That's because the idiots today don't understand that sometimes you have to do things that aren't polite to keep people safe. It was understood, that Kennedy and even FDR were doing what was, at the time, considered best for the country.

The majority of the left today, just don't seem to understand that there are people on this planet that would just as soon kill them as look at them.

Wolf -

That doesn't even enter into consideration for these moonbats.

For them, the hate started when Algore lost. From that point on, they've been looking for a reason, ANY reason, to impeach Bush and put him in prison.

Of course, some of them cling to the idea that Bush caused all the mayhem and made up Al-Qaeda, because it allows them to live a rich fantasy life where Bush is evil, and they have to fight him.

But most of them are just mad because St. Algore lost. It was his TIME, man! It's what he was born to do! And that evil chimp stole it all away from him in Florida.

This is a non-starter. If waterboarding is torture, then the military has plenty of guilty members who waterboarded folks at various military training schools. That would make all living former presidents guilty. Or does it only count if we do it to those with whom we are at war?

There might be a faster way to end the Republic than to criminalize policy differences, but it doesn't come readily to mind.

@Brian: "For them, the hate started when Algore lost."

Maybe, but I think it predates that. Most of the anti-Bush vitriol I've heard reminds me of the 80s. It was the same kind of thing back then, only Reagan was president, and the crap was aimed at him.

In 1998, when W was the Governor of the Great State of Texas and I was a senior in high school, I was at a Beastie Boys concert at the Alamo Dome in San Antonio, and some punk band was opening. (Rancid, I think.) When they finished their set, the lead singer yelled into the microphone, "George W Bush is a FUCKING NAZI!"
The liberals made up their minds about him before he even ran for office.

"Ir's what he was born to do!"

Actually, Gore only found his true calling after Florida, when he crowned himself as Pope Albert the 1st of the Church of Global Warming.

Waterboarding isn't torture. It's coercion. Coercion isn't a weasel word, or a euphemism for torture, and it was a perfectly legitimate tool in the "Good War" against the Nazis & imperial Japanese. You can make a case for why coercive tactics should not be used by interrogators in today's war, but Democrat politicians are not the ones to make it. After 9/11, President Bush called Pelosi, Schumer & other House leaders into the Oval Office and explained to them in great detail what he planned to do to captured Al Qaeda leaders. They all nodded their heads in vigorous agreement. Not a peep of protest from any of them. If Bush is Hitler, then every Congressman & Senator who approved coercive interrogation or voted for the Iraq War is Himmler. "Hitler lied! People died!" was not a defense at the Nuremberg Trials.

These Moonbats prefer the days of Bill Clinton. Remember that The Sudan offered up Bin laden on a silver platter to Clinton when he was leaving the country enroute to Afghanistan. Clinton turned down the offer. His justice dept said they didn't have enough "evidence" to hold Bin Laden.
No doubt Obama will have the same mindset. With similar results. Americans will die.

actually Sean... Clinton started renditions... he was just stooopid about Bin Laden.

After 9/11, President Bush called Pelosi, Schumer & other House leaders into the Oval Office and explained to them in great detail what he planned to do to captured Al Qaeda leaders. They all nodded their heads in vigorous agreement. Not a peep of protest from any of them.

Pelosi reportedly wondered if such a questioning method would be vigorous enough.

If you want a sense of perspective about military action, consider Michael Thornton at work many years ago.

I'll point this out:

"Petty Officer Thornton, an assistant United States Navy advisor, along with a United States Navy lieutenant serving as senior advisor, accompanied a three-man Vietnamese patrol on an intelligence gathering and prisoner capture operation against an enemy-occupied naval river base."

Now, what do you think would happen to their new prisoners? A free Grand Slam at Denny's?

Actually, the most damning thing I can say to people purple with rage at the idea of George W. Bush is this:

"The law isn't what you think it is or want it to be."

Cue the sputtering.

