to identify future targets, I simply recited the names of a number of North Vietnamese cities that had already been bombed.

McCain..."waterboarding is torture"

And the second part of my post?

McCain... "Sarah Palin is my choice for Vice President"

Cruel and degrading treatment is also prohibited under UNCAT.

Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ding_treatment

UNCAT text

We (Reagan) signed it, we (the US) should live by it.

I have no explanation for that decision.

lol - We all agree with that assessment!

There are a few facts associated with a interrogation situation. First it is not what you know as much as how long you can hold out. After 24 hours, and knowing that you are missing, all information that you know will be changed. You are trained to hold out for as long as possible within your means. Second is that every person can be broken. Every single person. Some sooner than others. And every person that you know who is read in knows this as well. There is no shame lost in it.

Obama Intel director: High-value info obtained

Which is why an extremist George Jr administration successfully saved the nation by repeatedly subverting the 911 Commission.

Honesty exposed that not one wacko extremist did anything to save America that day. A Secret Service agent finally had to push the president onto Air Force One (in FL) because nobody from George Jr on down could make a decision. Could not even decide to get on Air Force One. Good thing we saved America by keeping that secret hidden. Good thing we keep America from learning of incompetence everywhere in that administration that day - including the VP, Transportation Secretary, Sec of Defense, National Security advisor, FAA Commissioner, ...

Best way to save America – keep it dumb and uninformed.

And still some deny we were torturing people. How does that make America any different than Nazis? From the NY Times of 21 Apr 2009: But Americans don't torture? 30 years in future, expect extremists again to promote torture as if that somehow results in useful information ... when facts and examples routinely say otherwise.

Curious. Those who created the 'Saddam WMD' myths also advocated torture. Why? Because they could not find those WMDs, could not find Al Qaeda hiding everywhere to kill us all ... and could not find bin Laden because they did not want to. And yet these are honest people? With so much 'honesty' from advocates of torture, how does that make us any different than Nazis?

From the Washington Post: Lying was not limited to Saddam's WMDs.

As much of a douche bag I think Gonzales is, I think opening the door to investigations is a bad idea.

A disturbing revelation from the most Senate recent report goes beyond the authorization of the use of torture...to part of the motivation....to "prove" a link between al Queda and Saddam:
if that is the case, that political motivation makes the act even more egregious, IMO.

BUT....I am not ready to call for criminal investigations yet.

As to the torture memos, I would like to see the results of the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation of the attorneys who drafted the memos. It was held up in the last days of the Bush administration by the AG and is now evidently in the hands of the Obama AG.

If, in fact, as reported earlier this year, Newsweek and Newsweek, that the OPR found that the attorneys who drafted the torture memos violated professional legal standards by basing their opinions on political rather than legal considerations, then, IMO, at the very least, they should be disbarred.

At the same time, if that in fact, is the OPR finding, I think a broader inquiry should be conducted to determine if other top officials, particularly in the White House and DoD, knowingly and willfully participated in the "politicization" of these memos. (The DoJ-OPR internal investigation did not extend that far).

At some point, you have to ask, should top officials in the former Administration be above the law?

At no point.

I absolutely believe that further investigation in necessary, but for now I am leaning in the direction of a "truth commission" rather than a criminal investigation, with the results pointing to where ever it may.

If such an investigation points to the White House, Cheney and Bush could testify if they chose (they probably could not be compelled). If they chose not to tesitfy, then history will be left to judge their culpability.

The question for me is balancing the need for justice to be served with the adverse impact of criminal prosecutions of folks like Cheney (who probably deserves to be prosecuted).

Such a criminal investigation would rip the country apart. Is it worth it or is getting the truth out enough?

Of course it is worth getting the truth out. What kind of country do you think this is? This is not some dictatorship. As Obama keeps saying, we are a nation of laws. Well, we have very explicit laws regarding torture. We have prosecuted people before from other countries for waterboarding. What kind of message does it send to the world if we are willing to overlook our own leaders actions for those same crimes?

I am finding it very disturbing how many people are saying we should move on and forget about this. If we use this to set a precedent by not holding anyone accountable, and I go out an commit a crime, you can bet your ass off I will have my attorney arguing in court that I didn't mean it, and it is behind me, and can't we just move forward.

In addition, if we have laws in this country, but we aren't willing to make the big decisions and follow through because it will be uncomfortable or painful for us, what kind of message does that send to those in the future who might decide to commit crimes like this?

I am also finding it very distasteful the double standard we have going on here. Those underlings at Abu Ghraib went to prison. The people who wrote the laws and ordered the torture are apparently somehow above the law. It's the same with the economic crisis. The bankers are being held to a different standard than the automakers. Where are the investigations of what happened, and holding people who committed fraud accountable? It is laughable that Obama would say on the one hand, we are a nation of laws, and by the other one he just wants to move forward and forget about what happened, other than getting the information out there. THAT does NOT represent the principles on which this country was founded.