Redstate

You suggest that Durbin should not make statements that could be used as ammunition by Muslim extremists. I would suggest that our administration should make sure not to perform actions that could be used as ammunition by Muslim extremists. Remember, Durbin wouldn't have had anything to talk about in the first place if that prisoner had instead been living it up in the magical resort of Club Gitmo with the lemon chicken, two types of fruit, and Christina Aguilera all the time!

Newt Gingrich just released a letter to the Senate seeking censure. It's a formal, procedurally worded, letter designed for Senate consideration. I expect the text on his website shortly, newt.org, but it's already out to his Yahoo group.

I expect similar press releases from other commentators more specifically addressed to senate proceedings. Note also the press release referenced over at Roger Simon's website from late yesterday from several freshman republican senators.

It looks like a substantial formal effort is building to contest both Senator Durbin's original statement and the lackluster follow-ups. Be interesting to see how it pans out.

Wow!  That's just the GREATEST IDEA EVER, dude!  Who knew it could be so simple?  We should let dik-dik Durbin TALK to the muslim extermists.  That'll show 'em.

We should let him INTERROGATE the detainees.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about--maybe I was unclear--but nevertheless, I'm glad you found it to be so amusing. Who knew it was such a hilarious topic?

Durbin never said that Gitmo was a death camp.  He never called US soldiers Nazis.  Durbin told the truth.  He said that the description of prisoner abuse at Gitmo was something he would expect from the casual brutality of any of the various evil regimes that have existed and continue to exist.  This is the absolute, literal, truth.  That description is not what I would expect of a US run prison camp.  It describes the sort of lesser evil that is pervasive in evil dictatorships.

Of course it isn't the same as the Nazi concentration camps, and he never said it was.  Durbin told the truth, he did not lie, he did not exagerate.  He simply described objective reality.  He should not have issued even a semi-appology because there is nothing for him to appologize for.

our troops...

I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood.

Isn't that the whole point of a parallel?  To show similarities?

My statement in the Senate was critical of the policies of this Administration which add to the risk our soldiers face.... I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support

So our soldiers are not Natzi's, but Bush is a Hitler?  

Just what specific policies are so inhumane?

What better alternatives does he offer?

You know, this is just more evidence that the Left is out of touch with reality.

All they need to do is go to Military.com discussion board.  They can easily read how much our soldiers support the war on terror and the methods being used.

To give him to interrogate them with?  Maybe he'll tickle their noses with copies of the ACLU's "about us" page until they agree...to become card carrying members instead of bomb-carrying members of muslim extremist networks.  Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

The reality is that torture is evil.  Those who support, condone, and practice torture are evil.  What happened to moral absolutism?  You people can be so certain that homosexuality is evil, but as soon as Bush and his minions start torturing people you drop moral absolutism like a hot potato.

Wake up and face reality: Under President George W. Bush the United States government has been engaged in actions that are counter to the principles this nation was founded on, actions that are morally and legally wrong, actions that hurt our standing and endanger our citizens.

The reality is that you are ignoring the important questions:

Where is Osama and why hasn't he been found yet?  When the Republican controlled US government force Saudi Arabia stop supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits?  When will the Republican controlled government get around to issuing proper and necessary equipment to soldiers entering combat.

But no.  All your party has been able to do is raise fuss over the case of Terry Schiavo, and demand that Sen. Durbin be censured for telling the truth.  Good sense of priorities you people have.

Abu Ghaib was not torture, nor was is promoted and/or condoned by the Right or by Bush.  It was a handful of soldiers who snapped and lived out some sick fantacies.  But that was a few, in an isolated incident.  It was not torture, it was mistreatment, and people are being charged with crimes.

What lefties are whining about at Gitmo is not torture. You will find worse things happening to American citizens at any major prison.  Do you see busloads of Senators going to reach out to inmates here in the States? No.  Why is it they care less for their own citizens than terrorists who would slit their throat in a heartbeat?

Because compassion for the terrorists makes them look benevolent, and re-electable.

As for the detainees...

Too hot?  Too cold?  Made a pee-pee on yourself? I've seen much worse in a California jail.  Criminals lose rights. Get over it.

Pretty soon the Left will have the terrorists in cushy lounge chairs watching Al Jezeera and 72 virgins on a split-screen 30" LCD flatscreen, with a temperature of 72-73 degrees.  If we want any info we'll have to say, "Please tell me who you plan on killing, or I'll restrict you from television for one week!"  Then they will cry again, "ah-ha!  torture!!!"

I've read Durbin's non-apology, and it's nowhere near enough

To me it's a question of going in the completely wrong direction.  There's been no apology, there's just further insult, blaming the "right-wing media", blaming us stoopid folk who are insufficiently nuanced, and other cowardly obfuscation.

The original comments were despicable enough, and now he's hiding behind the caskets of honorable fallen soldiers.

Foget it-- this jerk needs to be censured yesterday.

Come down off your high moral horse and get over yourself. At this point it no longer makes any difference if Durbin compared the troops to Nazis or employed one of the left's highly nuanced, carefully crafted allusions. The rest of the d*mn world thinks he said behavior is that of Nazis and that is now all that counts.

First, there is a legitimate debate as to whether what happened rises to anything even remotely approaching torture, even in the mushy feel good world of 21st Century liberals. Before a United States Senator even opens his mouth about the conduct of the troops we need to determine if there is any there there. We can have that debate if the left wants without smearing the people we send out there to do our dirty work for us.

Second, you can sit back blogging in your armchair, safe and secure in the knowledge that the entire might of the United States military is arrayed out there risking their lives every day to keep these b*stards from cutting your wife's throat, and then spew forth high moral pronouncements about how we are better than this. I submit that if there were a threat to blow up your child's school and torturing some SOB would prevent it you would be first in line with the pliers.

Personally, I have had it up my nose with the moral pronouncements of the left about the self-pronounced disgusting behavior of people in the military, intelligence, law enforcement. It's time you folks come back and live in the real world.

"misunderstand" what he said.

He has essentially accused our soldiers of being Nazi's.  Sure he thinks he is accusing the administration, but if he knows enought o say our soldiers are behavind like Nazi's, then he knows enough to understand that "following orders" is not an excuse.

This is just insane.

the comfy chair.

If I were you, I'd consider that 1 rating a badge of honor.

"You people can be so certain that homosexuality is evil, but as soon as Bush and his minions start torturing people you drop moral absolutism like a hot potato."

Beautiful.

Please don't stop the feigned outrage. The idea of senate debate focusing on torture at Gitmo for a few days warms my cockles. Put it front and center  for days and days on end. Lord knows the country is swaying more to your side of things on Iraq with every day that goes by.  

Say it loud and proud every single opportunity you get, and urge your Republican leaders to do likewise, "We Love Torture".   The more you make it clear to the public that you all are the party of war and torture, the more I get tingles up and down my spine.

