Hal,

It has been an absolute pleasure exchanging ideas with you, and I, for one, would love it if “both sides” could find more common ground. I have to say, however, that when you wrote, “You seem to view my approach as interfering with your approach,” I should point out that it’s not a matter of “seeming,” but rather, and more sadly, a reflection on the fact that, although we have communicated amicably, and, I hope, with grace and respect, the two approaches taken by our respective “groups” do indeed interfere with one another.

What is interesting, however, is that where we do both agree is on the need for the new administration — and specifically the Attorney general, Eric Holder, whose job it is — to pursue those responsible for turning America into a nation that, for eight years, openly tortured prisoners seized in its spectral “War on Terror.”

Most people I know, who are concerned with human rights, would absolutely agree with your comment, “Obama is refusing to prosecute those guilty of torture in the grounds that [we should] ‘look forward and not backward.’ Doesn’t he understand that by not holding those people accountable that he is inviting the same behavior in the ‘forward’ he speaks of?”

So perhaps, in conclusion, we should all be pressing for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. I believe, as you say, that “Cheney and his ilk are full-blown psychopaths,” but although I believe that some of the torture program was implemented in a misguided attempt to secure intelligence that would prevent another attack, I also know that some of it was, even more shockingly, used not to defend America but to secure information to justify the invasion of Iraq, as discussed in the article above that prompted our initial exchange of views.

This, of course, is very close indeed to your belief that “they needed confessions to convince the world that there was indeed a very real threat where little existed,” and I wonder if there is some way that we could progress from here, perhaps by suggesting to the 9/11 truth movement that we could agree to put aside our differences on other questions, but focus together on holding to account those responsible for torture, presenting all three reasons — to prevent a future attack, to justify the invasion of Iraq, and to “convince the world that there was indeed a very real threat where little existed” — as aspects of the same grotesque and unconscionable power-grab by an Executive branch that considered itself above the law.

There are definitely nuances to these variations on the torture themes — and overlaps between the many different theories — that ought to bring us together.

Again, Hal, thanks for engaging.
With best wishes,
Andy