William Safire, writing in today’s New York Times:

Torture is both unlawful and morally abhorrent. But what about gathering intelligence from suspected or proven terrorists by codified, regulated, manipulative interrogation? Information thus acquired can save thousands of lives. Will we now allow the pendulum to swing back to “name, rank, serial number,” as if suspected terrorists planning the bombing of civilians were uniformed prisoners of war obeying the rules of war?

The United States shows the world its values by investigating and prosecuting wrongdoers high and low. It is not in our political value system to scapegoat a good man for the depraved acts of others. Nor does it make strategic sense to remove a war leader in the vain hope of appeasing critics of the war.

This secretary of defense, who has the strong support of the president, is both effective and symbolic. If he were to quit under political fire, pressure would mount for America to quit under insurgent fire. Hang in there, Rummy! You have a duty to serve in our “long, hard slog.”

The reply of Trout Fishing in America: “I remember with particular amusement, people with three-corned hats fishing in the dawn.”

****
Related: Michael McGough, Pittsburgh Post Gazette: Will the Abu Ghraib photos influence the Supreme Court’s 911-related rulings?

Obviously the justices in deciding the two Sept. 11-related cases will look to the specific legal points raised by the parties. For example, whether the Guatanamo detainees are entitled to challenge their confinement in court may depend on whether the justices conclude that the U.S. naval base there is “de facto U.S. territory.” Likewise, the fate of Hamdi and Padilla might hang on the court’s interpretation of an obscure statute that applies only to the detention of U.S. citizens.

Harry Litman, the former U.S. attorney in Western Pennsylvania who served as a law clerk at the Supreme Court, offers another reason why there may be no ripple effect.

“The cases are really about whether the federal courts can ever step in when abuses occur, so in that sense they already require the court to assume the worst,” Litman said.

“Certainly there’s a difference between assuming the worst for purposes of argument and seeing the worst in vivid and sickening detail, as in the pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison,” Litman added. “But the court is pretty accustomed to looking past the nightly news to the long-term legal implications of its holdings, and I wouldn’t expect the gruesome revelations to affect the court’s decisions here.”

But others familiar with the workings of the Supreme Court think that the Abu Ghraib revelations could make a difference — if not in the outcome of the cases argued last month then in the way a majority opinion might be worded.

Question: Can we any longer rely on the Supreme Court to act above politics? I shan’t hold my breath…