Hey, he got away with it...so he has convinced himself that he's innocent.

I apreciate the irony here. And I would love to see pretty much any member of the ruling class in this country held responsible for past crimes. But that doesn't invalidate anything in that press release. And, as you can see from that press release, members of the ruling class are never held responsible for anything.

Ian: "...but that doesn't invalidate anything in the press release..." You're right. The press release invalidates itself, all on its own. It's a monument to partisan crapola and empty posturing by a bloated, anti-American drunk. Terrorists scared by doggies or mass graves filled with women and children? Tough call that one. In the real world, where real innocents are slaughtered, a little duct tape and Fido go a long way toward saving lives.

Can't he be prosecuted for murder, even today?

He could be, as murder has no statute of limitations...but the burden of proof would be on the prosecutors, and after all this time (and with all of the damage control Kennedy and his supporters managed to put into place), it's doubtful any of that would come to pass.

Well, assuming he was drunk, it is easier to get vehicular homicide for drunks who kill with cars these days, and any comments he made would be, well, hearsay, so those're out.

Maybe if we just shot him ...

Of course, I mean shooting with a camera, for a poster against drunk driving, see.

ProfShade,
"partisn crapola and empty posturing" would be a perfect description of your post. Yes, real innocents are slaughtered in the real world. That doesn't give us the right to do it. We're supposed to be the good guys. Many of those tortured in Abu Graib were innocent and some of them were children. And none of it did anything to help either Iraqi indipendence or the war on terrorism. Since it made us look bad, it acctually hurt. And as usual, none of the upper echelons who both permitted it and promoted it were held responsible.

Um...hate to break it to you Ian, but no one was KILLED at Abu Grabass...whereas Teddy laments as if we slaughtered millions...meanwhile, where's his outrage over slaughtered women and children? Now THAT'S crapola-- ersatz indignation for partisan gain. And yes, if non-injurious torture stops an IAED or prevents a suicide bombing, turn Fido loose. Poor, poor terrorists. Scared of the doggies, not getting a good night's sleep... My heart simply ACHES at the indignities heaped upon them. But Teddy wouldn't want to look here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm

But hey, I don't want to replay the whole tiresome Abu Grahid debate here again. Bottom line? Panties and naked pyramids are foolish, dumb, degrading and unAmerican. A cause for crocodile tears and hand-wringing? Give me a break. Purposeful coercion of enemies with info that can prevent slaughter? Damn straight. All day long.

I thought there were deaths at Abu Gharib. I am not sure if it is proven they were killed, but certainly seems suspicious, given the out of control heterosexual breeders running around with their dicks/clits all hard and wet.

Prof,
You keep using the word terrorists. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Most of those people were never even charged with anything. And torture is never a useful interrogation technique. That's military doctrine.
And in case you still haven't heard, "purposeful coercion" is against the law.
You sound like a Montana freeman.

Perhaps the Senator from Chappaquiddick would approve of simulated drownings if the people responsible for them were drunk at the time that they occurred.

Nope. Calling IAED and suicide bombers 'insurgents' is obtuse. ...and I LOVE Montana.