HA HA HA HA HA!

Live the values we preach! Good one. Very droll.

This is America, Jack! Our hypocrisy is dwarfed only by our sense of entitlement.

The only way to win this war is to turn entire countries against terrorism, and the only way to do that is to live the values we preach. And that means an end to torture.

And that will require an end to the Bush administration. Can I haz impeachment now?

" No torture, no exceptions" would mean that we can't torture Cheney. Let's all think about that for a while.

Live the values we preach? You mean, we're going to arrest Bush for his illegal activities while president, and his various criminal financial frauds? And I was thinking there's no justice in this world.

Blue Girl and Anon are correct. Ending torture is an absolutely necessary first step, but it won't mean much if we fail to hold to account the torturers who did it in our collective name and with the support of our collective taxes.

And I mean all the way up to Deadeye and the chimp.

Yeah, this talk of American values is all well and good, but it doesn't give Republicans hard-ons like torture does.

But how can we pay attention to such a trivial issue, or Admiral Fallon's resignation, or whether we should even be at war, when there's a SEX SCANDAL INVOLVING A DEMOCRAT GOING ON 24/7-?!?!?
(Goebbels would be so proud.)

Oh sure, that sounds reasonable, but how exactly do you condense that into a 5 second talking point? "Kicking ass" and "Club Gitmo" just have more raw appeal.

"America's adherence to proper standards and international law won us respect, allies, friends, and, ultimately, the influence that helped bring down the Soviet system"

I know he's doing a sales pitch, and is on the good team on this issue, but still. It reads like it's for children and non-readers.

I'll just say Lumumba, Mossadeq, Allende, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Vietnam, and too many other greatest Cold War hits.

I don't believe there is a simple cause that led to the downfall of USSR. And surely American conduct and international influence was low on the list of factors. Mostly, their economy sucked.

But I bet there was MUCH more torture going on during the Cold War than now.

Amen, Kevin. Well said.

That there is even a debate on this point shows up the depravity and cowardice of the "leaders" who brought us to this point.

Much as it might be gratifying to us for those guilty to feel the cruelty they were callously and anonymously willing to dish out to innumerable captives, I'd be quite happy for them to be thrown into any hard-core US prison as ordinary prisoners with no priviliges and no parole.

Better yet, Abu Ghraib or Baggram.

HANG BUSH

It's one in which military force is relatively less important and gaining allies against terrorism is relatively more important. But a nation that tortures will never succeed in gaining those allies. Instead, the pool of jihadist sympathizers will continue growing, and with it the size and lethality of the hard core terrorists themselves. The end result will, eventually, be catastrophic.

Very well said, Kevin.

'live the values we teach' is one of those anodyne phrases, certainly when applied to a nation, that sounds good but is without real meaning - sort of like 'change we can believe in'. America isn't and never really was a moral beacon to the world; we've participated in or been author of many outrages against humanity but it hasn't stopped people from wanting to come here, to be like us, to imitate us. We were powerful, successful, different - that's what mattered. American style torture may possibly be a symptom of something else but is certainly not a cause of anything and if the many varieties of heathens out there choose to start imitatng instead the fucking Chinese for christ sake it obviously isn't going to be because for brief moment in our history one of our lesser presidents seemed to condone torture. It does give people who wish us ill a convenient and serviceable rhetorical tool - but lacking such they will find something else. When 9/11 happened third world types at my place of employ actually cheered - and that was long before Cheney supposedly started torturing people.

I think that torture is a Republican propaganda tactic against this nation's own public. The Republicans want the kind of control that (what they see as) pesky elections can't take away. If we torture people, it perhaps makes a lot less college kids want to be demonstrating-in-the- street hippies, for fear of being "lumped in" with Al Qaeda some day- not that they necessarily think they'll be tortured, but it might seem more real to them that they could be handled roughly or unjustly by over-zealous conservatives with power.

