Wouldn't Max Boot Memorial... imply that he was dead? Ahhhh to dream.

Homophobia's not so bad.

Only a very few fags get beat up, and dragged behind pickup trucks, and that's just when they get out of line and wink at straight red-blooded guys, or act "gay".

And besides, they're all child rapists who want to convert your children to their radical vile abominable ways, so they're a danger to all of us, and the very fabric of society.

So, individual gay guys are alright, as long as they don't live together, act gay or hold hands in public in front of small children, thus forcing me to explain about their disgusting habits to my children.

And the Constitution never said anything about giving rights to gay guys anyway. So technically, they're not human.

If they weren't carriers for all kinds of deadly and disgusting diseases because of their filthy habits, I'd say that it would be best if we just ground them into sausage meat.

But out of compassion, maybe concentration camps would be best? At least for the ones who act on their gayness, and don't turn to the Lord for strength to be prayed-back to straightness.

>imply that he was dead

Well, depends... the memorial could be based just on being brain-dead. The brain, of course, not being needed for what he's doing.

You know, I started to read Boot this morning over my toast, and then just gave up.

He's just too, too stupid to waste time on.

I have never understood why the LAT carries Max Boot. His "I'm the reasonable neocon" shtick is nothing better than warmed over RNC talking points every single time. Its weakest point? Absolutely frigging predictable. You can write it for him.

Ever notice that Max Boot and John Fund both have the same shit-eating grin?

our own soldiers volunteer to be trained, not tortured. Using extreme techniques that are the same as torture is not the same as torturing...for example, if you were walking down the street and someone rushed into you and tackled you that is assault. If you were playing for the Steelers...same action, different context.

Slavery isn't so bad, certainly helps the economy with the low to no wages and has certainly deminished the illegal alien problems because now our slaves do the pickin.

You can argue anything in this culture.

Neocons are reading OBF and the fake fake Al's posts and nodding contentedly, happy that libs are starting to come around.

King-to-be, same as old.

Today's US -- not quite as bad as Saddam! I'm so proud!

I'd love to see someone like Max Boot or Kindasleazy Rice asked if torture is not so bad, how about we do a few things to you that were permissible under the Gitmo guidelines--for example, it looks to me like you could pull out someone's finger- and toe-nails, break all their fingers and toes, among other things, without violating the guidelines. What about it? Can we try it out on you and see if you think it's torture?

It's kind of amusing when the GOP talking points start to contradict each other. They're trying to argue (pace Krauthammer) that torture is really useful and moral, while also arguing that we're not actually torturing anybody. You'd think somebody on the right would have the stones to say, "Yeah, torture's OK, and that's why we're torturing anybody we can get our hands on."

It's not torture if the terrorist confesses. Gawd you bleeding-heart libs would let them nuke Keenosha.

Ever notice that Max Boot and John Fund both have the same shit-eating grin?

That weird, stupid grin seems endemic among conservatives. It's like someone told them, when on TV to smile, but since they've never smiled a day in their life, they get it wrong...

While you go about your daily business of griping and whining today,

Don't forget about the big election tomorrow! It could be the best yet. Reportedly, there is active campaigning in every province and among all ethnic groups. It should be exciting.

"That weird, stupid grin seems endemic among conservatives. It's like someone told them, when on TV to smile, but since they've never smiled a day in their life, they get it wrong..."

I believe they get that grin whenever the left run with loser issues like this one.

Max Boot is absolutely correct - His outcall Dominatrix has a worse record with her clients.

On the other hand, it was brilliant of Krauthammer to move the goalposts on torture and put the discussion on some fanciful scenario that has never come close to happening, rather than asking if it's moral to torture some shlub they pulled off the streets of Baghdad.

It's as if the White House started talking about cancelling the 2008 elections and letting Bush remain in power, and the right wing defended it by saying, "Well, what if the Soviet army was in the middle of invading, wading ashore in the Potomac Basin while we're supposed to be having an election? I bet you wouldn't be so cheerful about your precious 'transfer of power' then, you liberal you!"

That's no gulag!

Except for the parts of the former Soviet gulag, also under new management.

Yes.
.