And think about what the term, "crime" means. Chances are, it isn't what you think, either.

There's no doubt that members of Bush's administration authorized acts that are war crimes as contemplated by the Geneva Conventions, a treaty which binds the United States and its officials. While there is ample evidence to do so, they will not be prosecuted in the U.S, Obama is not going to be the left's agent of vengeance against Bush. But I doubt you will see Rumsfeld doing a lot of foreign engagements lest someone extradite him.

"crime" means...

An act that is in violation of a law the breaking of which is punishable by the criminal justice system.

> the same kind of thing back
> then, only Reagan was president

And before that, Nixon.

(I don't remember the Eisenhower administration, though I was born under it.)

The important thing to understand is that to a very large extent, the critics of these seemingly conservative leaders were right.

Just saying.

"There's no doubt that members of Bush's administration authorized acts that are war crimes as contemplated by the Geneva Conventions, a treaty which binds the United States and its officials."

Two simple questions:

1) The Bush administration operated in accordance with the War Powers Act. Who does the President report to? Hint: this body has the Constitutional duty to declare war.

2) Treaties bind parties to the treaty. What other party in the Middle East recognizes the Geneva Convention? Hint: governments, not factions or ad hoc organizations, were represented at Geneva.

Gee, ordinary laws bind citizens in America. What are you going to do if some thug robs and beats you, go to his house and wave the law at him?

We have standards of conduct which are completely and utterly ridiculous on the battlefield, largely because those who would form such rules for our troops "learn" about "war" sitting in the dark with popcorn in their lap.

You could mouth the words, "Geneva Convention". How nice for you. I have a friend at work who has just been called to Afghanistan - again. Did you know that when an American patrol goes out to support a construction company, they can't allow kids to pester them for food and candy, because if a crowd gathers, a suicide bomber will kill a bunch of children to get the American putting in a sewer pipe for him?

Is that offensive? Do you think I'm lying? Can't you read the reports from Gaza?

War is horrible, it represents a total failure of diplomacy and economic means, and it must be savage and brief to actually achieve its ends. You - we - need to get it clear in our heads that our guys are the ones who are supposed to win, and that winning means the other guys get hurt and killed, rendered homeless and powerless.

Every time you push for a restriction on what an American soldier may do in battle, you add a body bag with your name on it to the count coming home.

Every time you make it more desperate for your neighbor serving over there in the National Guard, you damage her.

Here's a shock to anyone who thinks life should be a series of "time-outs" and "do-overs": one American missile submarine can kill a hundred million people. ONE. If the launch order is given, nothing can call that back. I see you blinking, but it's true. I served on the USS James Madison (SSBN 627), and it was much less potent than modern subs; we could only bag about 40 million with 15 or 16 MIRVs. There are people on board those subs who intimately understand their duty - and the difference between them and the layman in America is amazing.

American capability to wage war is unbelievably vast. It is will, not ability, dragging us down. It is attitude that makes a loser. Why would anybody want to be one of those? Decisions are too hard, that's why.

Reality is a different world than some inhabit. You might not find it pleasant compared to the illusion of bunnies and kittens and endless days in court arguing "offenses", but it's a refreshing place to stay.

yourmom is right. If the law does not prohibit an action, the act is simply not against the law.
Sometimes people act hastily to "patch" a perceived "hole" in the law. This is where unintended consequences thrive.

Examples: fabric testing standards cited earlier in this blog; gun laws duplicating other laws which only impact ordinary citizens; the establishment of a "special prosecutor" by one political party, who saw the same office used against them; measures to restrict property ownership of the "rich" which ironically make it much harder for others to have such property. It's amazing how bad these ideas turn out to be.

@Crid: "The important thing to understand is that to a very large extent, the critics of these seemingly conservative leaders were right."