You all are making 2006 look sweeter by the day....to say the least.  :-)

"OKay, I honestly don't get how you can "misunderstand" what he said."

Yeah neither can I but apparently it's quite possible, given your outlandish lala land interpretation of his words.

"This is just insane. "

Keep the outrage coming!

He knows what he said was over the top. It was so far over the top that it looks like he used the Congressional Record Electric Memory Hole feature to make his remarks non-history.

Well, so much for your effort to understand Republicans.  Fair enough, OK, you tried, but we didn't do a very good job of explaining it, and in lumping us all together ideologically, that shows.  But anyway, I can try to respond:

<blockquote>The reality is that torture is evil.  Those who support, condone, and practice torture are evil.  What happened to moral absolutism?  You people can be so certain that homosexuality is evil, but as soon as Bush and his minions start torturing people you drop moral absolutism like a hot potato.</blockquote>

Let's leave aside the issue of homosexuality, which we don't all think is evil, or even important.  Now let's presuppose that what Sen. Durbin said wasn't in any way hyperbolic or irresponsible, that the acts he described occurring at Gitmo were factual as stated.  Perhaps that is a form of torture, as compared to, say, being free to sit in your air-conditioned apartment posting on RedState, eating lemon chicken.  Am I approaching this too lightly?  Well, if as Sen. Durbin essentially said in his "apology", most of us are too stupid to understand the nuances of his words, perhaps he can explain why causing a detainee to be uncomfortable in an effort to extract information (by perhaps some unorthodox but non-fatal means) is comparable to brutally starving and murdering 2/7ths of one's own people for ideological reasons.  I have slept in the Mojave Desert for four weeks, lived in a muddy, windowless C-hut in Bosnia for five months, and crawled around in the cold, mud, and rain for countless days.  Sometimes it felt like torture, so suffice it to say we simply have a different definition of the word.

<blockquote>Wake up and face reality: Under President George W. Bush the United States government has been engaged in actions that are counter to the principles this nation was founded on, actions that are morally and legally wrong, actions that hurt our standing and endanger our citizens.</blockquote>

Not really going to dignify this old talking point with a response.  Although you should point out exactly which laws and morals were violated, what our original standing was (including our relative security status, then and now) and in exactly what ways our citizens, or perhaps you personally, are more endangered now than in the past.  I mean, at least you can say you would be safer standing at the corner of Vesey and West Streets in New York now than you would have been on September 10, 2001.  That should comfort you.

<blockquote>Where is Osama and why hasn't he been found yet?  When the Republican controlled US government force Saudi Arabia stop supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits?  When will the Republican controlled government get around to issuing proper and necessary equipment to soldiers entering combat.</blockquote>

Where is Osama?  I don't know.  Are you out looking for him?  I know at least a few hundred people are, whether they report to you daily or not.  When will President Bush make Saudi Arabia stop supporting al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations?  It depends on how a U.S. President <i>makes</i> another country do anything.  Would you like us to invade Saudi Arabia?  He's already spoken to them about it, along with the issue of gender and religious rights, which is more than any of his predecessors have done.  He has withdrawn our forces--and thus their security blanket--from their kingdom.  And he's waiting patiently for an energy bill from Congress that will propose ways to lessen our dependence on Saudi oil.  When will the Republican government (as if there are no Democrats in the government) outfit our troops entering combat with the equipment they need?  Well, if nothing else, you're kind of insulting the defense contractors who have been working their behinds off to keep our troops properly outfitted.  And let me ask you:  where is the million man standing Army that could have more easily handled the task of its current deployments?  How did George W. Bush, before even becoming governor of Texas, affect the personnel cuts of over a decade ago?

<blockquote>But no.  All your party has been able to do is raise fuss over the case of Terry Schiavo, and demand that Sen. Durbin be censured for telling the truth.  Good sense of priorities you people have.</blockquote>

Terri Schiavo?  Hmm, got me there.  She's no longer with us anyway, so we might as well focus on the important issues.  Like the horrendous, Khmer Rouge-style torture of the nearly 800 detainees at Gitmo, only 100 of whom have been released.  And what "truth" has Senator Durbin spoken?  As far as I can tell, the current furor (no pun intended) is over what he <i>implied</i>, not over any specific fact he cited.

So there you have it.  I surely don't have all the answers, but I can go around in circles all day.

By all means.

Let's have a few more days of Durbin stepping on his oops.

Let's have a few more days of Durbin telling the American people that they are not smart enough to understand his carefully nuanced historical comparisons.

Let's have a few more days of the left telling Americans in Phoenix in the summer that allowing the heat to rise to a shocking 100 degrees constitutes torture for someone who comes from a country where the mean summer daytime temperature is 130 degrees.

Let's have a few more days of the left explaining to those poor benighted Bible-totin' fools in Kansas how feeding these people lemon chicken twice a week constitutes torture.

Let's have a few more days of the left explaining to the American people how allowing Abu bin Whatzis to pee in his pants while being questioned about the next possible 9/11 attack constitutes torture.

And while we are at it let's have a few more days of Howard Dean haranguing 52% of the great American unwashed about how dumb they are for voting for the party of white Christians who never worked a honest day in their lives.

Let's have a few more days. By all means let's have a few more days. Please.

They've got the votes to filibuster.

Let's reinstate The Sedition Act.  

I think we've had enough of these uppity critics causing trouble and stirring up the Muslims.  It is high time that people think twice before criticizing American actions.

Sure we have the election system that is designed to  make our politicians accountable.  But obviously that isn't doing it.

He said that the description of prisoner abuse at Gitmo was something he would expect from the casual brutality of any of the various evil regimes that have existed and continue to exist.

Which is itself an explicit comparison of the guards at Gitmo to the barbarians who committed actual atrocities under those regimes.

This is the absolute, literal, truth.

No, it is not. It is an ugly falsehood by several orders of magnitude, and morally cretinous to pretend otherwise. If you hear "denial of A/C" and think "Nazis!" then you simply are not a serious person.

Yeah, I agree that the Sedition Act would apply to what Durbin said, but the question is, is that the only thing that those allegations rise to the level of?  Considering how the Muslim press has run with his words, could this maybe even be treason?  I know nobody wants to hear these words, but we have somebody trying to embolden the enemy to kill off a few (thousand) more of our young men and women so that he can benefit politically.  The difference between that and calling directly for the overthrow of the government is only a matter of semantics, if you ask me.

"It is high time that people think twice before criticizing American actions.

Sure we have the election system that is designed to  make our politicians accountable.  But obviously that isn't doing it."

Interesting sense of democracy you have there.