It's as if the White House started talking about cancelling the 2008 elections and letting Bush remain in power,

I still think the odds are only 3-1 against this actually happening.

or, Max Really Makes Me Want To Boot Award...

Gawd you bleeding-heart libs would let them nuke Kenosha.

Apparently Sheboygan has lost its luster as a punchline.

Can we try it out on you and see if you think it's torture?

That's brilliant.

"I think Sullivan needs a new award for writers who are able to pack the highest number of vacuous and robotic talking points into a single 700-word op-ed. We can call it the Max Boot Memorial Cretinism Award."

Sullivan thinks the Israeli flag is torture. He's obviously not serious on this issue.

Why does he even get to write anymore? Boot offers nothing new to anything he writes about. All he does it react, and write over-the-top, non-sensical columns as a result. The guys a shill, and he isn't worth the time it takes to read him.

I thought Max Boot was a character in an Evelyn Waugh novel.

And the LA Times gets rid of Scheer but keeps Boot. Sheesh.

Just another instance in the long established liberal pattern of "how can we make America lose"?

Why is it those advocating torture have _never_ come close to the process whilst those with intimate knowledge (trainee or actual) do not? We know it only works in movies.

Can we require that those advocating torture at least experience a "torture lite"? I'd be happy to put together a program. Give the trainee a piece of "secret" info and my cadre would try to extract said info. I could tailor it to the individual, got some great ideas for Frist, his family and cats.....Boot likely prizes his fingers, etc.

Stop it! Stop it I say! I will not have my fwiend Maximus Bootyus wiciculed by the common commentator. Anyone else feel like a little giggle when I mention my fwiend Maximus... Bootyus? He has a wife, you know. You know what she's called?

Why would it surprise anyone that Liberals would treat terrorists better than our own soldiers? It's just their way of supporting the troops.

One of McCain's most powerful arguments, based on his own experience, is that torture doesn't work, because the person being tortured will simply say whatever is necessary to make the torture stop. McCain is supported in this by every expert I have heard on this. (Not including Alan Dershowitz and Jack Bauer).

And yet, all the parsing of words that Condi and Cheney go through can only be because they actually believe torture DOES work.

So why doesn't some reporter simply ask them, or Bush if the chance arises, "Do you believe torture works to produce reliable information?"

If they say "no", there really is nothing further to argue.

If they say "yes", the follow-up should be:
"Are you aware of any instance in which the U.S. has obtained reliable information through torture?"

It's not torture if the terrorist confesses. Gawd you bleeding-heart libs would let them nuke Keenosha. - tbroz

Actually tbroz, within an hour I could have your signed and notarized confessions to espionage, drug trafficing, both Kennedy assassinations, planning to nuke Chicago on Valentine's Day and leaving the toilet seat up in the middle of the night.

The whole point of torture is to get the subject to confess to whatever you want them to confess to, and it works like a charm. Besides the moral issues, the problem with torture is that it doesn't work in any way that approaches actionable intel.

It is quite easy to come up with a long list of reasons why our current policy of systematic torture is hurting America. It is not merely that torture is morally wrong, although that alone would suffice.

1. It may be automatically assumed by our trolls that we're the good guys, but in order for anyone else to believe that you actually have to be good. State-sponsored torture is not associated with being good. In fact, it is univerally associated with despicable states.

2. We have documented evidence that innocent people have been tortured, in some cases to death. Torture is also contagious; under duress innocent people confess to imaginary crimes and implicate other innocents - who, in turn, get tortured. In what moral universe is this A-OK? In what moral calculus do the torturers have no consequences?

3. Other nations don't want to cooperate with a torture state. We lose valuable intelligence that we could otherwise get.

4. We can't convict actual terrorists because we can't afford the PR hit that exposure of our torture would provide.

5. We give a recruiting tool to our enemies. This is not a minor point in an effort that requires us to reduce the supply of people who want to harm us.

6. Information provided under torture is frequently unreliable, leading to wild goose chases that divert our resources.

The harm that Cheney has done to our nation with his torture fetish is incalculable. Opposing the gruesome machinery being slavishly defended by the torture enthusiasts here is not trying to make America lose; it is opposition to a policy that is not only profoundly immoral but also counterproductive.

Why are there so many fake Tbrosz handles?

Wombat: I thought Max Boot was a character in an Evelyn Waugh novel.