I'll give you that, Crid, even if we disagree as to what "a very large extent" means. But it also depends on the critic and the criticism. A well developed criticism about a particular policy, coupled with a practicable alternative, is something worthy of respect, and people should listen, however grudgingly. Waving a Vietcong flag, scrawling "Die Ronnie!" on a wall (saw that at school), or chanting "Impeach Bush," aren't criticisms I have much respect for, if you can even call them criticisms.

There's no doubt that members of Bush's administration authorized acts that are war crimes as contemplated by the Geneva Conventions, a treaty which binds the United States and its officials. While there is ample evidence to do so, they will not be prosecuted in the U.S, Obama is not going to be the left's agent of vengeance against Bush.

This is an absolute falsehood, and you know it. You cannot name one single violation of US or "International" law, nor a violation of an applicable (key word there) treaty that was committed by the Bush administration in the prosecution of the war.

But I doubt you will see Rumsfeld doing a lot of foreign engagements lest someone extradite him.

Well, I can't speak for other countries, but given that in the countries where a big show was made of "indicting" Bush administration officials all of those indictments were tossed as meritless should give you pause there.

The problem here is that the people clamoring for a show trial and hangings are RETARDED. Yes, America now has one political party that has been overrun with retards. What makes you think that a show trial of a man over a policy disagreement is a Good Thing?

N.B. - I do not mean to insult actual mentally retarded people by comparing them with moonbats. But I keep coming back to a blog quote a few years back that I saw (and stole):

The amazing thing about America is that we are still prosperous even though more than half of our population is functionally retarded.

Well, now the retards are running the show.

Sez Brian: "You cannot name one single violation of US or "International" law, nor a violation of an applicable (key word there) treaty that was committed by the Bush administration in the prosecution of the war."

lulz.

Of course I can. We have admitted to torturing people - waterboarding, stress positions, freezing people, depriving them of sleep. These things violate international laws, and at the time many of these things were done, U.S. law. I think the 2006 prisoner bill made it OK for the CIA to do it. These are tactics that were developed by such notable contributors to human misery as the Spanish Inquisition, the SS, the Khmer Rouge, etc. They don't destroy someone physically, but sure does make em say what they think you want. Glad to see you're with the Nazis and Commies.

Come the fuck on. The only way you think that shit is legal is if you think John "crushing children's testicles is legal if the president says it's ok" Yoo isn't a hack who's job was to cover the Bush Admin's ass. They knew it was illegal.

The better angle is the other guy above who's basically like "fuck it" we have to be as brutal as our enemies if we want to win. Let the CIA fuck people up as bad as they want. I'm gguessing he's military or former military. But this still assumes that torture gets people to say things that are useful and truthful. And there's no evidence of that. I think that Cheney and his minions just authorized torture because they wanted to hurt these people first and because they thought it might help second. They won't get punished for it. But they should.

These things violate international laws, and at the time many of these things were done, U.S. law.

Who cares about international law? Not me. I'm glad we're not at the mercy of the Euroweenies, or we'd be dragging people into court for hate speech if they dared express a negative opinion about Islam.

As for U.S. law, which law did these actions violate? Chapter and verse, please.

I think that Cheney and his minions just authorized torture because they wanted to hurt these people first and because they thought it might help second.

You think that, no doubt, b/c of your partisan political leanings. Happily, though, we have not regressed to the point that we prosecute people for their politics. I hope we never do.

An interesting, and somewhat relevant piece in the Daily Telegraph today (4th Feb) on the attitude that the last (and unfortunately also the present) Administration had/has towards covering up torture:

"The judges decided not to release evidence of the alleged torture because the US had threatened to withdraw cooperation over terrorist intelligence and "the public of the United Kingdom would be put at risk".

In a joint judgment involving terror suspect Binyam Mohamed, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said: "In the light of the long history of the common law and democracy which we share with the United States it was in our view difficult to conceive that a democratically elected and accountable government could possibly have any rational objection to placing into the public domain such a summary of what its own officials reported, as to how a detainee was treated by them and which made no disclosure of sensitive intelligence matters.

