What purpose did the torture photos serve the perpetrators?

Of course, the normal question of why are those who tortured and their masters who sanctioned it not being investigated and prosecuted for their surprisingly well-documented crimes is at the front of many of our minds.  The same people who claim that the Left is trying to put judges in place to legislate from the bench spent the last eight years trying to have lawyers at the Department of Justice legislate that torture is legal.  Wow. 

But why would they document such horrific acts?  I have to ask why, if they knew it was on the fringe of legality — and they knew that because while they had to rewrite the laws governing torture, defining it so narrowly as to allow people to get away with a great many perpetrations they were claiming that they do not torture — then why would they take pictures of the acts?  

If there were no problem with the torture that indeed was happening, there would be no problem with showing the pictures.  After all, as Jon Stewart said, “Water boarding still sucks, even if you know it’s coming.”

For whose pleasure or satisfaction that the torturous acts were actually being carried out were these pictures taken?  Dick Cheney?  George Bush?  Donald Rumsfeld?  

Who goes to such great lengths to document their crimes?  

And why is President Obama unwilling to push for prosecution?  The Department of Justice must prosecute.  Proof in the pictures.  Proof in the documents.   Indict and prosecute.

Sometimes a little scope or perspective is important for understanding what the President or any politician proposes.  Check out the video below for some of that perspective on Obama’s proposed $100 million budget cut!

Reading through the highlights of the released excerpts of the wiretaps carried out on the office of the Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, it seemed that no matter how corrupt, a politician would not possibly be so careless with the words he speaks over the phone.

Picturing Blago in his office was impossible for me to do.  I kept seeing a well-coiffed Darrell Hammond performing the opening skit of Saturday Night Live (SNL), just waiting for him to look directly into the camera and declare, well, that, “Live, from New York, it’s Saturday Night.”

On the initial night of the DNC, I assumed that Michelle would steal the show. After months of conservatives deriding her for finally being proud of America, I thought that she would take the stage, be pretty, not imply that she was embarrassed of her country, and be the toast of Denver until Hill-dawg took the stage the next night. What I failed to account for in my assumption is that our country’s most accomplished murderer would give such a rousing address.

I have always been amazed at the charmed life that the senator from Massachusetts has been afforded simply because of his genealogy; apparently having a brother that was an attractive-yet-terrible president and another that was an attractive-yet-terrible potential president are the only qualifications for a life-long senate seat in that oh so advanced state in the east. All that family tragedy, plus now he has an illness to boot? How can someone not sympathize with the guy?

Oh yeah, because he killed that girl that one time.