BWA!

And Scheer's column today on outsourcing torture is a hoot. Too bad truth is now a partisan perspective that needs to be "balanced" with spinners like Boot. What's that great headline? "Bush says Earth is flat, others disagree".

Marc is correct in listing the practical problems with using torture. Torture is wrong and we shouldn't do it.

Now then, as Glen Reynolds notes in his piece this morning, one has to define torture. We know it when we see it, usually, but we have to make it clear. Pulling out fingernails? Yup, that's torture. Putting pointy things into peoples' bodies? Yup, that's also torture.

What about wrapping someone in the Israeli flag?

Mark Bowden wrote a great piece in The Atlantic a while back about torture, and he noted that some things that interrogators do aren't reasonably considered torture, even if they are degrading, some uncomfortable or humiliating to the prisoner. Do we allow those things? If so, where's the line? If not, we accept a level of treatment of prisoners (e.g., known or potential terrorists) that is squeaky-clean. Is squeaky-clean the desired standard? Are we willing to accept the consequences of that?

These are tough questions, and I'm not sure anyone has the right answer. But it would help if we would separate real torture from what is less than torture.

Considering who the LAChicago Times cut, Scheer, and kept, Max Boot, glad that I refuse to register with that rag. In the old days, Wrigley merely kept his winter home in Pasadena. Now, the Chicagoans own the LA paper year round.

Glad to see CNN keeps their priorities straight - a few minutes ago Rep John Murtha was being shown knocking down the Shrub comments about Iraq and terrorism - of course, Kyra Phillips, immediately cut to LA to show the aftermath of a roach coach and Metro bus collision. Yes, there were a couple of serious injuries, but the cut away from Murtha was highly suspect - Guess Kyra will take falafels and loofahs to FAUX and have O'Arrogantone get her a gig.
They never said whether any roaches were affected by the collision.

Defining torture is like defining pornography; it is an intrinsically slippery thing. I'd certainly classify extended sleep deprivation or days in stress positions as torture.

Other activities - e.g. wrapping someone in an Israeli flag, desecrating the Koran, and so on - aren't torture per se, but are stupid things to do. It's hardly wise to convince prisoners that you hate their religion and hold it in contempt; you're better off trying to make them think that their leaders are perverting their religion.
Humiliating people is as likely to provoke rage as it is to induce hopelessness and co-operation.

But - what is the point of this classification exercise? Is it to attempt to treat people as badly as possible? I'd define the rules about torture assuming that they apply to Americans captured by others. With a standard like that, we'd actually be making working definitions that had a chance of actually balancing competing interests.

But it would help if we would separate real torture from what is less than torture.

TDS had a great bit on this. Changing the toruture definition from 'cruel, degrading or inhumane' to 'cruel, degrading AND inhumane'. Which would allow anything that was cruel and degrading, so long as it wasn't inhumane. ie, making them wear womens panties.

Sorry, that should be 'eg'. And the example only applies if the panties are silk.

Off-topic, but Brad DeLong has an amazing post up now relating a conversation he had this morning with the Washington Post's John Harris:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/12/astroturf_vs_gr.html

FF:Why would it surprise anyone that Liberals would treat terrorists better than our own soldiers? It's just their way of supporting the troops.

Pretty shameless trolling.

The award could be shaped like a boot. For runner up I recommend Austin Bay. So many wankers...so few wanking awards.

Kevin Drum subscribes to the LA Times and reads Max Boot every Wednesday so we don't have to. Life is so much better this way.

If anybody ever needs any evidence to counter the claims of "liberal media", all they have to do is grab the California section of any Wednesday edition of the Times, let them read teh weekly Boot dribble, and then point out to them how all of his lies are left totally unchallenged elsewhere on the page. For a while, I tried to make a career out of letters to the editor to point out all the mistakes in his pieces each week. I grew weary.

Ever notice that Max Boot and John Fund both have the same shit-eating grin?

It comes from being men of action, men whose last names double as verbs.

Pretty shameless trolling. Posted by: ckelly on December 14, 2005 at 1:50 PM

Freedom Fucker, probably another non-American paid troll, hates the troops.

That's why he wants the Bush administration to continue with it's torture policy. So it will continue to fan the flames of anti-American hatred in the rest of the world.