After reading this thread and the one below, methinks its time for a little housecleaning.  Not sure whats brought the recent influx, but its certainly not constructive in any sense.
-bro

but the Muslims are already considering us the enemy. Maybe you can accuse Durbin of quoting an FBI report in the Senate and stating that its similarities were too close to Nazis and such-like for comfort. The fact is that the Muslims have already been torching us in the public eye loooong before Durbin. Go ahead and censure him now and the Muslims will consider that as proof that the U.S. is not, in fact, a free society. The fact that we would be willing to silence a Senator is proof. They already regarded apology from Newsweek over that Quran article, which by the way ended up being true, as having been forced by this administration. Now you would like to back their convictions up further and do the same thing to a US Senator. Congratulations, people, you just killed our credibility as a member of the free world and our first amendment in the name of, what? Patriotism? We needed to cover up what our own FBI was saying had been going on in Gitmo? Do you really think they didn't know? That is not just naive, that is being dangerously ignorant. Not all those who were detained were guilty and they had eyes. It wasn't the terrorist who the Muslims were going to believe, it was the ones released who WEREN"T terrorists.

We need to come clean as a nation about Gitmo because, frankly, if we don't, we look like hypocrites. Our word as a nation is more valuable than any weapon we carry. That word is being butchered and it isn't by Durbin. It's by people who are trying to sweep something under a rug that has no more room under it. Soldiers carry out orders, they don't issue them. This is not about the troops and everyone except people who listen to Gingrich knows it.

You need to check your sarcasm detector because it's on the fritz.

...Sedition Act would apply to what Durbin...

I'm not a Constitutional lawyer but he said it on the floor of the Senate. Short of treason he may be immune:

Article I, Section 6

...and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

I don't mind them here at all. The lefties at Red State are generally the more articulate of their bretheren. So if even they can't break from the pack and admit what Durbin said was offensive, well, it speaks well for the right's political future.

Seems like every day there is another comment from some Democrat that you guys find "offensive".  If it isn't Durbin it's Dean.  If it's not Dean it's Reid.  If it isn't Reid it's Boxer or Conyers or Moran or someone.

You guys seem to thrive at getting offended.  

What amazes me is the calls that Durbin is responsible for causing the insurgent/terrorists to cause trouble.  Ummm aren't you guys the same guys saying in every other case that it's the TERRORISTS that are at fault?   We invade Iraq but that isn't the cause of the violence.  It was the evil terrorists and the nefarious objectives.  But apparently the Terrorists are big fans of C-Span because apparently it is the comments of the opposition party that REALLY is the problem.

If the left would stop making stupid, offensive comments we wouldn't have anything to be bothered by.

No one is saying Dubin is even remotely responsible for the acts of the terrorists. He is however responsible for giving them ammunition.

Before some lefty jumps on me for accusing Dubin of sending RPGs to bin Laden, let's make it clear that the ammunition is for recruiting, not physical ammunition.

that only one side makes stupid comments I suspect you have a filter that simply ignores the idiocy from the Right.

He is NOT responsible for giving them ammunition.  You think that the VAST majority of the insurgents give two craps about American internal political rhetoric?

I strongly object to the technique of accusing crtics of this war, or any other war, of providing aid and comfort to the enemy, which is what you guys are trying to do.  

You can pretend that this is about torture or the lack thereof.  You can pretend that what Sen. Durbin said was logical and provable.  You can pretend that EVERYTHING is all President Bush's fault.  But you really KNOW better.

This is not about torture, but about trying to make President Bush look bad at the expense of our troops and our country.

What Sen. Durbin said was so over-the-top and outrageous that it is indefensible.  He should be and likely will be censured for it.  And he will deserve it.

You people (you, Sen. Durbin, Newsweek, Dan Rather, etc.) need to stop hating President Bush so much that you lose sight of the effect of your actions and words on our soldiers and our nation.  Comments such as those made by Sen. Durbin give aid and comfort to our enemies. In a time of war how foolish does Sen. Durbin have to be not to realize that?

He could have argued about the actions taking place at Guantanamo without paralleling those actions with the Nazis, Stalin and Pol Pot. Without using those ridiculous parallels, maybe his arguments would have carried some weight. As it is, he not only undermined our troops and our nation with his comments, but he also undermined his own arguments.

BTW, nice Nihongo no namae.  

Doshite Nihongo ga dekiru ka

Please don't stop the feigned outrage.

There's nothing "feigned" about my outrage whatsoever.  Exactly where did you get the idea that you could judge my sincerity from your keyboard?  Or are you just another self-righteous and presumptuous lefty idiot?  Or if I think you are, is that good enough?

...urge your Republican leaders to do likewise, "We Love Torture".

Au contraire, it is you on the left who love the word "torture".  The rest of us support interrogating illegal enemy combatants.  Yes, I would even bet that a majority of Americans support interrogating Jihadi Joe with loud Christina Aguiwhatevera.  And if that's what it takes to prevent some major attack on your hometown, then your hyper-righteous indignation is an iffy position at best.

The more you make it clear to the public that you all are the party of war and torture, the more I get tingles up and down my spine.

Yes, we know you it gives you tingles.  We know that Senator Ted Kennedy is downright ecstatic celebrating Abu Ghraib Day, we know that it is your leadership out there trying to redefine the word "torture" to the point that will make the average American wince with pain.  Those head-sawing thugs at Gitmo are without a doubt the best treated prisoners in the history of the warfare.  Turn off Hogan's Heroes, dude.

You all are making 2006 look sweeter by the day....to say the least.

You may find it as surprisingly bitter as you found 2004.  To say the least.  So why don't we both just wait and see?

There's a distinction here I don't think you get.  I fully enjoy having Howard "Snoop Deanie Dogg" Dean around-- let him say assinine things for the next four years, as it serves the Republicans quite well, thankyouverymuch.

But there is a line crossed by Turban Durbin:  as much as it would help the Republicans, I do not want Durbin to go unpunished.  That line has been crossed where I can no longer support a self-sabotaging Democrat-- he is also sabotaging America, not to mention the troops, who don't deserve his foul mouth one bit.

Country over party.  Get it, tlh lib?  Get it, Kennedy?  Get it, Kerry?  Get it, Durbin?

If you think that only one side makes stupid comments I suspect you have a filter that simply ignores the idiocy from the Right.

Ok.  When someone on the right says something as stupid as Durbin's latest, why don't you tell us about it?  Start your own thread about it, even.  Seriously.  We'll be here.

He is NOT responsible for giving them ammunition.

He IS.  We differ, apparently.  He has fed anti-American sentiment not just in the Middle East but all over the world, in a way which was not only egregiously stupid and defaming, it was completely unnecessary.

You think that the VAST majority of the insurgents give two craps about American internal political rhetoric?

We don't just think, we know.  Otherwise, "American internal political rhetoric" which damages our reputation wouldn't routinely be plastered all over Al Jazeera, Le Monde, etc.  And those media outlets reach more than just "insurgents", by the way.  The only media which is resisting this latest tidbit, let alone jumping all over it, is Al-CBS, etc.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the second ranking Democrat just "admitted" that our troops are just as bad as Nazis.  You don't think he's culpable, ok.  I do.

I strongly object to the technique of accusing crtics of this war, or any other war, of providing aid and comfort to the enemy, which is what you guys are trying to do.

