If human rights were your main concern, I would think you'd be mostly talking about the truly BAD people that we're fighting, and supporting our efforts to stop them from abusing not just prisoners but entire populations.

Nope. 'Cause those "truly BAD people" aren't using my tax dollars and purporting to act on my behalf.

Besides, if we only talk about what the people we are fighting are doing wrong, how does that make us any better than all the Muslims who focus their outrage on U.S. "imperialism" while ignoring what al Qaeda does?

Now see JR, this is just the kind of cheap anti-Americanism I'm talking about. It's a couple of steps past mere moral blindness to compare US action to Al Qaeda. See, Al Qaeda pretty much believes in killing as many men, women and children of whatever faction to cause as much death and suffering as possible.

Team America, on the other hand, is trying to STOP them from killing US- and other Muslims, as well. We're trying to build, they're trying to destroy. See, there's kind of a difference there.

Nor did I say that we should ignore prisoner abuse, only that we shouldn't be puffing it up beyond what it is.

There is absolutely nothing anti-American in what I wrote. You need to get your imagination in check, 'cause you're just making stuff up. If anything, holding American troops to a higher ethical standard is a sign of pro-American chauvinism.

And nothing in what I've seen gives any indication that the prisoner abuses have stopped any acts against Americans, or even that the prisoners abused were involved in any threatening activities. It all just looks like ugly, clumsy mismanagement on the part of the those who are claiming to be leading a "war against terror". And that kind of stupidity and incompetence on the part of our national security team is indicative of a greater threat to Americans than a hundred planeloads of terrorists - not only because of the genuine threats that are probably being overlooked while we beat on a few hapless Iraqis, but because the contempt this administration shows toward human rights in general implies a contempt for the human rights of its own citizens.

The biggest security threat to you is often the government you live under, and that's particularly true if you happen to live in the world's most powerful nation. What are you going to do when some overzealous idiot at the FBI mistakenly matches your prints to some bomb in Europe and decides he needs to "persuade" you to talk because he just knows you know something about a plot against millions of American lives? You're certainly not going get any help from your like-minded fellow citizens who are going to cut the FBI a bunch of slack because, after all, the government is just doing all it can to protect us.

From what I've seen in the news and on the web, most of this so called abuse is nothing more than a little hazing. I'm sure there may be a few cases of something more than that, but putting a pair of underwear on a guys head and laughing at him and taking pictures should not be labeled as abuse. Granted the white trash bimbo was a little ugly, but that still doesn't classify it as abuse.

When we start calling sticking lit cigarettes in people's ears "a little hazing", then the terrorists have already won.

There are no conservative apologists for torture or liberal apologists for torture or even libertarian apologists for torture, only morally deficient apologists for tortue.

I don't know how many of these allegations are actually true. I find it real easy to believe that a lot of this stuff is made up, or puffed up many times worse than the actual abuses.

By all rights, it is appropriate to presume innocence for our military personnel. They appear to be 99% very well disciplined, so in truth I suspect most of these accusations are bogus. Then add the regular presumption of innocence, and on top of that add that we've put our people into very dangerous and stressful situations on our behalf.

Therefore, I'm going to discount pretty much anything that is not specifically documented with EVIDENCE. I'm sure John Kerry believes every bit of these charges, but I don't.

Again, if there is specific evidence of major abuse - actual torture, not just somebody getting embarassing pictures or slapped around a little - then prosecute the soldiers for their misdeeds with witnesses and evidence.

I reject charges of "moral deficiency" or being an apologist for abuse.

I will accept charges of supporting our troops and giving them the benefit of the doubt. I will also plead guilty to charges of giving our troops room to do the job we've sent them to do without looking for every possible excuse to accuse them of wrongdoing.

I'm sure John Kerry believes every bit of these charges...

Yeah, THAT you'll believe without evidence.

Well, of course my meaning with John Kerry here was somewhat rhetorical rather than literal. I haven't heard him actually say much about these recent charges.

The obvious point, however, was that believing every half-assed unsubstantiated charge against our troops would be exactly consistent with his infamous anti-war activities in the 70s.

Reject whatever you want, but denying it doesn't make it not so. I was more specifically addressing Andy and his "hazing" crack, but if you want to be tarred with the same brush, you can call the dog attacks and hooded threats of electrocution and such "embarassing". Commanders knew or should have know what has going on. We are responsible for what happens to prisoners in US custody.

We could end the war by evacuating every US and Coalition man and woman and nuke the country flat, black, and glassy, pacifying the country without costing US lives. Almost everyone would agree that that's too far to go. There's a line somewhere, though. We don't bomb hospitals and orphanages. We don't intentionally target noncombatants. We don't shoot prisoners. We provide prisoners with food, water, medical care, housing. Most people are probably still with us. For me, we haven't crossed the line yet. We don't torture prisoners. It's just wrong, and if we're not better than that, then what values do you support? There's no moral high ground to stand on when you've got bodies under your feet.