"Indeed we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials ... relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be.

"We had no reason ... to anticipate there would be made a threat of the gravity of the kind made by the United States Government that it would reconsider its intelligence sharing relationship, when all the considerations in relation to open justice pointed to us providing a limited but important summary of the reports."

In another part of the ruling, the judges said they had been informed by lawyers for Foreign Secretary David Miliband that the threat to withdraw co-operation remained even under President Barack Obama's new administration."

So your officials will admit on paper to what these judges considered torture, but will do everything they can to make sure that that evidence is suppressed - including threatening the future safety of an 'allied' country.

If you aren't allowed to know what's being done in your name, or (worse) just don't care, then how can you possibly elevate yourselves above all those "moonbats" you all like to denigrate so much?

Of course I can. We have admitted to torturing people - waterboarding, stress positions, freezing people, depriving them of sleep. These things violate international laws, and at the time many of these things were done, U.S. law. I think the 2006 prisoner bill made it OK for the CIA to do it. These are tactics that were developed by such notable contributors to human misery as the Spanish Inquisition, the SS, the Khmer Rouge, etc. They don't destroy someone physically, but sure does make em say what they think you want. Glad to see you're with the Nazis and Commies.

And what international law(s) do these things violate? By the Geneva Convention we are not allowed to do inflict pain or undue stress on uniformed combatants in the military service of a country with which we are at war. And we didn't.

The folks being held at Guantanamo are non-uniformed combatants. And they are not in the military service of any country, least of all one with which we are at war.

By those same laws, non-uniformed combatants (i.e., spies and guerillas) can be summarily executed.

And if you think we're being brutal now, you need to go back and study history. The fighting between the Japanese and the Americans in the jungles of the Pacific was marked by brutality on the part of both sides. In comparison, we're as gentle as kittens in this one.

I watched an interview with a US marine who served in the Pacific Theater. He related that he had captured two Japanese soldiers when the rule was "no prisoners." His sergeant was not happy. The sergeant told him to take the prisoners to regimental headquarters, but he'd better be back on the line in 20 minutes. Regimental HQ was 45 minutes away. The marine knew what he was being told to do. He took the prisoners into the jungle and shot them. He cried when he related the story.

Americans soldiers and marines in the Pacific regularly sent teeth and skulls of Japanese soldiers home to wives and girlfriends as souvenirs.

But this still assumes that torture gets people to say things that are useful and truthful. And there's no evidence of that.

Torture does not. But stressful questioning sometimes does.

The police do the same thing...to a lesser degree. You ask the same questions over and over, under different circumstances, throughout the questioning session(s) to see of the answers change.

Provide the suspect some coffee, leave the room for a little while, and come back. The coffee-filled suspect asks to be allowed to use the restroom. You say, "sure, but answer a couple of questions first." The stress of urgently needing to pee compromises the suspect's ability to think on his feet and make up a story. When the answers to the same question start to vary, you have an opening ("you said you got to the diner no later than 7:00, but you later said you left the apartment at 7:15").

There are other means of inflicting stress besides bad coffee. Sometimes just the stress of being in a police station and being questioned works.

The infliction of discomfort or pain provides the impetus to answer the questions in people that have no reason to respect or obey the questioning authority (i.e., the police can threaten to arrest or cite a citizen, but threatening an al Qaeda operative with a traffic ticket or jail time will not be effective).

Such actions become torture when the stressor is applied for no other reason than to apply stress or inflict pain. As a questioning technique, it is at that point useless. That's why people who enjoy inflicting pain make lousy interrogators.

Does all this mean I endorse or in any way condone the "vigorous questioning" to which al Qaeda suspects were put? No. The thought of it makes my stomach crawl.

But international law does allow for extreme circumstances. And these circumstances are pretty extreme.

James -

The very fact that 'yourmom' and you have sought to define non-lethal, non-harmful interrogation techniques as "torture" is the problem here.