No, what you strongly do is present a strawman argument. If Durbin wanted to have a discussion of interrogation techniques, he could have had one, without calling the troops Nazis.  That is the problem.

I am not now, nor have I ever attempted to ignore or justify idiocy from the right. We have our share of idiots and, unlike most Democrats, you will find that I and others here are quite happy to take them to task when the opportunity presents itself. But that is not the topic of conversation right now so I will thank you for not trying to deflect the issue.

I was being kind in saying he provided ammunition for the terrorist (the correct word is terrorist, not insurgent) recruiting. I used this out of deference to his position as a Senator because I still have some modicum of resprect for the institution. I did not say what I actually believe and that is that his words and actions border on treason and at the very least giving aid to the enemy.

You are right about the "vast majority of the terrorists {correction mine} not giving two cr*ps about American internal political rehetoric. Most of them are simple bomb carrying mules, cannon fodder for American artillery, or as our military calls them 'targets.' But someone recruits these SOBs to go and get themselves killed in the name of Allah and those someones use these words to feed the effort. Durbin is aiding the enemy as surely as if ...

Well said

Doshite Nihongo ga dekiru ka

 Life isn't fair.  I don't know alot of vocab, (doshite?), but I've got my hiragana down.  I sure can't prove it here, though!

that only one side makes stupid comments I suspect you have a filter that simply ignores the idiocy from the Right.

I sure as heck don't ignore it. Rick Santorum was an idiot for using pulling out a Hitler bomb on the Senate floor as well. The difference was, of course, his reference was more harmless because of its context. Dumb luck on Santorum's part. You play with fire, sometimes you don't get burned. Durbin, on the other hand, pissed of a LOT of people a HECK of a lot more as a result of his asinine comment.

He is NOT responsible for giving them ammunition.  You think that the VAST majority of the insurgents give two craps about American internal political rhetoric

I would think that nobody could try and make that argument after seeing what happened following the Newsweek Koran-flushing story. But let's keep something in mind. Neither I nor anyone else is suggesting that the vast majority of terrorists stay glued to C-SPAN waiting for some Senator to say something to spur them on, any more than those same terrorists read the Periscope section of Newsweek. What I do know, however, is that a select few of them are quite adept at taking our news stories and turning them into inciting propaganda.

Having said that, I personally don't weight the "aiding and comforting the enemy" line too much in this case. If riots break out because of what Durbin said, well, then yes, I'm going to pound him for it (rhetorically of course). But for now I am content to wait and see.

My primary beef with Durbin is simply the disrespect he showed those who bust their ass down at G'itmo for our sake. The stuff that goes on there, even the very actions he "read into the record", isn't torture. (Hey, I thought torture isn't supposed to be effective! But my gosh, what we're doing there IS!) To even call it tortureh is silly; and to even suggest it is remotely comparable to the Nazis, the Soviets, or the Khmer Rouge is reprehensible.

I strongly object to the technique of accusing crtics of this war, or any other war, of providing aid and comfort to the enemy, which is what you guys are trying to do.

My gosh, man, people argue about this war and blast the administration about it every single day. If we spent all of our time accusing those who objected of treason or sedition, we'd have no time for anything else. But we don't, because there is something distinctly disgusting about Durbin's remark versus others.

you instead hear chained to the floor and left to rot in your own filth... what comes to mind then, summer camp?

At this point it no longer makes any difference if Durbin compared the troops to Nazis or employed one of the left's highly nuanced, carefully crafted allusions. The rest of the d*mn world thinks he said behavior is that of Nazis and that is now all that counts.

Isn't that a little like saying: Our lies have been accepted, so stop trying to tell the truth?

Nuts to that.  What counts is that Gingrich is trying to get Durbin censured for something he didn't say.  So now you want Durbin to be responsible, not for what he said, but for what WorldNetDaily says he said.

If those are the rules I'd like to see Bush censured for saying that Ted Kennedy eats babies.  He never actually said it, but under your rules he didn't have to.

The other side knows this already.

Sen. Durbin should know it, since he presumably in the Senate the day they voted to authorize our response to this war.

He is, by his action aiding and abetting the enemy and demoralizing our troops, not to mention slandering those same troops. He has deomnstrated that he is very irresponsible and is frankly bigoted against the country whose Constitution he swore to uphold.

Durbin needs a new role in this, one that involves giving him the level of non-responsibility he has earned.

Well, so much for your effort to understand Republicans.  Fair enough, OK, you tried, but we didn't do a very good job of explaining it, and in lumping us all together ideologically, that shows.

How are you not lumped together ideologically with the fanatics who want to censure Durbin?  I don't see you pointing out that the reality of what Durbin said doesn't match the lie of what Gingrich said Durbin said.  I don't see you saying that this move to censure Durbin is slimey politics.  If you aren't with the "censure Durbin" crowd ideologically, then why aren't you speaking out against them?

I mean, at least you can say you would be safer standing at the corner of Vesey and West Streets in New York now than you would have been on September 10, 2001.

You really think so?  The annual report on terror shows that terrorist attacks worldwide have increased since Bush attacked Iraq.  I do not feel safer at all.  Bush's irresponsible actions [1] in Iraq and Afghanistan are creating new terrorists in job lots.  His actions are increasing terrorist risk, not decreasing it.  If you feel safer that's your concern, but I feel less safe.

Where is Osama?  I don't know.  Are you out looking for him?  I know at least a few hundred people are, whether they report to you daily or not.

Do you really think that Bush has done enough to find Osama?  He went from "dead or alive" to "I don't care where he is".  Bush doesn't seem to be bothering to use any pressure on Dictator Musharrif, as evidenced by the nicey-nicey BS he was pulling with the dictator's pals visiting him just a few days ago.  Musharrif has the energy to kidnap, threaten, and otherwise try to intemidate a rape victim, but somehow he can't be bothered to provide any real help in finding Osama.  Gee, its almost as if you can't trust vile thugish dictators to do the right thing.  Who would have thought?

When will President Bush make Saudi Arabia stop supporting al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations?  It depends on how a U.S. President makes another country do anything.  Would you like us to invade Saudi Arabia?

If it weren't for the fact that Mecca is in Saudi Arabia I'd argue that they would have been an infinately better target for invasion than Iraq.

But Presidents have tools other than invasion, and you know it.  Trade embargos, maneuvering in the UN, bringing attention to Saudi Arabia's hidious human rights record, etc.  Of course he could also break off his personal friendship with the thugs in charge of Saudi Arabia, that might be an indicator that he's a bit less than pleased with that nation's support of terrorists, don'cha think?  But no, "Prince" Bandar is welcome at both the White House and Bush's personal homes.  Presidents can bring pressure to bear on nations without even threatening war.  Bush has chosen not to apply that pressure.

 And he's waiting patiently for an energy bill from Congress that will propose ways to lessen our dependence on Saudi oil.