A lot of the anti-globalization demonstrations in America did become quasi-riots, but the police resorted to too-tough tactics to deal with or try to deter a lot of the trouble-making- it showed, surprisingly, that a lot of the rank-and-file police officers have no problem at all with, say, indiscriminately pummeling peaceful protesters with a billy-club. They may seem like nice enough people in other contexts, but these cops can be all too easily talked into this shit. Even Rush Limbaigh and Ann Coulter have said (disgusting) things like "liberals need to be physically intimidated," and probably before 9/11, too.

Protect Liberty: Arrest More Republicans.

As a former Clarkie I am sad that I can't quite take General Clark at his word anymore. If he were so serious about torture, why is he backing a presidential candidate who has objectively waffled on the issue in the past when it looked like the politically convenient thing to do?

From politico.com:

"If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law," Clinton said at the time, in a telephone interview with this reporter, expanding on comments to the Daily News Editorial Board that there should be "lawful authority" for torture in some cases.

She said then that the "ticking time bomb" scenario would be a narrow exception to her opposition to torture.
**

I just want everyone to understand that a Clinton presidency means a continuation on the waffling on whether we will torture or not. Like Bush, Clinton will not come out and say that we are torturing - she will parrot the Bush line of defining torture into a word that carries no meaning and thus declare that we don't torture by lexicographical fiat not a genuine change in policy.

This is America, Jack! Our hypocrisy is dwarfed only by our sense of entitlement.

Please don't hit us with the truth before we've had our morning coffee. It's impolite.

I think that torture is a Republican propaganda tactic against this nation's own public.

I'm not convinced that our "leaders" have really thought it through to that extent, i.e., that any decisions were taken to initiate torture purely for propaganda purposes.

Like others have mentioned in other threads, I think that there's a base, reptilian-brain, knee-jerk reaction that's going on, like when Bush impulsively ordered the leveling of Fallujah after the four mercenaries were slaughtered and hung from that bridge. "Get the information! I don't care what it takes!"

"We're kicking ass!," from the mouth of our Current Occupant. It's not too much of a leap from there to stacking naked guys into pyramids.

Today, in the struggle to finish off the extremists plotting against us, it won't be torture and fear that win the day for America.

Look, we're doing all we can in this struggle, but I'm afraid the Republicans are going to be in office until January '09, continuing to plot against America.

Where's the boneheads who condone torture? I only come here for the laughs.

Freedom's on the March!! Say it again, and again or I'll poke your eye out.

Has there been any speculation about Wesley Clark as Barack Obama's running mate? General Clark would bring military and foreign policy credibility to the ticket, necessary to counter John McCain. He's a Southerner (Arkansas), and he's a Clintonite, thereby helping to stitch the party back together. Apart from Clark wanting to be #1, is there any downside to him?

Didn't France torture until the 1960's or so? I remember there was a secret prison in South America in the hot jungle with no roof, or creature comforts other than concrete walls and floors. They definitely tortured Algerians as a matter of rote during the war in Algeria.

But they changed policies, and now France has produced Doctors Without Borders, Medicines Du Monde, and some of the other leading anti-torture groups in the world.

And no one regards France as a torturer 50 years after they stopped. I imagine the world in 2050 will think of Guantanamo like we do of Auschwitz -- a blight on history, but nothing you can hold against present-day Americans/Germans.

That said, impeachment and criminal prosecution would be a step in the right direction.

Oblong,

Would you care to elaborate on your statement that "when 9/11 happened third world types at my place of employ actually cheered."

Unless this means something other than what I'm reading from it, you'll remain on my GreaseMonkey ban list.

...and stop pandering to the Israel lobby.

Washington's Farewell Address 1796
"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

luci: "I'll just say Lumumba, Mossadeq, Allende, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Vietnam, and too many other greatest Cold War hits."

El Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua. Iraq vs Iran.

At best, adherence to comparatively proper standards.

Er, you already said "Nicaragua." I meant Panama.

Excellent argument.

Do recall, however, that the US has used torture systematically long before Bush came around.

See Americas, School of the.

The CIA quite literally wrote the book on torture, I'm very sad and ashamed to say . . .

I'll chip in some $ to buy W a ticket to Belgium for Jan 21, 2009. Hell, why not buy a couple more for Cheney and Rumsfeld? Let 'em see the sights.