Just because some judge calls it torture does not make it so.

You want to know what torture is? Torture is what John McCain and everyone else in the Hanoi Hilton went through. The calculated and intentional inflicting of grievous harm to a person with the intention of getting them to say something that is not true. The fact that the NVA got off on this shit only makes it more repulsive.

You will note, however, that when we get someone who gets off on merely HUMILIATING prisoners (Lynddie England) we toss them out of the military and into the brig.

If you actually had a point, I'd grant it. I have never believed that actual torture yields useful information. But the fact that we got enough information out of these punks at Gitmo to wrap up an entire arm of Al-Qaeda and disrupt several planned attacks ought to say something for the efficacy of mild irritation.

Finally, you would do well to consider that the scum held at Gitmo are treated far better than anyone in GP at a maximum-security civilian US prison.

Finally, you would do well to consider that the scum held at Gitmo are treated far better than anyone in GP at a maximum-security civilian US prison.

And way better than anyone captured by Islamists. Just ask Daniel Pearl.

James: Why was it so very important to release this information? And if it actually is of the public record, and thus accessible to all, why is its release by the British court necessary altogether?

Also, is it possible that the US felt the info might be of some possible benefit to the terrorists? If yes, the threats to withhold intelligence are entirely justified. If GB will undermine the war effort by revealing information they should not, we must respond by withholding further information.

Y'all are just crazy when you compare this to World War 2.

You think that the threat posed by cave dwelling suicide cultists is somehow comparable to that posed by major industrial powers in WWII? It's not. We're not talking about Japanese machine gun nests on Pacific Islands here. This is the treatment of miserable, ignorant wretches - most of whom don't know a thing that's useful to our intelligence services - who are powerless behind walls in jail cells. That we would torture - and that is civilized people know these tactics to be - helpless people we hold in jail cells is beyond gutless. It's a disgrace.

You grant these Islamist criminals far too much, and because of it, you think the institutions that we have in place for dealing with them can't handle it. You're wrong there, too. The biggest harm these people can do to us if we change who we are as a people in response to their gutless actions, because they lack the power to be a real existential threat to us. However, if they turn us into mirror images of them - if we make it official U.S. policy to go to the "dark side" in the famous words of our former veep - then they have won.

Conan:

The folks being held at Guantanamo are non-uniformed combatants.

Strictly speaking, there are lawful and unlawful combatants. In order to be a lawful combatant, one must be a member of an armed service of a sovereign country.

Therefore, at the risk of being pedantic, those held at Guantanamo are unlawful combatants, to whom the Geneva conventions don't apply.

Aside from this piddling point, everything else you said is spot-on.

Your "miserable and ignorant wretches" have perpetrated some trully horrifying atrocities: 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London, Mumbai, Iraq, to mention just a few. They are to be despised, not pitied.

You think that the threat posed by cave dwelling suicide cultists is somehow comparable to that posed by major industrial powers in WWII? It's not.

There's a big hole in New York City and 3,000 dead people who, were they not dead, would argue otherwise.

There is a US warship with a big hole in its side that would argue otherwise.

There are 250 US marines who, if they were still alive, would argue otherwise.

I was illustrating the evolution of brutality in a wartime situation, not comparing the harm threatened by the Empire of Japan versus the harm threatened by the more-fanatical followers of Islam.

Whether you're killed by an illiterate Bedouin tribesman or a Cambridge scholar, you're still dead.

This is the treatment of miserable, ignorant wretches...who are powerless behind walls in jail cells.

That's what jail cells are for: to keep those who want to do your society violent harm powerless.

Regarding the Geneva Conventions. Our own Supreme Court has held they do apply. That debate is over.

Conan sez, "That's what jail cells are for: to keep those who want to do your society violent harm powerless."

Exactly. So no need to torture 'em, too, right?

Those of you who think that the U.S. needs to act like our foes to win here are cowards who lack imagination and insight into human behavior.