Heh.  And if you believe that one I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.  Bush's proposed energy bill is nothing more than a giveaway to the oil industry.  If he was serious about freeing us from foreign oil he'd be asking for tens of billions for atomic, wind, and solar research, he'd be asking for hundreds of billions to build new fission plants and to research fuel cells.  Instead he wants to give a couple billion to the oil industry, and then tosses a few paltry million at non-fossil energy and I'm supposed to think that is going to do anything about the problem?  

He wants to drill in the Wildlife Refuge.  Yup, that'll solve all of our problems.  The oil industry itself estimates that at peak output the Wildlife Refuge will produce less than 5% of our current needs, and it'll take at least ten years before we get any sort of significant output at all.

I don't see anything there that will contribute one bit to independance from Saudi oil.

When will the Republican government (as if there are no Democrats in the government) outfit our troops entering combat with the equipment they need?  Well, if nothing else, you're kind of insulting the defense contractors who have been working their behinds off to keep our troops properly outfitted.

Effectively there are no Democrats in government.  Your party has a majority in both houses of congress as well as the presidency.  The only tools available to democrats are fillibusters and other procedural annoyances.  Last I heard there hadn't been a Democratic fillibuster of a bill to provide troops with necessary equipment.

The primary contractor for body armor and Humvee armor has stated that he has the capicity to increase production dramatically, but has not recieved orders for more gear.  Additionally, given that soldiers shipping to Iraq buy their own armor occasionally, it can't really be that the armor itself simply is unavailable, now can it?  I mean, if you can buy the armor in a store than its available by definition.

BTW: Nice attempt to use the classic "hiding behind somebody else" tactic.  I criticize the government for failing to properly equip its soldiers, you say "how dare you insult the noble contractors who are working so hard to solve this problem?"  I wasn't insulting the contractors, though I'm sure they deserve it, I was insulting the Republican controlled government which hasn't been doing what it needs to to properly equip troops.

Terri Schiavo?  Hmm, got me there.  She's no longer with us anyway, so we might as well focus on the important issues.  Like the horrendous, Khmer Rouge-style torture of the nearly 800 detainees at Gitmo, only 100 of whom have been released.

Well, I was thinking more in terms of an anti-terrorism policy that actually reduces the number of terrorist attacks, or an energy policy that is something other than a giveaway to cronies.  But if you'd like to have Congress spend energy on a fullscale investigation of prisoner abuse, how high up the chain of command it went, etc that sounds good too.

Really, and I'm being very serious here, I am amazed at how little the Republicans have done since they took power.  The major things they've done boil down to Terri Shciavo and trying to ram through loony judges.  I think that shows a serious lack of prioritizing, there are more important things to do, but the Republicans won't do them.

So there you have it.  I surely don't have all the answers, but I can go around in circles all day.  

Well, I don't have all the answers either, but I do like going around in circles.  Its fun.

[1] And to be perfectly clear: by "irresponsible actions" I don't necessarially even mean invading.  I was as much in favor of invading Afghanistan as I am opposed to invading Iraq.  I mean his irresponsibility in failing to use sufficient military force in both operations, failing to provide sufficient post-war work in Afghanistan, using mercenary forces, and not paying enough attention to the prisons set up in both countries.

Which is itself an explicit comparison of the guards at Gitmo

Emphisis mine.  Here you are plaing "use the troops to shield the government", also known as "hiding behind the troops".  When someone condemns the government you attempt to divert that condemnation to the troops.  "How dare he call the troops Nazis!"  Cowardly, false logic.

Durbin said that if he had not known that he was hearing a description of a US run prison camp he would have assumed it was a description of the sort of casual, everyday, evil that permiates dictatorships.  This is a true statement.  If I had read that description and not known it was of Gitmo I would have assumed it was a description of something taking place in some third-world hellhole, not something being done by the US government.  That's the truth he told.  And for this you want to censure him?  How about censuring those who implemented these policies, rather than blaming the messenger.

Durbin says "The US government is doing vile things" you say "Durbin hates America and the troops" not "let's fix the problem he describes."  I can't go along with that.

Who would have guessed there would be several Japanese-speakers on this site.

Keep the ronri teki na migi e magatte iru ideas coming.  It drives the hidari e magatte iru hitobito ki ga kurutta.

You people (you, Sen. Durbin, Newsweek, Dan Rather, etc.) need to stop hating President Bush so much that you lose sight of the effect of your actions and words on our soldiers and our nation.

The Clintons.  When the level of viscrial hatred of Bush reaches 50% of the level of viscrial hatred of the Clintons your argument might have merit.  Until then you're just whining.

I can't speak for Durbin's motives, he's the only one who can do that.  But when I speak out against the evils being done at Abu Gharib, Gitmo, and other US run prison camps I am motivated by a love of my country, not a hatred of Bush.  My country is better than that.  I would imagine that Durbin has similar motives.

Things that work in movies don't work in real life.  This isn't Dirty Harry, you don't win by being the most macho.  Abu Gharib and Gitmo are going to cause more problems for the USA, and put more troops in danger, than Bush's failure at Al Qaqaa.  But you want to play "let's be macho", not "let's be smart".

As for my name, thanks.  As you might imagine I choose it quite deliberately.

Doshite Nihongo ga dekiru ka

Your question, however, I think I'm mistranslating.  Or did you really mean to ask "Why are you able to speak Japanese?"  

If so, the answer is: I took first year Japanese last semester.  And since we're not friends shouldn't that have been "Doshite Nihongo ga dekimasu ka", or are you being insulting?

It no longer matters what weasel words Durban uses to try to explain himself. It longer matter if Durban thinks that Americans are simply too dumb to understand his carefully crafted, highly nuanced, Kerry-esque historical comparisions. It no longer matters what you or even I may think about Durban and what he said. His words went out there and are not coming back

He said something that the rest of the world has interpreted as condemnation of American troops as behaving like Nazis, of treating prisoners as if the Soviets were back in business, of behavior we have not seen since Pol Pot.

You on the left are always prancing around worrying, or saying you worry, about our image and what they rest of the world thinks, or some other such cr*p. Well, you got what you wanted, Durban said something, and regardless of what he thinks he was trying to say, the world heard it the way they chose to.

American troops are Nazis. Now you may not think that said. But Al-Jazerra says that's what he said; Le Monde says that's what he said. Some American-hating Imam in East Krapistan says that what he said. The rest of the world that hates us thinks that what he said.

Did Durban cause these people to hate us? Of course not, the already hated us. Did Durban give them some more ammunition to use against us? Of course he did.

But the sad part it Durban knew exactly what he was doing and saying. He said what he said and the way he said it for the maximum shock value. Durban has eased over to that side of the Democratic Party that hates George Bush so much that they do not care who is harmed in their pursuit of their hatred. He is now firmly ensconsed as a Hero of the Daily Kos.

I can't say I really speak Japanese.  I've had two semesters, so all I can do is some of the simpler textbook Japanese.  But I'm learning.