Blue Girl and Anon are correct. Ending torture is an absolutely necessary first step, but it won't mean much if we fail to hold to account the torturers who did it in our collective name and with the support of our collective taxes.

I don't think the important point is that ending torture won't mean much if that accountability does not occurr, but that ending torture won't happen without that accountability, from the leaders that ordered tortures down to the torturers. We must establish that not even the President is above the law, and that "just following orders" is no excuse for torture, otherwise there is no reason to expect that the practice of torture will not continue in the future.

But I bet there was MUCH more torture going on during the Cold War than now.

There probably was. The U.S. government at least had the decency to pretend to be opposed to it (while often justifying its support for people who were clearly practicing it), rather than justifying and excusing torture qua torture, which it performs itself.

While neither is, of course, good, the present practice makes it even harder for the U.S. to play a positive role in fighting the torture that it is not (directly or indirectly) involved in, since rather than turning a blind eye to torture performed by its friends it is now actively arguing that torture must sometimes be accepted and that many things well established as torture shouldn't be considered torture at all.

absent observer : it means exactly what it says. Is using 'types' as a modifier now outside the bounds of human decency? Bush has made you all so sensitive, it's odd the inherent irony of it remains outside the liberal ken. They were third world types and they cheered when the towers came down so I fired them all - just to remind them that it's still a Hobbesian world despite the best efforts of Obama types and code pink types and sundry other heathens.

If it were truly hobbesian, wouldn't the heathens be right to sue your lily white ass into bankruptcy?

you obviously haven't read Hobbes. That's the problem with the internet, such rampant illiteracy.

oblong is lying for effect.
I suspect he is nasty, brutish, and short.

I've read Leviathan ... was there some other seminal work to which you were referring?

Perhaps I misread the intention of your statement with respect to humanity and nature and politics, but given the piss-poor way in which you brought it up, you have only your own misuse of the term "Hobbesian" to blame.

Maybe we can speak once you get a degree higher than BA?

Two observations:

1. All of you who want to jail/impeach/hang Bush & co - how does that distinguinsh you from a banana republic?

2. These "friends" who you say we've offended with our decision to allow torture in highly selected cases - do you truly believe they have a "no exceptions" policy - that they've never, ever broken? Somehow I think you believe it, but only because you so ardently need to.

. All of you who want to jail/impeach/hang Bush & co - how does that distinguinsh you from a banana republic?

I want them to receive due process first.

Somehow I think you believe it, but only because you so ardently need to.

This is definitely a double-edged blade...

We have a choice: we can oppose the awful Bush policies like torture and 'war of choice' or we (as individuals and as a party and as a nation) can acquiesce and go along.

Choose.

"I want them to receive due process first."

Well, that's nice. Due process for political prosecution. No doubt you'll find a way to create a perjury trap.

First of all, it wouldn't be up to me, I am not a part of the legal system.

Second, I can't believe a perjury trap would be necessary, and can be easily avoided anyway by simply telling the truth.

And finally, war crimes prosecutions aren't something I would classify as political prosecutions. Now, Georgia Thompson and Don Siegelman - those were political prosecutions.

Chris,

I'm assuming from your comments that you would approve of torture under certain circumstances, in "highly selected cases."

Apart from the standard "ticking time bomb" scenario, under what additional circumstances would you be willing to authorize torture?

...I just want everyone to understand.... Like Bush, Clinton will not come out and say that we are torturing ....reader at 9:10 AM

... think we have to draw a bright line and say `No torture - abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed,' and then try to make sure we implement that.
Clear as a bell, yet, "This did not, however, keep Barack Obama from releasing a statement accusing Clinton of being too vague. From TPM:
Barack Obama thinks that America's policy on torture needs to be a lot more explicit than the winks and nods she has seemed to put forth on this important issue."

...Ann Kornblut selectively quoted from her interview with Clinton to advance a "Hillary hedges" narrative and many critics pounced, accusing her of hedging on the issue of torture. Once the full transcript was released, however, it was apparent that Clinton had been more clear about her opposition to torture than Kornblut's article had led one to believe....

