When discussing "evidence" provided by the coup regime, it might also be relevant to note that on the day of his "resignation" (kidnapping), a fake "resignation letter" with Zelaya's signature was provided by the coup plotters...

The author of the Esquire piece, John H. Richardson, appears to be one of the typical imperialist-militarist "liberals" who are given media platforms to broadcast their deeply insightful salutes to the empire and its managers -- the type of Jeffrey Goldberg style "liberals" who perceive their own endless stream of rationalizations for American (and only American) war crimes committed in pursuit of hegemony to be a sign of intelligence and "nuance".

I've re-read this following passage (linked in the article above) at least a dozen times, trying to conceive of any other possible way of reading it:

"These interrogations weren't about finding a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, the motive the left is joyfully ascribing to Cheney. They were about stopping suicide bombers from killing young American boys and girls. And there was real-time feedback, so let's stop the pretense that we have to raid old CIA files to find out if this stuff works — or that Cheney is a monster for making the argument that it does. (It's the argument that we should do it *because* it works that's morally depraved.)"

When I read the above passage, it amounts to:
"Torture was employed to "protect our troops" . We know it worked because the interrogators said so. The argument that we should do it because it works is morally depraved."

He's directly stating (and quoting a book to that effect) it was done because it "worked", thus essentially calling himself morally depraved. How else can that passage possibly be interpreted?

Richardson also states, "Now it's liberals who don't want to do nuance. They say the phrase "enhanced interrogation" is an evil equivocation straight from the Nazi lawyers, that torture is the only appropriate word. But they didn't waterboard anybody at Nama."

How astonishingly dishonest of him to reduce the ENTIRE torture controversy -- including, among other things illegal kidnapping, secret prisons, deliberate renditions to other countries that torture, prisoners detained without charges or evidence for 6+ years in many cases, brutal beatings, multi-day sleep deprivation, forced standing until legs swell and collapse, forced nakedness for months, chaining to walls, ceilings and floors, being held in dark, freezing cold, concrete cells, blaring loud music 24 hrs per day, spraying prisoners with cold water in freezing weather, complete long-term audio/visual sensory deprivation, complete isolation from any human contact, dietary manipulation and food deprivation -- techniques which in combination drove many prisoners literally into insanity, as well as dozens (possibly 100 ) detainee homicides committed by US interrogators.

Ignoring all of these torture techniques, Richardson instead dismisses the entire issue with total dishonesty by simply saying "But they didn't waterboard anybody at Nama", as if the entire torture controversy were nothing but that one single issue.

There's other ridiculous logical and empirical statements he makes which would just be a chore to address...

Also, in Richardson's interview with Garlasco in January 2009 after the Gaza massacre, he stated "What about the argument that the war tenderized the Gazans" -- a disgusting depiction, as if these decades-long brutalized and colonized people are like slabs of meat to be casually clubbed from time to time for our pleasurable consumption. (that kind of imagery is upsetting to us vegans.)

He also states, in an attempt to justify the timing of Israel's criminal attack on Gaza, "Because Hamas declared an end to the ceasefire and started lobbing rockets over the border." -- Wrong, Israel deliberately violated the ceasefire on November 4, 2008, Election Day in the United States, when it was guaranteed almost nobody would notice because of 100% saturation election coverage, by killing 6 Palestinians, provoking Hamas into retaliating.