Regarding the Geneva Conventions. Our own Supreme Court has held they do apply. That debate is over.

They apply only to those already in Guantanamo. Guess we'll just have to summarily execute any more unlawful combatants right there on the battlefield. Per the Geneva Convention.

Exactly. So no need to torture 'em, too, right?

We question them to find out what their buddies are up to and what information they have on the perpetrators of bigger crimes. Police do it all the time. The petty thief gets questioned for information that leads to the arrest of the murderer.

Ordinary soldiers when captured in war were questioned (in disregard for the Geneva Convention) as to what unit they were with, what type of unit it was (armor, engineering, etc.), how many guys were with them, what their orders were, what kinds of weapons and equipment they had, how much and what types of food they had, etc.

Amassing the information from several prisoners allowed intelligence officers to draw a picture of enemy movements, troops strenth, battle plans, maintenance and resupply issues, etc.

Even the "miserable wretches" for whom you feel such pity have at least one small piece of information that can be combined with other information to give intelligence operatives an idea of where suicide bombers are being sent, what kinds of training they're being given, what kinds of explosives are being used, how they're being supplied, what kinds of intel they're being given about their targets, how their cells operate, etc.

Those of you who think that the U.S. needs to act like our foes to win here are cowards who lack imagination and insight into human behavior.

But we're not acting in any way like our foes. Prisoners at Guantanamo get hilal meals, freedom to worship, medical care, and a trial. Many have even been repatriated to their contries of origin.

Prisoners of Islamists get their heads sawed off.

Therefore, at the risk of being pedantic, those held at Guantanamo are unlawful combatants, to whom the Geneva conventions don't apply.

No problem. Pedant away.

"Those of you who think that the U.S. needs to act like our foes to win here are cowards who lack imagination and insight into human behavior."

Well, then, let me make this clear: I intend that our guys act in more deadly fashion to enemies and those who harbor enemies. I spent six years at sea on subs with the full expectation that if we were shot at, the skipper wasn't directed to invite the shooter over for a friendly chat about the misunderstanding; we were going to shoot back, and from the sea-going equivalent of a Hollywood starship; you were going to pay.

The lesson to be transmitted should be clear, too: never shoot at Americans. Instead, many people in the US think their own neighbors are repulsive swine to have joined the military, and those pigs deserve to die. You might hear one say, "Oh, boy, another American dead, I told you I was right."

So much for "imagination and insight into human behavior".

@yourmom:

You are a marginal thinker.

The Supreme Court was wrong to grant Geneva protections to those at Gitmo, as they do not meet any of the relevant definitions of "soldier".

And if you don't think that these animals are an existential threat, how well do you think the world economy would recover from an Iranian nuke going off in Paris at the same time a North Korean one goes off in Tokyo?

Because both of those countries got their nuclear technology from A. Q. Khan - who was working for the same terrorists you think we should just ignore.

You'll learn. Tens of thousands of Americans will ultimately have to die for it to happen, but you will learn. And then you'll find out that those of us who have been warning about this problem for thirty years were right all along.

And then you'll probably shoot yourself.

yourmom, you've filed several outraged posts here, but you haven't even tried to address the point I made in my post: If the interrogations of KSM & company were war crimes, and if the Iraq War was illegal, then every Democrat Congressman & Senator who consented to the use of waterboarding or voted for the war is guilty as hell, and belongs in the dock at the Hague, right next to Dick & George. And, as SwissArmyD has pointed out, it was Bill Clinton who introduced the rendition of Al Qaeda suspects to third countries that practice real, honest-to-goodness torture. Why is it that absolutely no one in the international human rights community is calling for him to face justice?

Could it be that so many of them are just leftist hacks who are using their sanctimoniousness over the rights of terrorists to bash a President whose politics they don't like?