Typical: from candidate's mouth to media distortion and quote truncation to Obama's surrogates.

"Apart from the standard "ticking time bomb" scenario, under what additional circumstances would you be willing to authorize torture?"

As I'm sure you understand, this is a slippery slope. I don't "approve" of this necessarily. I simply recognize that at times, protecting the people takes precedence over making nice-nice with the scum of the earth. Are you telling me that you would never do something nasty to someone who, for example, knew where your kidnapped daughter was, were he in your power? You can't policy-ize this sort of thing, but I can guarantee you, every nation on earth, even the ones y'all claim we have offended, would do the same thing under the same circumstances.

So have your self-righteous, partisan fit & pretend you're protecting all that is good in the world. It makes you feel good - and that's what counts.

Chris,

Well, you've just offered a variation on the ticking time bomb scenario, but no matter...

As a father of two adolescent daughters, I can tell you that in the highly improbably circumstance that I had someone "in my power" who knew where my kidnapped daughter was (I think I saw something like this on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit once...or was it CSI?), I would most definitely do some very nasty things to the guy to find out where she was, before the swinging pendulum sliced her in two or whatever.

And then I would expect to be arrested and probably indicted, and thrown upon the mercy of the courts.

See, you can "policy-ize" this sort of thing.

Are you telling me that you would never do something nasty to someone who, for example, knew where your kidnapped daughter was, were he in your power?

Sure I would. But I don't think it should be legal. I don't think I or anyone else should have a blanket exemption allowing us to hurt anyone we think has hurt someone we love.

And suppose, by the way, that the someone you do something nasty to didn't actually know where your kidnapped daughter was, but was just some poor innocent bystander?

You can't policy-ize this sort of thing,

Sure you can.

I simply recognize that at times, protecting the people takes precedence over making nice-nice with the scum of the earth.

How do you know you are dealing with the "scum of the earth" and not just someone who is less than fleet-of-foot? Weren't you the one who was chastising us in this very thread for wanting to hang various members of the Cheney cabal? Or is the fact that they are the "other" enough to put them in that "scum of the earth" category? (Where I place Bush et al.)

So have your self-righteous, partisan fit & pretend you're protecting all that is good in the world. It makes you feel good - and that's what counts.

My "partisan fit" as you so charmingly put it, is based on the Constitution I made an oath to uphold against all enemies - foreign and domestic - and the Geneva Conventions I studied in OCS. Where is your partisan fit coming from?

Damnit! That was me right above.

You can't policy-ize this sort of thing, but I can guarantee you, every nation on earth, even the ones y'all claim we have offended, would do the same thing under the same circumstances.

See, the problem with this argument is that many of these other nations have already faced the same circumstances, and have responded in a far different fashion than we have. After all, it's not as if Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, Holland, Canada, Ireland etc. are strangers to terrorism. they've all faced as severe or more campaigns of domestic terrorism than we have. And yet they haven't responded by trying to subvert international law, legalize torture, or hold public debates on just exactly what fine shading of rape, mutilation and degradation is OK and what isn't.

"How do you know you are dealing with the "scum of the earth" and not just someone who is less than fleet-of-foot?"

You've made quite a jump from "highly selective cirumstances" to "whoever we pick up in the area". Nice try. We waterboarded exactly 2 people. And we knew exactly who they were.

"And suppose, by the way, that the someone you do something nasty to didn't actually know where your kidnapped daughter was, but was just some poor innocent bystander? "

Same as above. Of course you knew I wasn't arguing for that, but changing the subject sometimes works, so it was worth a try, I suppose.

"See, the problem with this argument is that many of these other nations have already faced the same circumstances, and have responded in a far different fashion than we have. After all, it's not as if Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, Holland, Canada, Ireland etc. are strangers to terrorism. they've all faced as severe or more campaigns of domestic terrorism than we have. And yet they haven't responded by trying to subvert international law, legalize torture, or hold public debates on just exactly what fine shading of rape, mutilation and degradation is OK and what isn't"

I see. So you're telling me you know what all the above nations have done behind closed doors in every thorny circumstance. Right.