This isn't about parties or supporting the war or not, it's about what we allow to be done in the name of our country, and "a little torture" isn't OK.

Aside from that, there's plenty of evidence that it doesn't even work. Why demean ourselves for a tool that doesn't get you anything?

I'm not saying that any torture is ok, though I might consider exceptions. I could not care much less about possible violations of Saddam Hussein's rights.

Again, though, I will argue against calling everything unpleasant "torture." Electrodes on your nuts is probably torture. Getting your picture took with a dog leash just isn't. Of course, it gets real tricky for things in between.

Also, note that a lot of these prisoners are not in fact covered by the Geneva convention, as irregulars not wearing uniforms or regular chains of command.

Finally, I question the oft repeated assertion that torture doesn't even get results. Some it won't get any information, some it most goddam certainly will.

Beyond anything else, if we don't have at least some vague possible threat of rough tactics, I don't see how we expect to get jack squat out of anyone. If the Americans are too pussified to twist an arm, then why tell them anything? If we can't even make some Ba'athist thug uncomfortable, then what's the motivation?

Now, it would be nice to live in a liberal Candyland where there are no bad guys, and life doesn't get rough. It'd be nice if we could all lead those noodle salad lives where people with responsibility for the nation don't have to make tough decisions.

In the real world though, I'm going to give our guys maximum slack. That's not a blank check.

Finally, I'm not going to go along with puffing up a few isolated cases of abuse into an inappropriate and also counterproductive weeping and gnashing of teeth.

It wasn't a "crack" and if you READ what I said, I said MOST of what I've read. And a threat is nothing more than that, a threat! If I threaten to kick your ass, it doesn't mean you got your ass kicked, it means you got threatened to get your ass kicked. There's a big difference!

Lastly, you're not there. You don't know how much of what the media says is true. You don't know how much of what the media says is because some whinie little bitch Al Qaeda told them that something happened to them. I might buy some of it if I saw an ounce of concern for OUR military from the press. But all they seem to want to do is make US look bad!

Some of the MSM is getting sued over the pics they've published and misrepresented.

Check this out Navy SEALS file law suit

The pics published were of supposed abuse. The SEALS say different.

And a threat is nothing more than that, a threat! If I threaten to kick your ass, it doesn't mean you got your ass kicked, it means you got threatened to get your ass kicked.

Legally, a believable threat is assault. So if you threaten to kick someone's ass, and you're not in a wheelchair, then you've broken the law.

So what you're saying is that although we're claiming to liberate Iraq and bring them the same benefits of liberal democracy we enjoy, we don't actually have to extend to them the same legal protections we demand for ourselves. Yep, that sure makes it easier to "fight terror".

Wow, being the "good guys" is so much easier when you don't worry about silly little things like logical consistency and common decency.

JR - you're probably right. We should extend the decency to these people that they wouldn't extend to us.

My point is, that I believe the instances of abuse are not as wide spread or as bad as the press would have us believe.

My point is, that I believe the instances of abuse are not as wide spread or as bad as the press would have us believe.

Depending on the members of the press, you're undoubtedly right; the press has its share of crackpots with megaphones, just like any other group of people. But I also tend to believe that the instances of abuse are more widespread than the Bush administration would have us believe. It's not like those clowns haven't lied to us before.

Isn't lieing a prerequisite to being a politician?

So, a compromise...it's not as bad as the press would have us believe, but not as good as the Bush administration would lead us to believe?

Andy, I'm up for that compromise, as long as it includes "and it's wrong to the extent that it happens."

Hey, Andy. I'm a politician. What are you saying, tough guy? ;-)

Uh, weren't those soldiers who were "torturing" those Iraqi insurgents PUNISHED for doing so?

So, like, when the GOOD GUYS do BAD SHIT, there are severe penalties.

But the media loves to make the US out to be the bad guy, regardless of the facts or the context.

Terrorists slaughter dozens of innocents, and Bush is blamed.

A few soldiers "torture" some Iraqi insurgents, and Bush is blamed.

Afghan elections go smoothly, and I can hear fuckin' crickets.

Jesus...

RJ: "...Afghan elections go smoothly, and I can hear fuckin' crickets..."

Speakin' of crickets:

I-R-A-Q.

~Next!


Best line from a safe distance: "...If the Americans are too pussified to twist an arm, then why tell them anything?"


Question: Would the term "Pussies" include right-wing war mongers who sit on the sidelines posting tough guy blogs that resemble really shitty lines from a grade B 1950s film noir...?


PS: Al, yer attempts to be 'provocative' are starting to look rather flacid. This "torture" horse was ridden and beat to death months ago.

Tip for new 'provocative' subject:

How God punishes heathen/Muslim nations with righteous Judeo-Christian tsunamis. U.S.A! U.S.A!

Pencils ready...

Mike Kole - I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings or anything! Here's one of the defintions for politician from thesaurus.com

politician - a schemer who tries to gain advantage in an organization in sly or underhanded ways

Just remember, I didn't say it, I just cut and pasted!