Including the Guardian in the list renders all the others questionable.
Utter contempt for rule of law and the Geneva convention would mean ignoring the US Supreme Court and execution of all prisoners. Bush has accepted the Court's ruling against him, and the prisoners have not been executed.
The very existance of secret prisons is still open to reasonable doubt. Remember, there are many people with ample incentive to lie and fake evidence.
People are being prosecuted for the torture that did happen. The courts will decide who is guilty, and how far up the chain the rot goes, but until they've decided, we must assume everyone is innocent - that's one of the foundations of the rule of law.
As for restitution, what would you consider sufficient?
Everyone is well aware of the content of the articles you linked to. If they were the conclusive proof you claim, no reasonable person would disagree with you - and that should be a warning bell. Assuming your political opponents are not reasonable people is a dangerous habit.
Citing those articles does a fine job of whipping the faithful into a frenzy, but nothing to convince the doubters - the very definition of preaching to the converted, and then there's your strident tone.
If you want to convince anyone at all that your're right, you need to reason with your opponents, not just restate your own position. Consider the anti-creationist sites. They don't just say 'creationism is not worth dignifying with a debate when its been proven utterly wrong for 150 years', they examine each piece of creationist logic and evidence, and they counter it. That is the way to convince the undecided, and it is what you are failing to do.
Utter contempt for rule of law and the Geneva convention would mean ignoring the US Supreme Court and execution of all prisoners. Bush has accepted the Court's ruling against him, and the prisoners have not been executed.
The very existance of secret prisons is still open to reasonable doubt. Remember, there are many people with ample incentive to lie and fake evidence.
People are being prosecuted for the torture that did happen. The courts will decide who is guilty, and how far up the chain the rot goes, but until they've decided, we must assume everyone is innocent - that's one of the foundations of the rule of law.
As for restitution, what would you consider sufficient?
Everyone is well aware of the content of the articles you linked to. If they were the conclusive proof you claim, no reasonable person would disagree with you - and that should be a warning bell. Assuming your political opponents are not reasonable people is a dangerous habit.
Citing those articles does a fine job of whipping the faithful into a frenzy, but nothing to convince the doubters - the very definition of preaching to the converted, and then there's your strident tone.
If you want to convince anyone at all that your're right, you need to reason with your opponents, not just restate your own position. Consider the anti-creationist sites. They don't just say 'creationism is not worth dignifying with a debate when its been proven utterly wrong for 150 years', they examine each piece of creationist logic and evidence, and they counter it. That is the way to convince the undecided, and it is what you are failing to do.