We waterboarded exactly 2 people. And we knew exactly who they were.

Right. Now this is starting to get a bit surreal.

You have direct and perfectly accurate information that "we" only "waterboarded exactly 2 people?"

Across the entire globe, for the entire duration of the Global War on Terror, or whatever we're calling it this week, in all theatres of military and intelligence operations, only 2 people were waterboarded? You know this how, exactly?

And you're presumably defining "torture" as just waterboarding?

Nevermind Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, CIA black sites, extraordinary renditions, etc. I'm sure that you'll simply write all that off as a bunch of bad apples operating outside of the chain of command or something. Yes?

Still, I'd love to know how your knowledge of how many people "we've" waterboarded is so precise.

You've made quite a jump from "highly selective cirumstances" to "whoever we pick up in the area". Nice try. We waterboarded exactly 2 people.

How do you know that? Because the Bush regime says so? The fact is, we've tortured many more than that, including several documented cases where our victims were tortured to death.

And we knew exactly who they were.

Again, you know this how? Based on the Bush regime's word? No evidence has ever been presented and challenged in a court of law.

I see. So you're telling me you know what all the above nations have done behind closed doors in every thorny circumstance. Right.

We haven't been exactly doing this behind closed doors. We have publicly been arguing for, justifying and admitting a policy of state-sanctioned torture, and publicly claiming that we would not abide by domestic and international law, which none of those nations ever did.

And this works both ways -- are you tellling me that every one of those nations did torture behind closed doors with explicit government consent? You know this how, exactly? You have some proof you'd like to present beyond mere unsupported assertions?

Be specific. Show your work.

Of course you knew I wasn't arguing for that, but changing the subject sometimes works, so it was worth a try, I suppose.

Sure you are. You may claim that you're not arguing for a policy of torturing innocent people, but that's inevitably what it leads to. It would have to, since if that person hasn't been found guilty by a court he is necessarily innocent before the law. How could you ever be sure (without spinning some ludicrous "24" type scenario) that anyone you were torturing really had the information, beyond all reasonable doubt?

"Still, I'd love to know how your knowledge of how many people "we've" waterboarded is so precise."

Fair enough. That's what the administration has admitted to. Anything's possible. You have proof to the contrary? Or just your "certainty" that there "must be more" based on your non-partisan judgement?

"You may claim that you're not arguing for a policy of torturing innocent people, but that's inevitably what it leads to."

If you want to get into slippery slope arguements, this will just get silly. But you knew that.

"The fact is, we've tortured many more than that, including several documented cases where our victims were tortured to death. "

Documented by whom? Therein lies the answer.

U.S. Operatives Killed Detainees During Interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq (10/24/2005)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence Personnel Implicated

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.

""There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths,"" said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. ""High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable. America must stop putting its head in the sand and deal with the torture scandal that has rocked our military.""

The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and ""OGA"" (Other Governmental Agency) -- a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA.

According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides. Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel. The autopsy reports list deaths by ""strangulation,"" ""asphyxiation"" and ""blunt force injuries."" An overwhelming majority of the so-called ""natural deaths"" were attributed to ""Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.""

http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/21236prs20051024.html

[Further comments in support of torture will be deleted. You are new here, but your fear-inspired lunacy has been slapped down on these boards many, many times. You are done now. --Mod]

Documented by whom? Therein lies the answer.

Among others, documented by the US military:

In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths

By TIM GOLDEN
Published: May 20, 2005

Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.....Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead....It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The deaths referred to in the ACLU cite above were also documented by the US military:

""These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations,"" said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. ""The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up.""

The documents were released by the Department of Defense in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/21236prs20051024.html

Since you're concerned about this issue, I'm sure you've been in the forefront of the vastly larger and more arbitrary numbers of political mistreatments of, say, the Castro regime?

Shorter Chris: Quick! Look over there! Fidel Castro!

Since I'm a card-carrying ACLU member, the answer to the above question is yes, I have been. But even if I hadn't,why exactly would I have to put myself in the forefront of protesting another country's misdeeds before I protested my own country's misdeeds? Do I have to go around the world denouncing every other human rights violator before I'm permitted to denounce George Bush?