He truly is a despicable slime.

Max Boot is my type of guy.

I dedicated my song to him. Such a sweetie.

Is Maxie related to Puss'N?

Just asking.

Dr. Morpheus:

I figure you're right. I mean, anyone who advocates the continuing humiliation, isolation, and impoverishment of America through the present, failed Iraq policies can't possibly be an American, right?

At least, not much of an American.
.

Kevin,
I guess you missed Jonah Goldberg's "We can torture because we're the good guys" column.
That was his exact argument---I'm not kidding.
You should look it up and blog on it.
It's from the last week or so.

Steve, here's a good functional, working definition of torture: anything that saddam's henchmen did for which he is currently on trial. that they can point to abu ghraib as part of their defense is just sickening....

Supporting torture agrees with the philosophy of Dominionism that fundies love so much. As I understand dominionism, evil deeds that eventually result in something good are AOK.

good point, who. After all, God loves torture, as long as the right people get tortured.
It's just a hell fetish for these guys.

Gee, Boot's screed ran the entire gamut, from "it's not even torture" to "okay maybe it's torture" to "but our torture is for reasons better than Saddam's torture" to "besides, our torture works!"

Like this. So what's wrong with a little stress positioning? It's not like those "crucifixion" stress positions the Romans employed. And besides, we find out crucial information about taxi fares in Kabul!

"...and we only tortured them a little. What about all the time we didn't torture them? I bet if you compare the amount of time we spend torturing a prisoner to the amount of time we don't torture him, there'd be like a HUUUGE difference..."

Didn't Max Boot star in 'Das Boot'? Didn't Max Boot write the now famous song 'These boots are made for walking'? Does Max Boot have to clean his boots after standing in the crap he spews all day long?

Kevin Drum subscribes to the LA Times and reads Max Boot every Wednesday so we don't have to. Life is so much better this way.

It's funny you said that b/c for the last 6 mos. or so, I've pretty much given up reading any newspaper for "news." (i.e. anything other then local sports, weather, impending MTA strike, etc.)
I prefer to read the blogs for my substantive info since the "fair & balance" ideology of the newsrooms today has me ready to pull my hair out of my head.
I'm afraid that as I come to rely on tertiary sources for my news, (primary being the event, secondary, being the white house spin in the newspaper) that by the time the right-wing figures out how to control the blogs, I'll have to dig so deep into the information black hole I won't know if up is down or left is right.

Now then, as Glen Reynolds notes in his piece this morning, one has to define torture.

No, one doesn't. It's already defined in several laws and treaties the US is signatory to, and thus is well defined under American law. The 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, for instance, says that "For the purposes of this Convention, the term torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

I've decided I won't debate torture again. If I had a blog, I'd IP block anyone who defended torture. These people are degenerate. They're Nazis. There's no reason to listen to anything they say about anything again. I'm so ashamed to be American.

"Defining torture is like defining pornography; it is an intrinsically slippery thing. I'd certainly classify extended sleep deprivation or days in stress positions as torture."

Yeah, I'd also define denying someone their freedom as torture as well. In fact having W as prez is the worst form of torture... why isn't Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch investigating 300 million Americans being tortured on a daily basis? This is an outrage, outrage, I tell you!

max is an expert at torture. he does it to us every time his fingers touch a keyboard.

When liberals say they support the troops or love America, who are they really lying to? Judging from the trend of electoral losses, the public isn't buying any more. Maybe it's time to drop the lies and just say what you really mean, or are you guys so delusional that you believe your own lies?

I like this one from Stephan, which has been quoted before by others:

"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." So if waterboarding is lawful, then the pain inflicted isn't torture. Such pain isn't injurious, as the pain is maximum long before there is a threat to life from CO2 accumulation or O2 deprivation.

Is it torture to deprive a prisoner of between-meal snacks and anfternoon naps? Is it torture to subject Moslem men to interrogation by women, or by menstruating women? Somewhere between these inanities and beating to death is a line, but it is not clear where the line is. Certainly the line is not defined by the prisoners' complaints.