I suspect that more people here speak Japanese than the national norm because this is a blog and blogs still attract techie types.  If you want the really cool tech you go to Japan, so it makes sense to learn the language.  Of course, that's ignoring the various Otaku fanatics who learn Japanese so they can watch anime without subtitles; I kinda doubt there are many of them here.

Personally, I'm learning how because of the tech issue, but also becuause I wanted to learn a language that was as different from English as possible.  I like stretching my mind, so the various European languages with basically similar grammar seemed like less of a stretch than Japanese.  I live in Texas, so learning Spanish really would make more immediate sense, but Japanese interested me more.

Abu Ghaib was not torture, nor was is promoted and/or condoned by the Right or by Bush.

The current AG of the United States (formerly the President's personal counsel) wrote wrote that the military should be allowed to perform cruel, inhuman and degrading acts on the prisoners(his words not mine).  Regardless of whether torture was used at Gitmo, the Bush administration condones it.

You may think criminals lose their rights, but these prisoners have not had a trial or hearing.  And if you think their treatment has been routine when compared to US jails, I suggest you read the actual log of Detainee 063.  In it you will see that Rumsfeld authorized techniques that are legally classified under international law as torture.

I wanted to learn a language that was as different from English as possible. I like stretching my mind

That was mine, too. It works very well for that purpose. To do Japanese, you have to turn your head into an RPN calculator, because there are often stacked operators at the end of a sentence that flip it in various ways. Once you can do that, you'll find it affects your English. One that I catch myself doing all the time is placing an adjectival phrase ahead of the noun it modifies, instead of after it, e.g. let's have a 'smoke a cigarette, get poked with a stick' law. That construction is not forbidden in English, but it is fairly rare. But not for me :)

That Gonzales memo is a fascinating document. It is yet another example of how increasing specialization by skill robs a society of common sense. That is becoming a serious problem in lots of places, not just here.

In any case, your second sentence does not follow from your first; it is a combination of two false assertions packed into a single talking point that is contradicted by the evidence provided to support it. So in that sense it is a bald-faced lie.

What the Gonzales memo is, is what happens when you ask a lawyer whether you can do this (as opposed to asking the next person through the turnstile who has some common sense).

The person with common sense would say, "No, don't do anything cruel, inhuman, or degrading. Let's just not." But that isn't what a lawyer does. The lawyer starts by determining what precisely constitutes "torture" under the appropriate acts of Congress, and under the international agreements. He goes through the enumerated acts you can't do, looks at the speeches given at the time, and finally ends up at, "Well, I guess this, this, and this are OK. But don't do that."

This is precisely what people pay lawyers to do, and it should scare anyone who imagines that law can encapsulate morality. Here is a perfect example of asking a lawyer a legal question, and getting a legal answer that defies common sense.

It is obvious that what Gonzales is being asked to do here is make sure that we are not torturing people, as "torturing" is defined under the appropriate Acts and agreements. So it is not true to say that "torture" was being approved here; on the contrary, the whole thing is about avoiding torture, as torture is defined. It is therefore also not true that "the Bush Administration condones torture." The Bush Administation official in question was trying to tell them how to make sure they were not torturing anybody.

"Condoning" is not a legal term, and here we get to my first point, which is that certain kinds of specialists can cause all kinds of trouble when they stay within their narrow specialty instead of using common sense. It was accountants of just this sort who told Enron how to do what they did. That the ultimate outcome was deceit was lost on these guys because they were so focused on the nits of FASB 99 or whatever. "Well, yeah, I guess you could do it that way."

I first worried about this in college, when I noticed that there were guys coming out of the physics department who knew how to build an atom bomb but had never taken a single history course.

And now we have lawyers who examine the statutes looking for ways to poke and prod the bad guys without "torturing" them, and who come up with answers like, "Well, it's cruel and inhumane, but it's legal and it isn't torture." It was probably somebody just like this who led Janet Reno to burn up a building full of people. Maybe we need a Chaplain General in the Justice Department to keep the lawyers from getting their noses taken off by their own grindstone.

Your second paragraph repeats the deliberate falsehood that we are dealing here with a criminal justice matter instead of enemy combatants captured on a battlefield. Your continued attempts to trick the stupid people into agreeing with you by trying to slip that one by them is not appreciated.

Trent Lott gave Strom Thurmond praise in a manner that implied Lott supported segregation. Lott had to step down as majority leader. Lott's comments were certainly less odious than Durbin's. So, at the very minimum, it is reasonable to expect Durbin to lose his whip position.

The problem with Durbin's comment is that by referencing not one, not two, but three of the most brutal regimes in modern history, he puts GITMO in a class where it obviously doesn't belong.

On a scale of prison conditions from 1 to 100, where 1 is "everything's ok" and 100 is "worst conditions imaginable" GITMO is probably around a 5, while Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and Cambodian killing fields would be right around 100.

First:

Durbin said that if he had not known that he was hearing a description of a US run prison camp he would have assumed it was a description of the sort of casual, everyday, evil that permiates dictatorships.

That is not what Durbin said. That is merely your rather embarassing attempt to parse what Durbin said. To the tape:

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings.

(Emphasis mine.) Which Americans was the FBI agent describing? Not the U.S. government. Which Americans "had done [this stuff] to prisoners in their control"? Not the U.S. government. So which Americans was Durbin describing? You guessed it: not the U.S. government. This was an explicit comparison of the Gitmo guards to people who committed atrocities under the most murderous regimes in human history. Any pretense to the contrary is simply not supported by the text. You quite clearly recognize that Durbin's remarks are reprehensible by any reasonable reading of them, and so you're trying to pretend that the only valid reading of them is a manifestly unreasonable one.

Second, this:

This is a true statement.

is also a lie. Even if we adopt your ridiculous post-facto attempt at rewriting Durbin's remarks, it'd still be an ugly and offensive falsehood. The idea that this stuff is emblematic of what goes on in third-world hellholes, is fatuous. As others have pointed out, far worse "mistreatment" of prisoners is evidently quite routine in Cook County prisons.

I very much doubt that Durbin hates the troops, but he has slandered them. And yes, for that he should be censured; Trent Lott was taken to the woodshed by his own party for far less.

As to the "problem" that you claim Durbin is describing? I frankly see it as a feature of Gitmo, not a bug. These detainees have by their own actions foregone any expectation of civilized or humane treatment at the hands of their captors. Yet the worst that can be said about us is that, according to a single uncorroborated report, we're chaining them up, not providing them with central air, and not giving them hall passes when they need to go potty.

Cry me a river.

No. But if I hear that prisoners are being chained to the floor and left to wallow in their own filth, my first instinct is not to reach for the smelling salts; rather, it's to ask, "Who are these prisoners, and what have they done?"

When the answer comes: "They are enemy combatants the U.S. military captured during the course of combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq," my instinct is to say, "That's it? That's all we're doing to them? Gee. If I were king we'd be trying them over a drumhead and having them shot."

