>The NYT has a decent summary of media exchanges on this topic:
>
>http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/is-cheney-winning-the-torture-debate/
Here's my favourite:
http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=5778
While they correctly point out the inconsistency and expediency of Obama taking prosecution of the CIA and military footsoldiers (e.g., Pvt Lyndie England) who carried out the torture of terrorist suspects off the table while leaving open the prosecution of those at the top, The WSJ Editorialists miss the more crucial point. They assert that this is a policy debate, rather than the much deeper and fundamental dispute over what is legal and acceptable for a government, our government, to do to protect a civlized society under the stress of a prolonged conflict with non-state terrorists that it in fact is. To prosecute the authors of the torture memos is not to punish someone with whom you have a policy dispute; it is to hold accountable perpetrators of a terrible crime, now matter how well intended that crime was as a means to protect against further terrorists attacks, also terrible crimes. The requirement of civilization is that the government not stoop to the same level as criminals in protecting the public against the criminality. It's called the rule of law. Either you believe in it or you don't. The authors of the torture memos did not, and apparently the Editorialists of the WSJ don't either. A sad day for the WSJ.
Brian Duncan Seattle, WA beduncan at earthlink.net