"Is it torture to deprive a prisoner of between-meal snacks and anfternoon naps? Is it torture to subject Moslem men to interrogation by women, or by menstruating women? Somewhere between these inanities and beating to death is a line, but it is not clear where the line is. Certainly the line is not defined by the prisoners' complaints."

That's the wrong question to ask liberals. The correct question is: By defining such tactics as torture, does it help or hurt America? Liberals will invariably choose the option "it hurts America". Unpatriotic? Absolutely.

Judging from the trend of electoral losses...

Ah, for the sunny days of a year ago, when the weak links of America could pretend miserable failure was widely popular. Gerrymandering and stacks of ballots in the trash, they could imagine, if only for a moment, that pissing away American hegemony on some half-wit's whim was a good thing!

Now, even flirting with 40% approval is cause for phony celebration. Oops, that one's over, too. Where is such a sad minority to go? Where can they hide from the spectacle of the massive disaster they helped inflict on America?

Maybe the can find some new failure to flog? What am I saying?!? It's not like they ever do anything else.
.

Boot's next argument will be something along these lines, in relation to Padilla:

"What, an American citizen is complaining about not having rights, well, look at our troops, they can't just do whatever they want, they don't have a lot of rights citizens have, and should we be treating citizens better than troops? Citizens should be lucky to have the freedoms they have, and that they are not on the level of the troops."

More Nazi reasoning. All of that is out of bounds. I'm sorry that you guys can't stop wanting to torture. You were raised wrongly or something. But yes, since America has a large minority that likes the idea of torture and an administration that loves torture, I have started hating America. So has most of the world.

By defining such tactics as torture, does it help or hurt America?

Like you give a fuck about your country!

Sorry, weak link: the definitions are already clear. Pray, continue to muddy the waters with your creationist's hand-waving. I think you'll find it ... soothing.
.

"I thought Max Boot was a character in an Evelyn Waugh novel."
If you'd asked me I would have thought Max Boot was a gay pornstar.

"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." So if waterboarding is lawful, then the pain inflicted isn't torture. Such pain isn't injurious, as the pain is maximum long before there is a threat to life from CO2 accumulation or O2 deprivation.

No, that's a misreading of the law. "Lawful sanction" means punishment properly imposed after a lawful trial. For example, confinement, though it might be severe mental stress, wouldn't be torture if it was imposed as a punishment by a judge after a suspect was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. None of the people being tortured by Americans have been held subject to lawful sanction.

Gary:

Yes, hard to believe this is still being "debated." There is so much scrambling to define it - even within the context of the definition Stefan quotes up thread. I do not believe that it is a reliable means of extracting information, but I am against it regardless. And frankly, when I read some of the tactics bandied about, I am left seriously questioning how someone could believe it would be effective. Is wrapping a suspected terrorist in an Israeli flag really the best we can do here?

oh yeah, and that was the first time I have read Max Butt.

Last time too.

What a wad.

The harm that Cheney has done to our nation with his torture fetish is incalculable.
Posted by: Marc on December 14, 2005 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

. . . actually, the Torture Fetish community rejects Cheney. First and foremost, because the BDSM creedo is Safe, Sane, and Consensual. Cheney's methods meet none of those criteria. If I were in charge, I'd take away his whip and his leather mask.

Max is a tool. I try to read all opposing views, but Boot is one that I just never seem to get through. Sometimes I can fold the op-ed page in such a way that I don't even have to look at the column. It's easier to do this with the new Jonah Goldberg column, which so far is so far to the right in physical position that I can just fold him away.

Unfortunately, Goldberg is so to the right ideologically that I can't read a single word.

"Freedom Fighter", you've been presented with substantive arguments against the immoral and counterproductive practice of state-sponsored torture. I won't stoop to your level of argument.

You've been presented with the case that the torture tactics you endorse so enthusiastically harm America. Answer them, or let your inability to do so permit us to conclude that you can't. The only point you appear to have made is that objecting to bad things done in our name "hurts America". It would seem more logical to note that bad things done in our name hurt America, and that failure to attempt to stop them is the unpatriotic thing to do.

(The tactic of minimizing what has been done in our secret torture camps, by the way, won't fly. There are clearly documented cases of innocent people being tortured to death. Try to do better than that.)

Freedom Fries--
You should get together with McAristotle. You'd be two thirds of a happy meal. McGriddles, Fries and....hey...where's my Coke?