Y'all think I'm a Democrat? roflerz. I'm more of what you'd call a paleocon these days. I thought GHWB was an excellent president, especially with respect to foreign policy. Shocked that with so many of his team on board, junior's adminstration went so far astray.

I'd be happy to see anyone who signed off on torture policy being punished. Funny to see wingers finally supporting Clinton, though :) I always thought ya'll thought he was beneath contempt. I'd hazard the reason why he doesn't generate the outrage the Bushies do is because he wasn't so inept.

I'm also fine killing people on the battlefield. But torturing captives until they are too crazy to stand trial even? Institutionalizing torture and then blaming it on halfwits like Lynndie England. You people are sick.

"The biggest harm these people can do to us if we change who we are as a people in response to their gutless actions, because they lack the power to be a real existential threat to us."

I agree. We should not change who we are. We have always been the country that kicks ass seriously when we go to war. Why the last 20 or so years have been an exception to this, I do not know, but imagine yourmoms poisonous mentality has spread wide and high. We never before pussyfooted around about bringing a country to it's knees. I'll except Nam here, while we fought well, we weren't willing to make the civilian casualties needed to win against guerillas.

And you really are insane, if you think they pose no existential threat to us. Forget the damage they have done with bombs and all the more damage they will do as they get better bombs. Forget their absolute willingness to give their life to kill a couple of our kids(or their own). Their real threat is taking us over silently, through people like you, who sympathize and want to understand and grant them free reign. They will run this country within a generation if dumbasses like you aren't neutralized.

@yourmom -

I didn't call you a democrat. I called you a marginal thinker. And you verified it for me.

And your calling yourself a "paleocon" and thinking that GHWB was an "excellent president" is just the kind of cognitive dissonance I expect from a moby.

It's also interesting that you parrot the leftist line about "institutionalized torture". There is no evidence that what happened at Abu Ghraib was anything but idiots who thought they could get away with shit.

Of course, I was never outraged by it, since worse things happen to college students during a frat party.

I mean, if you can completely break your enemy's will just by putting Victoria's Secret on his head? Hell, that's easy.

Finally, these terrorists were already crazy by Western standards of sanity to begin with, so it's not like we could have tried them in a civilian court anyhow.

Brian, nice job parroting the fat drug addict's line. Abu ghraib was instituonalized. The people in charge were told to gitmoize it. LOL.

Y'all are funny with your toughness. We didn't defeat the Germans or win the cold war by acting like Hitler or Stalin. We aren't going to defeat fundamentalist Islam (and for those who think I sympathize with them, you're crazy) by torturing random low level flunkies handed to us by the northern alliance (ie most of the gitmo detainees), you're nuts. And weak.

I'm also fine killing people on the battlefield.

So, you're okay with summary executions of unlawful combatants, but think putting them in a prison, feeding them, questioning them, trying them, and releasing them is disgraceful.

I'm fine with the fact that soldiers kill the people that they are fighting and that in the heat of combat soldiers kill people under conditions that might not seem OK in cool hindsight. One of my best friends was 17 when he went to the Pacific Theater in WWII, fought hand to hand and never spoke about what he did there until he was near death and showing signs of dementia. But he did tell me about his experiences. I'm not doubting that war ain't pretty and people, even good ones, do ugly things.

I'm not OK with our president saying it's authorizing the taking prisoners of and keeping them just this side of hypothermia, or just this side of drowning, or depriving them of sleep, or any of the other torture practices - which is what they are - that fall under what the SS called verschärfte Vernehmung. That's what I have a problem with. Doing these things in a calculated, cold-blooded manner. That you don't have a problem with those things speaks to your moral bankruptcy. People were executed following World War II for things that our former President authorized.

That you people are OK with this stuff speaks to the mindless belligerence of the current Republican party, exemplified by the Limbaughs, Palins, Kristols, the (unlicensed) Plumbers, Peters (his recent op-ed is a doozy) and the rest. People like that give conservatism a bad name.

