KVH's outrage, and the tone it incites, is pitch perfect. Her exasperated inflection is meant for a child who doesn't understand common decency. And if I recall, Obama's team hit the ground running after winning the election, reviewing Bush policy in all respects; the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on torture. He and his team found that the illegal torture techniques Cheney ordered were already widely known, posted on the internet, and yes, read by terrorists. Calling President Obama "un-American" for rejecting torture, a fundamentally un-American act, is plainly cynical and self-serving. Obama's decision gives no aid to the enemy. And no matter what Cheney, his daughter, or their apologists say, there has never been an acknowledged U.S. policy to torture any time in the country's history. Torture is not a norm. We're supposed to be better then that. And it's illegal.

Ironically, the more Liz debates this, the more likely a torture commission will become the only answer. It's a lose, lose situation. Obviously, because it would set a dangerous legal precedent for future presidencies there will never be U.S. prosecutions. But any information gleaned from a commission can be used in an international court. Gotcha.

I find it incredible that anybody could expect Liz Cheney to change anybody's mind about this. Imagine Chavez's kid touring the US trying to improve his image. The kid would be rightly dismissed as "too close to the matter" and spreading propaganda. Another example of the right defying basic logic.

Actually jdavxc, Cheney is subject to international law. Signed international treaties ratified by our Congress are constitutional laws of our land, at least according to Article Six of our Constitution. More to the point, both the Geneva Conventions and The Torture Convention are laws of our land under the War Crimes Act and the Anti-Torture Act. To be clear, a violation of the War Crimes Act or the Anti-Torture Act is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Act respectively because congress passed laws linking those treaties to our domestic law. Further, there are two clauses in these international treaties germane to the discussion; first signatories of Geneva and TC cannot retroactively redefine the treaties to suit violations of armed conflict or torture, second, if a signatory, i.e. the United States, fails to investigate violations of the treaties, international bodies have an obligation to investigate and bring to trial violators.

In that Constitutional light, KVJ's logic to establish a Torture Commission to investigate violations of Geneva and TC is sound because we are required to do so under the Constitution and by domestic law. Would a commission result in bruising partisanship, yes, but that's politics in the big capital city. Could it be done with a respectful air, only if Republicans concede that an investigation is needed and are willing to appoint and arm independent investigators with subpoena power to review classified and secret Executive and DOD documents.

On the matter of torture as a practical reality. I see your point, although it's a shallow one, and only salient to the public debate and not legal reasoning. Yes, ugly stuff is done in the heat of battle, but the only reason our Western governments have gotten away with is because they wrote history after winning those conflicts. Note, there are no 10th Grade, or any grade, history books celebrating torture as an acceptable tool in the glorious battle for freedom. Why, because it's morally bankrupt and, again, illegal. Taking Cheney's righteous defense to its ends, the next generation will be taught that torture is as American to our government as steroids is American to baseball. Just because it's been done in the past to win, secretly and shamefully, doesn't make either a mindset the public has to swallow as a norm. "Practical" thinking is still illegal if it breaks international and domestic laws. If Cheney really believes he did what was right that's his cross to bare, not the country's. Let him face the consequences gladly. Instead, he thinks he can beat the law by claiming he's above the Constitution. Which is to say he's a coward. And, to be clear, nowhere in the Constitution does the Vice President get a pass when violating the law, even in the defense of the country (as to the president, that's a fuzzy issue). As I understand it, laws and penal codes are not "a la Carte." Further, torture is the tool of a thuggish mind that doesn't know how to get what it needs with finesse. The literature written by professional interrogators tell us that torture is 100 percent ineffective. Cheney's willingness to promote and use it suggests a level of paranoia ill suited for leadership.

The Pelosi kerfuffle is merely an attempt to redraw the debate into the magical thinking that Democrats had any choice on the insane decisions Bush and Cheney made on torture. The Bush White House resisted any real attempt at oversight and, despite any strongly worded letters of protest from Democrats, told Congress only what it could do nothing about. If Pelosi disappeared tomorrow would it make a difference to the broader issue of Bush Administration officials ordering torture? No, we'd still be left with torture ordered by the White House. Who cares what Pelosi knew or when she knew it.

Also, I think you might have misread my point about precedent. You're essentially repeating my point.

As to prosecutions outside the United States, agreed, unlikely, but never say never.

Oh, yes, Obama is now making the tough calls, but his choice not to release the photos signifies little except for the position of each side trying to spin the debate. With or without the photos, the discussion has been elevated (the imagination is almost always worse then reality) so the photos have already had their effect and, in the end, there's no sane way to argue for torture. Cheney's daughter only embarrasses herself when she does, not that she'll see it that way. But as more details leak out, and the facts become more ambiguous, the discussion will feed on itself and grow into a demand for clarity and investigations. It's how these things work. The people driving these conversations know it. They've done this before...