To the topic at hand:

Aren't YOU in fact lying when YOU say you "support the troops"? Explain to me exactly how you "support" them? By feeding them nice bedtime stories about how great they are? Do they need that? Those people are professionals.

Everybody lies, my little dove, and the first sign of bullshit is whenever opens their mouth to say how much they "love" their country. It simply doesn't mean anything: "I love my country" are the cheapest words in the English language. I'm sure many liberals do lie about "loving" their country. But they're hardly alone in that.

Anyway, weren't we talking about torture, Mr. Fries?

Also, insofar as Cheney's exile from the BDSM community goes;
He most certainly does NOT deserve a spanking.

Be sure to catch Boot's earnest recommendation a few days in the WSJ as to how to make peace in Iraq: you just kill ALL the Iraqis:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110007645 :

"Modern-day proconsuls in Kabul or Baghdad could do a lot worse than to study their predecessors' experiences in Havana or Manila for tips on how to run a liberal imperium. Of the great American imperialists, Leonard Wood is certainly among the most remarkable, but he too has fallen into undeserved obscurity. Thus we can be grateful for Jack McCallum's dutiful biography, which gives us a reliable, if uninspired, chronicle of Wood's meteoric ascent and a detailed record of his imperial achievements...

"Upon leaving Cuba as a two-star general, Wood was dispatched to the southern provinces of the Philippines, where Islamic Moro extremists were in perpetual revolt against the central government. Here Wood showed another side of his character as he dealt ruthlessly with all opposition. The primary threat came from juramentados, knife-wielding assassins who thought that they could win a place in paradise if they died fighting Christian infidels. To defeat them, Wood shelled numerous cottas (forts) containing not only enemy fighters but also women and children. His scorched-earth
policy sparked controversy but achieved results. Moroland had been temporarily pacified by the time Wood left for Manila to take over as
military commander of the entire Philippines in 1905."

Bruce Moomaw--
Whoah, Boot sure does leave us hanging with that last sentence. "Temporarily" may be the key word there.

Max Boot. Hulk Smash.

And it aptly describes his foreign policy! Why is he considered a serious thinker again?

Will someone finally take Max Boot to the vet's and have him put of our misery?

The guy's just another wannabe wanker, a fatboy with a chip on his shoulder who didn't have the stones to enlist and now feels gosh-darn it he's got a role to play in the Great War on Error (er, Terror) too. And I keep sending him e-mails reminding him that the Army, Reserve, and National Guard will all make exceptions for his age given his educational achievements -- and the fact that he's a total suck-ass to them. I even offered to escort him to the recruiting office and ensure that he got Infantry, but he begged out of the offer, citing some nonsense about having kids.

Sheeeeeit -- lots of grunts have kids. Hell, I have 'em.

He's worse than Kaplan, worse than Hanson, even worse than Krauthammer, who is at least a cripple and has an excuse. Boot doesn't even the balls to play dress-up soldier like W did, but he does report that he was once in a "really, really tense game of paintball." Well, hooah to you.

The tragedy of Max Boot is that his book is actually quite good. But ever since he became W's bitch, the quality of his work has evidently suffered.

Osama: Also, insofar as Cheney's exile from the BDSM community goes; He most certainly does NOT deserve a spanking.

No, he most certainly does not. But perhaps some time in the hanging cage so he can think about what he's done.

Have your read Sullivan's post, "Thanks Mr President"? Boy it didn't take much to turn him around!

Bush's televised speeches have given him improved poll results. The medium truly is the message with this idiot.

Max Boot expresses the essence of rightist cretinism and jingoism. He's just what they are all about, and those who vote for Bullsh and etc.

Someone please tell me Max Boot is not his real name.

Howard writes, Steve, here's a good functional, working definition of torture: anything that saddam's henchmen did for which he is currently on trial. that they can point to abu ghraib as part of their defense is just sickening....

Except that what Pvt. England did (for example) wasn't torture: it was humiliating and degrading, but it wasn't pulling fingernails out or feeding people into shredding machines.

And, please notice, that we convicted Pvt. England and others. A general was forced to relinquish her command, ending her career. Yes, I know y'all want Rummy's blood, but having several courts-martials and disciplinary hearings isn't exactly 'condoning' torture.

