Well it makes as much sense as this post of his calling President Bush a “War Criminal”, which begs the question, “What has Sullivan done for America Lately“. Forget the answer it lies somewhere before the number “1″.

On to his screed.

“After reading the full investigative piece in the NYT today on how this administration decided on breaking America’s historic ban on torture and then pursued a long, corrupting policy of ensuring that the interpretation of the law was politicized to keep torture alive, it is hard to disagree with

Marty Lederman:

Between this and Jane Mayer’s explosive article in August about the CIA black sites, I am increasingly confident that when the history of the Bush Administration is written, this systematic violation of statutory and treaty-based law concerning fundamental war crimes and other horrific offenses will be seen as the blackest mark in our nation’s recent history — not only because of what was done, but because the programs were routinely sanctioned, on an ongoing basis, by numerous esteemed professionals — lawyers, doctors, psychologists and government officers — without whose approval such a systematized torture regime could not be sustained.

The way in which conservative lawyers, and conservative intellectuals, and conservative journalists aided and abetted these war crimes; the way in which the president of the United States revealed so much contempt for the law that he put a candidate to run the Office of Legal Counsel on probation before he appointed him in order to keep the torture regime in place, the way in which Republicans and Democrats in the Congress pathetically refused to stand up to these violations of American honor and decency in any serious way (and, I’m sorry, Senator McCain, but in the end, you caved, as you always do lately): these will go down in history as some of the most shameful decisions these people ever made. Perhaps a sudden, panicked decision by the president to use torture after 9/11 is understandable if unforgivable. But the relentless, sustained attempt to make torture permanent part of the war-powers of the president, even to the point of abusing the law beyond recognition, removes any benefit of the doubt from these people. And they did it all in secret - and lied about it when Abu Ghraib emerged.”

Ok, forget the fact that Sullivan is - like the rest of the left - moronic when it comes to this “secrecy thing”. Secrecy meaning that the Ny Times didn’t get the exclusive to blast across it’s pages, “Hey, if we catch you Mr. Terrorist here is what you can expect.”

But beyond the obvious, again with the constant references to “CIA prisons, reditions, torture” and the like, there has still been not one credible occurance of someone being drawn up by their thumbnails. Again, what the Times attempted to make sound so sinister was anything but. The fact that within the administration there were differing opinions about how terrorists should be interrogated.

Yet again we find it’s the “could have been” ” or might have happened” that becomes the story.