"We didn't defeat the Germans or win the cold war by acting like Hitler or Stalin."

Well, I'll do this for the very first time - I label you an ignorant loon.

We firebombed Dresden and Tokyo, and bombed the populations providing support to the enemy. Rather than blockade and starve Japanese troops on Pacific islands, we invaded and exterminated them.

The 50+ million who died in WW2 weren't mostly soldiers, they were mostly civilians, and the toll would have been much, much lower had we just let Germany and Russia have their way.

Hitler and Stalin victimized their own people. Stalin guaranteed the failure of his economy by maintaining central controls, thereby losing the Cold War.

But this is about what we do today: listen to ignorant people with dreams in their head. Clearly you don't know anything about the battlefield - even where it is.

Well said, Rad. This is the same kind of person who would have been protesting Nagasaki as excessive.

We're arguing with a moby. Someone who pretends to be something they are not for the purposes of ridiculing that thing.

The critical difference between our prisoners at Gitmo and the prisoners that were tortured to death in Germany and Japan is this: They were not interested in gathering information to defeat the enemy.

I love how this moby is obsessed with Wurzelbacher though.

You guys, again, think I'm something I'm not. It's funny. If you'd like to read someone whose beliefs are fairly in line with mine these days and where I hope conservatism goes in the post-Bush era, check out Daniel Larison, he writes at the American Conservative. He's more eloquent that I and has elaborated on the moral bankruptcy of the torture policies of the Bush administration and the current problems with "conservative" thinking shared by you and the people at NRO and the people I mentioned above far more effectively than I.

What you don't seem to get, and what I have tried to make clear, is that there is a real difference morally and legally between what we do to win on a battlefield and what we do when we hold people as prisoners. You seem to think that it's all one and the same. Fine, whatever. I'm done here.

yourmom, no one here is advocating torturing prisoners. There is, however, a legitimate debate about what constitutes actual "torture" and what falls under "coercive questioning."

Since al Qaeda is not a nation-state, its operatives are not recognized as lawful combatants under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. That's where the dilmena begins.

When you capture one of them on the battlefield, you're faced with a choice. You can shoot him right there on the battlefield (legitimately under the Geneva Conventions). Or you can take him prisoner and question him to gather information about what attacks are being planned against your civilian population.

Even the most "miserable wretch" of an operative knows if he's being taught how to speak English or French (attack on LA or Paris); whether he's being given a street map of New York or London; whether he's being taught how to fly a plane or to drive an 18-wheeler (attack by plane or by semi); etc. He knows how he gets his orders,

To simply equate Bush with Hitler or Stalin is to indicate you have no appreciation for the complications involved in this kind of situation. The Geneva Conventions do cover this situation - they allow unlawful combatants to be summarily executed (that means without a trial). Bush, instead, chose to house unlawful combatants at Guantanamo and provide for a military tribunal to hear their case (which is more than is required by "international law").

Most people in this forum are not in favor of torturing prisoners and are probably made pretty queasy by coercive questioning (I know I am). But we also appreciate that a terrorist operative questioned today could very well contribute to not having to watch civilians leap from a 100-story building because their only choice is to die from the fire or to die from the fall.

The Nazis were put on trial at Nuremburg for starting a war, for genocide against the Jews, for mass killings of Slavs, Catholics, Poles, etc., and for violations of the Geneva Conventions (against lawful combatants). There is a huge difference between forcing POWs to march up and down a steep hill carrying large rocks until they are all dead and turning down the thermostat on a unlawful-combatant-prisoner.

American Conservative? Isn't that Buchanan's rag?

You know. Pat Buchanan. Noted Hitler apologist. Alternates between downplaying the holocaust and blaming it on England. Noted isolationist, racist and xenophobe.

In short, anything Pat Buchanan is for, I'm against reflexively. My Mom taught me that you're judged by the company you keep.

I forgot something. Here it is.

If you have to think you're still a victim, you're still a loser.