The problem with much of the current debate about torture is that it conflates real torture with things that really aren't. Again, I think torture is wrong both for moral and practical reasons. Wrapping someone in an Israeli flag, or forcing them to parade around naked, isn't torture. It =is= degrading, and if you want a standard concerning that as well, fine, it's a topic of proper discussion and debate.

The sort of hyperventilating about torture in an Andy Sullivan-like way generates more heat than light. Torture is wrong; having rules that ensure our troops don't engage in torture (save the ticking nuke scenario) is proper and right. But the definition is one that has to be careful, exact, and subscribed to by most everyone, or you solve nothing.

Except that what Pvt. England did (for example) wasn't torture: it was humiliating and degrading, but it wasn't pulling fingernails out or feeding people into shredding machines.

Yes, it was. It was sexual and psychological humiliation, which qualifies as the infliction of severe mental suffering, which is torture under the relevant legal statutes.

The problem with much of the current debate about torture is that it conflates real torture with things that really aren't.

The only people doing that conflating the are rabid Republicans who are trying to muddy the waters so they can get away with their perverted and obscene torture fetish.

Not all of us right-wingers are this ...out there.

Lets imagine that we had a magic hat, that could tell us whether somebody had actionable intelligence or not. This magic hat would prevent us from ever torturing a person without intelligence.

Even if we had this magic hat, what says that waterboarding and cut-up fingernails will give us this information? Give us one scientific study that shows torture works. I challenge all the advocates of torture to do that.

Contrary to their assertations that torture will give us more intelligence is most psychology today. Once people are put through a man-made hell, they can and will say anything to make it stop. Try and get evidence from someone in that situation. And wait... we don't have a magic hat that lets us divide those with knowledge from those without.

Any yet they still say we get more intelligence through medieval methods.

"Yes, it was. It was sexual and psychological humiliation, which qualifies as the infliction of severe mental suffering, which is torture under the relevant legal statutes."

I'm sorry, but for however reprehensible it might be and for god knows what else went on there, pointing at weiners and laughing is not in the same galaxy as torture, and you undermine the case against real torture by trying to conflate them.

and were the only issue at abu ghraib what england did, then saddam's defense wouldn't be heading down that road. remember, there are loads of photos that we haven't seen, but those who have find chilling beyond discussion. last i heard, the court ordered them released but then put a stay on the order....

Memorial. Yep. Would love to see a memorial for idiots like Boot.

I'm flying to L.A. right now to pitch a new reality show, called That wasn't so bad, you pussy." It'll be a show featuring all the tough guys like Britt Hume, John Gibson, Rush Coulter, Boot and all the rest of them. They'll all be subjected to the procedures that they don't consider to be torture and see who lasts the longest before saying,"I'll crawl on my knees to suck Clinton's cock and kiss Hillary's ass."

We're talking ratings bonanza here. Give the American people what they want, Rush sodomized with a glowstick (just a fraternity prank). Squeal, Rushie! Hume waterboarded cuz it ain't so bad and he's a tough SOB who has to face a teleprompter and Fred Barnes every night.

Moonves, Let's do lunch!

As I keep saying: see Sullivan for an encyclopedic listing of what went on not just at Abu Ghraib, but in US bases around the world, that goes infinitely beyond parading people around naked or tearing up their Korans. And note that the Washington Post a few months back did an article on the reaction of literally all the many members of Congress who saw the unreleased Abu Ghraib photos: regardless of ideology, they came out white-faced and trembing, and not a single one of them called them trivial. Sen. Levin said at the time that we dare not release them publicly because it would forever destroy America's attempts to gain any sympathy from the Moslem world.

So, where can we see those pictures, and why isn't there more going on about them?

Hey, the fact that the word 'torture' is being used to discuss stuff in normal army training is not a vacuous point.

Its a factual point - you have no answer for.

So you are simply going emotional and making an ad hominem attack.

Looooser!

McDildo,

Loseeeeeer as in lose. Not Looooooooser as in loose.

Back to rehab in English as a 2nd Language, macanimus. They have one there in Hong Kong don't they? Isn't it next to the Long Ying club where you hang?