I haven't progressed far enough yet that Japanese grammar is beginning to infect my English.  I'm still at the "dore wa.... otere.... desu ka" stage.

As a programmer I find that some Japanese grammar has parallels to various computer programming languages.   I was hoping they'd have some spoken grouping mechanism [1], be if so my classes haven't covered it yet.

[1] For example: if I say "bob and fred and mary" am I refering to (bob, fred, mary) or (bob, fred) & (mary), or (bob) & (fred, mary)?  With spoken language we get some subtle verbal inflections to give hints, but in written language its tougher.  

First of all, terrorists lie.  The testimony of

detainie 63 wouldn't get Michael Jackson convicted.  However, even if his tesimony is true your equating him with the average terrorist picked up in Afghanistan is faulty.  According to the source you cited...

But the young Saudi prisoner who wouldn't talk was not just any detainee. He was Mohammed al-Qahtani, a follower of Osama bin Laden's and the man believed by many to be the so-called 20th hijacker.

So he was not presumed innocent, we knew who his boss was, and we may have used measures to make him talk.

Give me a break with all this post-enlightenment exalted view of humanity stuff.  We all use pain and suffering to get what we want.

1. Some rapper in his car next to me wants me to think he is cool, so he tortures me by turning up his cop killer rap so loud that my 2 year old cries in his car seat.  Psychological manipulation-torture?
   
   
2. After a fight in jail, everyone is put on lockdown.  If they are in dormitories, they have to hold their bodily functions or go in their pants. The deputies take their time to teach the inmates a lesson-fighting in jail is bad. Physical hardship used to change behavior-Torture?
   
   
3. My child lies to his mommy.  I tell him to tell the truth.  He doesn't.  I spank his buns, and he confesses. Physical pain used to change behavior-Torture?

Let's say we all agree that causing suffering is bad.  But what about the suffering that the terrorists are causing, physical, emotional, psychological?  

We killed Hitler to save many lives.  We kill a group of terrorists to save many lives.  This is all considered good by most Americans.

So, if it's okay to kill the one to save the many, why isn't it okay to let the one go without food, or clothes, or to make him listen to the Michael Jackson Trial 24/7 for a month?

These superficial discomforts all leave the detainee with his life, and his sanity.

It is a sad thing when people go directly for the jugular, attempting to not just disprove but to destroy their opponent.  The Dems did that to Goldwater with the "Daisy" political ad, and now?  Now the GOP does this as a matter of course, and not only to Dems.  They did it to Sec. Snow, Richard Clark and Gen. Shinseki. They did is to Al Gore and John Kerry. I think it's bad for the nation, I really do, and I think it is backfiring.

In case anyone missed the NYT poll, Bush is a has-been and his policies are rejected by majorities of Americans.  From Social Security to the environment to the occupation of Iraq, America is turning its back on the GOP and looking to the Democrats.  That is as it should be, and as I expected it would be.  

America clearly remembers the GOP's assault on the truth during the run-up to the war, during the Mrs. Schiavo debacle and during Bush's sad little road show for Social Security.  

My suggestion to you all is to cut the best deal you can -- each and every individual reading these words -- and hope you escape the coming political rehabilitation camps that Dems will doubtlessly set up to restore one's wellness, one's ability to think clearly.  God will have to sort out the rest.

"Figures don't lie, by liars sure can figure."

The Republican Party is here to stay.

Get over it.

Your polls are probably about as accurate as Kerry's exit polls that glorious day in 2004.

I am not too worried about a poll taken in New York City.

My community is Repub to Dem 70 percent to 30.

Everboby I poll is still behind GW in regards to Iraq.

Social Security?  Mixed.

Border security?  Mixed.

Overall good job and Iraq?  Thumbs up.

Anyone who knows how to poll can get the answers that they want.

I agree, we should first ask "Who are these prisoners, and what have they done?"; they didn't even do that much for Sean Baker--and he was no enemy combatant, either.

1. There is no debate in the rest of the world. It is simply accepted as fact that the U.S. is torturing people.

2.Outside of the U.S. this statement is not getting any real attention.  If it made the paper in Canada,I missed it, though it was probably buried somewhere in international news.

3. Censuring a senator for speaking out against what the rest of the world sees as torture will get a lot of international media attention and the likely spin will be that Durbin is being censured for speaking out against torture.

Let's stipulate, for the sake of the argument, that Mr. Baker's version of events is 100% true.

Turning those events into a broad indictment of practices at Gitmo is so appalling stupid that it defies comprehension.

How about just starting an investigation then. Indicting all of Gitmo without any evidence is just as absurd as beating a supposed detainee to within an inch of his life with no good cause--both are extreme, unnecessary, and violations of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. However, the latter is evidence of the former, which would be reason enough to investigate.

There have been investigations. We released around 200 of these guys a while back; maybe you remember hearing about it. Our standards for release were so loose that some of them were later recaptured fighting for the enemy. Also, there've already been official investigations of this ballyhooed "mistreatment" of detainees, for which corrective measures have been taken and people have, in fact, been disciplined.

So what, I ask, is the effing problem?

The answer, clearly, is that there isn't one. This is another example of the Attack Of The Lefty Passive Voice: "questions have been raised", "controversy surrounds", and "allegations swirl", all so you can drip mud onto a Republican administration you despise.

Oddly enough, I recently made a related point.

What if all the detainees are terrorists: if so, what we are we doing by releasing hundreds of terrorists without doing anything about them, without charging them with anything?

What if not all of the detainees are terrorists: what are we doing holding people captive for years without respecting their rights, with no recourse?

Anyhow, you're right--IIRC, we released 200 people, and subsequently recaptured ten (5%) of them. That shows that at least ten of these two hundred people captured and detained either (a) were terrorists who we mistakenly released, (b) might have been innocent before, but changed their minds after their detention, (c) were mistakenly captured twice... there are a lot of possibilities there. As for the other 190 (95%) of them, maybe we shouldn't have detained them in the first place.

And your answer to that is that there isn't a problem here? Okay, no problem. Now how about I detain you and 189 others around you due to your proximity to another ten people who may actually be guilty of something. I'll hold you all for years without trial because you're all suspected terrorists. You'll understand--after all, you could be a terrorist. If you weren't what were you doing near those other terrorists? Eh those people there are probably all terrorists anyhow, so why bother to check...

Oh well, I see some serious problems here, but I guess that's just me. Enjoy your stay!

that some people have this fetish with applying US civil criminal concepts to combatants, legal and illegal?

Lets take the case of Iraqi Army soldiers captured during the advance to Baghdad. They were placed in POW camps and accorded the privileges of POWs because they met the definition of regular forces entitled to such protection. They wore uniforms, answered to a chain of command, carried their weapons openly and (for the most part) obeyed the rules of war.

As a result they were evacuated from combat areas as quickly as possible, they were housed and fed in a manner comparable to the forces holding them, they were not required to do work, they were provided with recreational, religious, etc., materials, visits from the ICRC, and all of the other provisions of the Convention.

