Another invitation I missed

The "star-studded" Slate soiree at Chez Hitch:

Hitchens opined on whether the Obama administration should answers calls from the left to prosecute Bush administration officials for illegal interrogation of prisoners: "As long as it's agreed that these steps were taken in response to public demand," he began, only to be interrupted by Andrew Sullivan, who greeted him with a hug and a kiss. "I want tongue. Give me tongue," Hitchens implored, to no avail. "No, I'm not giving you tongue," Sullivan replied, feigning astonishment. "Let the record show: Sullivan wouldn't give tongue," Hitchens replied. ("He's gayer than I am!" Sullivan later told us.)

Oh, no. Nobody could be that gay, could they? But back to Hitchens' actual argument about allegedly "illegal" interrogations:

"What everyone wants to say is this came from a small clique around the vice-president. . . . This is our society wanting and demanding harsh measures."

Exactly so. Ask the ordinary American, "If we catch al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan, should we (a) read them a Miranda warning and hand them over to the ACLU, or (b) expect them to inform on their fellow jihadis, with the possibility of rough treatment if they don't cooperate? I think your average swing voter in Pennsylvania would reply, "Terrorists? String 'em up by their scrotums for all I care!"

I mean, really, did anybody suggest prosecution for the Italian partisans who killed Mussolini? Why are al-Qaeda terrorists accorded such tender-hearted consideration for their alleged "rights"? American as a democratic polity wholeheartedly supported the "harsh measures" approach to terrorism, and Hitchens is correct that it would be undemocratic to single out Bush administration appointees for prosecution in the manner that the Left now demands.