I want to know who in the government requested that someone write up a report on what the best ways to torture Middle-Easterners and Muslims to get them to talk. I want to know why those people didn't immediately go to the WaPo or NYT to tell their story. I want to know why the DOJ isn't prosecuting someone for violation of the Geneva Convention sanctions against torture. I want to know why the Rich in America think it's good to have those sickos running our government.

100!

Loseeeeeer as in lose. Not Looooooooser as in loose.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 14, 2005 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree. Its onomatopeia and I want the emphasis on the oooooooo sound....

There's more to the world that your views on slang.

There's more to the world that your views on slang.

How would you know anything beyond your ChiCom/GOP-approved reading and viewing materials, McMao?

I sent the following to the LA Times:

Dear LA Times,

Max Boot's latest descent into moral relativism begins under the headline, "
Hate torture? Consider boot camp". Having undergone basic training during Vietnam, the considerable time which has passed may have rendered some of the details of my training a bit hazy.
However, I do not recall being waterboarded, attacked by dogs, placed in a naked pile with my fellow soldiers, being forced to simulate homosexual acts, or being beaten to death (obviously). Assuming that this gentleman is one of the rare breed of right wing extremists who actually served in the military, perhaps his training was different.

Cordially,

Les TreBony

McGriddles,
I'm not sure about this job you've got. A paid commenter on a blog roll? You might instead want to consider gathering "treasure" for teenage American video game players. I imagine it pays better.

Kill the Koopahs, Luigi! Save the Princess!

About basic training and torture: that is comparing apples and oranges. Drill Sargeants do not "torture" people. "Torture" has a specific legal meaning, and it has to do with inflicting physical pain in order to coerce a confession or other information from a suspect or witness. Physical pain inflicted on convicted criminals is a separate issue, and it really shouldn't be called "torture" at all. But niether interrogative torture or physical judicial punishment have anything to do with the physically strenuous activities of boot camp, which are designed to train volunteer soldiers to do their job properly. You might as well say that going to the gym is "torture". Or taking acupuncture or deep tissue massage. You see, the presence of pain is not the issue at all. Many people do many painful things voluntarily. So what?

Words sometimes have precise meanings, McGriddles.

Les TreBony -

Nice one.

Hey, the fact that the word 'torture' is being used to discuss stuff in normal army training is not a vacuous point.

Its not a fact; the context and purpose of the use is part of the definition of torture, and the use of the techniques in Army training does not meet the definition of torture. So the word "torture" is not being used to describe anything in Army training, except by the liars attempting to conflate what is being discussed with Army training by ignoring context and purpose.

You see, the presence of pain is not the issue at all. Many people do many painful things voluntarily. So what?

Words sometimes have precise meanings, McGriddles.

Posted by: kokblok on December 15, 2005 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Well, if the 'torture' is something commonly done voluntarily - maybe it ain't so bad and you've misused the term.

propecia and side effects danger propecia http://zhenanehochetlexus.hallwriting.com/propecia/propecia_pharmacy.html propecia online prescription cheap propecia online http://zhenanehochetlexus.hallwriting.com/propecia/propecia_success_rates.html and .... propecia effectiveness propecia sexual dysfunction is not permanent http://zhenanehochetlexus.hallwriting.com/propecia/propecia_price.html propecia half life propecia side effect body hair http://zhenanehochetlexus.hallwriting.com/propecia/propecia_fact.html propecia prescription buy propecia now http://zhenanehochetlexus.hallwriting.com/propecia/propecia_and_sperm_count.html .Thanks.

information on celexa information on celexa http://zhenanehochetlexus.hallwriting.com/celexa/weaning_off_of_celexa.html lexapro versus celexa celexa and high blood pressure pills http://zhenanehochetlexus.hallwriting.com/celexa/celexa_anxiety.html and .... can celexa lower blood pressure generic celexa without prescription http://zhenanehochetlexus.hallwriting.com/celexa/celexa_mg.html celexa experience what are the side effects of celexa http://zhenanehochetlexus.hallwriting.com/celexa/does_celexa_make_you_gain_weight.html celexa and yawning celexa phentermine http://zhenanehochetlexus.hallwriting.com/celexa/difference_between_celexa_and_lexapro.html .Thanks.