At no time were they ever considered criminals to be charged and tried (maybe with a few exceptions but I don't have that level of detail.) They were simply POWs that were to be detained until hostilities ended so that they could not find their way back to the battlefield. What they did had nothing to do with breaking any US or anyone else's laws. When hostilities ended they were released and sent on their way.

There are several classes of detainees at Gitmo. Some of them are illegal combatants taken in action against our troops. They may not have done anything to violate any US criminal law with which to charge them. But like the Iraqi POWs they are to be detained until they can no longer pose a threat to our troops.

There are another class of detainees, individual terrorists that came into our custody one way or the other. Many of them may not have broken any US laws so there is nothing with which to charge them. But they are extremely dangerous nonetheless and given a chance will likely return to their previous "occupation." Only when they do they, the next time we meet them may be in the streets of Chicago sprinkling anthrax into the ventilation system of the Sears Tower. Or worse after they have done so. At that point we have something we charge them with, but it's too late.

American, and Western law in general, is not designed to prevent crime, it's designed to punish it after it happens. The terrorists aren't interested in knocking over your local Seven-11, they want to kill as many members of your family as they can and they have no objection to dying in the process. Our criminal laws are woefully inadequate to deal with terrorism of the scale learned by Al Queda.

Tell me, with what crime would you charge Abu in Whatzis after he sets off a nuclear weapon in downtown Denver? What punishment would you exact for this? And then ask yourself what you tell the survivors and the families of the dead.

That's why we are using our military to seek them out and destroy them. Because there is no man made law that applies, here or anywhere.

As you continue to raise the criminal justice metaphor, I am led to believe that if you had your druthers you would treat these people as if they're criminal defendants, notwithstanding that (a) the facts of their detention do not entitle them to that status, and (b) giving them that status anyway would be a moral catastrophe, inverting the incentive structure framed by the rules of warfare and thereby putting our own soldiers at greater risk.

Fine. I get it. I also find it morally cretinous and reject it categorically. I simply do not give a single crap if foreign terrorists, suspected or actual, captured abroad are denied normal due process and given a little bit of the rough stuff. I would be infuriated if it were otherwise.

You may dismiss me as an apologist for torture as you see fit. Please drive through.

First, thank you for acknowledging that not all detainees at Gitmo must be terrorists; I appreciate that.

Although we do have certain moral and legal responsibilities to do the right thing as Americans, this also falls under international law. The legal question as I see it is that if "illegal combatants" aren't POWs, and haven't broken US laws, then what justification do we have to hold them without trial, or treat them inhumanely. To do so would necessitate disregarding the Geneva Conventions, as well as fundamental legal precedents stretching back for hundreds of years. Even inhumane treatment would  violate an executive order made by George W. Bush. Also, how can we be sure that an alleged illegal combatant might not actually be a protected person, without at least some sort of evidentiary process?

As for Abu in Whatzis, obviously he would be considered a terrorist. If he wasn't dead already, I would charge him for crimes of terrorism, mass-murder, treason (if he's a US citizen), etc.--I'd throw the book at him. As for the punishment, that is not for me to decide, but it wouldn't surprise me if he somehow got the death penalty or life imprisonment, or got extradited/deported to some hellhole. Frankly, I don't think anyone would have any sympathy for him whatsoever. I would tell the survivors the obvious--that this is a heinous act that will not be ignored, that we will do everything in our power to investigate this, and to prevent it from ever happening again. This would be much like 9/11, but without stonewalling the 9/11 commission, without invading Iraq, without any extended, unlawful, and illegal detentions, and with a ton of serious (overt and covert) intelligence gathering, reassessment, and reform.

Compare this to the case of Jose Padilla. The differences are, Jose Padilla never set off anything, and it seems that he didn't even have anything to set off, and he hasn't charged with anything. But he's still in the brig, for three years and counting now. This despite his rights as a US citizen, on US soil. Mere suspicion should never be enough to detain even the least of us, indefinitely. So far, the federal court system agrees, at least in his case. Why doesn't the administration.

I believe I've now covered the rest elsewhere, but if you would deny a potentially innocent man due process and treat them inhumanely, then yes, we have little to discuss. Cheers.

we will do everything in our power to investigate this, and to prevent it from ever happening again.

Then you would be lying. Because clearly you are not willing to do everything in your power to prevent it from happening again. For example, you are unwilling to, upon capturing Abu bin Whatzis abroad, detain him indefinitely without due process protections afforded American criminal defendants.

Consider this discussion over. I am no liar, and you are no gentleman. And that is as polite as I will ever be to you again.

I do not subscribe to your definition of "inhumane", either, for the record. Just so we're clear on that as well.

And no, you did not adquately deal with everything else. You merely handwaved and begged the question.

I am no doubt offended to the very core at the accusation of ungentlemanliness from someone who has all but accused me of being an apologist for torture and/or abrogation of domestic due process rights. Similarly, I am filled with a cold dread at the idea that you will decline to show me such "politeness" in the future.

As to whether or not you're a liar... which is it? Is "doing everything within your power" a platitude, or do you actually mean it?

I am not now, nor have I ever attempted to ignore or justify idiocy from the right. We have our share of idiots and, unlike most Democrats, you will find that I and others here are quite happy to take them to task when the opportunity presents itself.

In that case, I'd love to see you help acquaint them with the posting rules of RedState.org, if you are in a position to do so, and if they are still to be respected and enforced.

I confess to not knowing the breakdown of illegal combatants vs terrorists vs whatever. All I know is what I see in the press and some of them appear to me to be vanilla terrorist from the description. But they may have been taken as illegal combatants in addition to being a vanilla terrorist --- I do not know, nor do I particularly care.

"...then what justification do we have to hold them without trial, or treat them inhumanely...

They are illegal combatants. From my understanding of the situation we can hold them until h*ll freezes over --- fine with me. As to the other part "...treat them inhumanely...", as Ronald Reagan would say 'there you go again.' The only "proof" you have of inhumane treatment is the FBI email, and the natterings of the hate-America-first crowd like ACLU, AI etc.

If, as you note, "...inhumane treatment would  violate an executive order made by George W. Bush..." then why do you prefer to assume that US forces are wilfully disobeying an order of their Commander-in-Chief? Do you think that the President signed the order and then told the troops 'I expect you to obey this order {wink, wink, nudge, nudge}'? What other explanation can you come up with the explain this dichotomy.

You are seriously prepared to wait while Abu bin Whatzis blows up Denver and then feed the survivors one of the most empty, meaningless constructs in the history of the English language: "...we will do everything in our power to investigate this, and to prevent it from ever happening again..."? All because you think that the Constitution somehow requires us to be prim and proper in our treatment of these creatures?

I also notice that you managed to work in the standard ideological BS about 'stonewalling the 9/11 commission, invading Iraq, unlawful detentions.' Nice try, did you think I wouldn't notice?

--------------