“No man is above the law” Let’s test whether this is presently true. How could we prove or disprove this hypothesis, or is an article of faith which must be believed, regardless of any evidence to the contrary?

to my way of thinking, ‘24′ is like a program that, week after week, shows successful conversions of gays to happy heterosexuals — except worse.

How many people in Hollywood would be proud to be part of that kind of ugly venture?

Anyone know how we can find out who sponsors the show “24″?

I’d like to see progressives targeting the program ‘24′ for playing a major role in legitimizing torture in the eyes of the American people.

I wonder how actors like Janine Garofalo, who plays a liberal in real life, and also plays a significant role on ‘24′, can possibly justify to themselves the clear impact that that program has on promoting torture?

Isn’t that about the worst sort of hypocrisy imaginable?

But the independents who are supporting torture haven’t read the Constitution, and aren’t sure that water-boarding is torture. They’re the ones that have to be reached, and I think they’re the ones who would find the war crimes trial convincing.

As to our own history of prosecution of waterboarding as torture, I agree that the prosecution of the Japanese Kempetai officials is pretty clear on the topic as well. Overall, I;d say that there really isn’t much in the way of wiggle room on this.

Remember, these idiots haven’t read the Constitution and don’t recognize treaty obligations as binding. They’re supported in this by judicial idiots like Scalia, who doesn’t care what other courts think. (In fairness to Scalia, his skepticism has some basis in reality with respect to procedural matters. Not being interested in the substance, though — that’s so stupid it hurts.) So a demonstration in the immediate past that the US defined waterboarding as torture is probably more helpful than a basketful of treaties and foreign court rulings.

Perhaps the solution would be to have the hearings after the prosecutions so that the hearings make public what the prosecutions were about and why those who got off were given a pass (e.g. – cooperation with prosecution, etc, like in a normal criminal case).

I think bringing the bright light to things after the fact of prosecution could be useful in making clear that this is NOT a partisan issue.

As far as a special prosecutor goes, I would press quite hard for an independant prosecutor as opposed to a special prosecutor. I want one who can follow wherever the trail leads and who answers only to us (not DOJ, Congress or the White House).