Turns out there are some things worth being afraid of. An Attorney General of the United States who doesn't know whether simulating the drowing of a person is torture is one such thing. I mean, who hasn't heard of Chinese water torture?

It's true that one can kill in self-defense or in defense of another and it's also true torture is less definitive than death, but torture can't be considered a "lesser included defense," especially since there's absolutely no evidence that it contributes to a successful defense. If anything, the time and energy expended on forcibly extracting information is a total waste. Never mind what it does to the psyches of the people who are tasked with this endeavor. Being ordered to participate in torture must be a devastating experience for all but the most committed sadists.

Chris Dodd's concern about the Judge's inability to assert, without equivocation, that the POTUS, as an agent of government, is subject to the limitations of the Constitution and enabling legislation, is equally valid. How many more times does the Supreme Court have to rule that the executive is acting illegitimately before the message sinks in?

For that matter, how much longer do we have to wait before the Congress recognizes its obligation to remove an incompetent, if not treasonous, executive?

Chris Dodd has said he doesn't think impeachment is appropriate. I hope he reconsiders. If we were to stop taking criminals to trial because some trials are poorly prepared or without merit, our legal system would be a shambles.