torture is wrong

From Glenn Greenwald:

As for Obama's answer to Tapper on whether he believes the Bush administration "sanctioned torture," what is most significant is that Obama flatly stated that waterboarding -- which Bush officials fracknowledged that they ordered -- constitutes "torture."  That means that Obama is currently and simultaneously advocating these positions:

* Bush officials ordered torture.

* Torture is a crime.

* Nobody is above the law.

Unless you're David Broder, Fred Hiatt, Peggy Noonan or Tom Friedman, those premises of Obama's, as a matter of logical reasoning, all necessarily lead to one conclusion (hint:  it's not:  "This is a time for reflection, not retribution").  Greg Sargent has similar thoughts about the significance of Obama's torture answer.

UPDATE:  When asking Obama about whether Bush officials sanctioned torture, Tapper explicitly stated that "torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions" (it is also a violation of clear domestic criminal law).  Obama's acknowledgment that Bush officials did indeed sanction "torture" by, at the very least, ordering waterboarding amounts to a clear concession that Bush officials broke the law.  When you combine that conclusion with the "nobody-is-above-the-law" mantra they keep embracing, the case for criminal investigations makes itself.

UPDATE II:  Rep. Jerry Nadler, commenting to Greg Sargent on Obama's torture remarks, makes the obvious point:

President Obama said, "They used torture, I believe waterboarding is torture."  Once you concede that torture was committed, the law requires that there be an investigation, and if warranted, a prosecution . . . . The president stated in so many words: Waterboarding is torture, the previous administration has admitted that it waterboarded, and torture is a violation of international law.  Once this is admitted, there must be an investigation. It forces the Justice Department on this path.

I don't see how that can be contested.  As Sargent says:  "Expect more like this." 

Scott Horton at Harpers

Hilzoy at Washington Monthly

dday at Hullabaloo

Dropping the term “enemy combatant” from the governments Big Book of Terrorism is important but is it just a bright shiny object if it serves to distract from focus on this?

"But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration."

Article from today’s New York Times

Article from Washington Independent

Standing Firm for Injustice, Scott Horton at Harpers

Look back in anger, Scott Horton at The National