Documented by whom? Therein lies the answer.

Now that put a smile on my face. I honestly hope that you're a young man, Chris, so that you'll be around long enough to review the abundant evidence of sanctioned torture that is available right now - via Google, for example - as well as what will emerge over the next few years, once the Bush administration is history.

"The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times"

So the Army prosecuted one of it's soldiers for this abuse and you use it as an example of our official policy? Good gawd. I'm wasting my time with you.

[You are done now. All future comments by you on this topic will be deleted. --Mod]

An ACLU press release is your idea of documented proof. Gag. Guilt by allegation.

Once again:

The documents were released by the Department of Defense in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace.

So the Army prosecuted one of it's soldiers for this abuse and you use it as an example of our official policy? Good gawd. I'm wasting my time with you.

But according to you, this abuse never happened. I've just demonstrated that it actually did, and therefore that you were wrong.

I'm not asking for much...just a polite "I was wrong" and I'll be satisfied.....

Your agonizing need to believe the worst about the Bush Admin & our military is truly inspriring. I'm glad I spent this time with you. It reminds me of why it is so important to oppose you.

Shorter Chris: I've got nothin'.

Bye-bye. Please don't trip over the tail tucked between your legs as you slink out.

Aw, man! I had to go to run errands and I missed all the fun! I wanted to play with the little moron some more! He never did tell me where the wellspring of his partisan snit was located.

Well, nicely done, Stefan. I'll be your wing-woman another day. There is never a surplus of stupid to vanquish.

Amen to Gen Clark.

Amen to Kevin.

The only true security as a nation is to be at peace with all other nations.

On the planet right now are probably 180 different countries that are at peace with all other nations. They have more security - real security - than all our hundreds of billions in annual 'defense' can buy us here in the USA.

Oh, they are vulnerable, as the hawks would tell you, to ANY attack. But who WANTS or NEEDS to attack them? Osama bin Laden even asked, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" The short answer is Sweden doesn't go around making enemies.

We will not ever have enough allies, as long as we keep bullying the world with our 'defense' mechanisms. ONE non-ally is one too many.

America has more non-allies than any nation on earth. As long as that continues, we will lose respect, and be at risk. And the hawks will continue to have illusionary fodder for their claims of, "The only good defense is one that is so strong that no one would dare attack you."

Well, if that is true, we will have to spend quadrillions of dollars a year, because we got attacked not by some other country, but by some rag tags who DARED to attack the world's only superpower. If being a superpower doesn't make you immune from attacks by ragtags, then only near infinite expenditures and training and militarism will suffice.

And when an emasculated country like Iraq - after 12 years of sanctions - can fight you to a draw, even though you are the world's only superpower, then the true answer is that militarism is an illusory black hole, down which we are pouring our posterity - AND ANY CHANCE AT PEACE. If the top power can't beat one of the weakest countries on earth, then we live in an insane country. An insane world.

Duh.

At least the USA does. Those 180+ countries don't. Oh, to have some of their sanity here. How much more prosperous our country could be if it wasn't dumping it all into bullets and bombs. Not to mention actually having peace. What would that even FEEL like?

The idea that more military gets us closer to peace is simply the biggest of all the Big Lies that has ever come down the pike. It is promulgated by sociopaths, on behalf of psychotic armaments manufacturers and citizens who really, really need to get their father issues taken care of by a really good shrink.

In the meantime, deaths pile up.

We all believe that gangs are the worst elements of society. Well, I would like to see whether there has ever been a year when gangs killed more people than governments. I seriously doubt it. Our governments - ours in particular - are the biggest criminal element in the world, year in and year out. They have convinced us that wearing uniforms makes slaughtering people okay.

No. It only makes us an insane race.

The only way to peace is to BE peaceful.

Reader said:

From politico.com:

"If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law," Clinton said at the time, in a telephone interview with this reporter, expanding on comments to the Daily News Editorial Board that there should be "lawful authority" for torture in some cases.

She said then that the "ticking time bomb" scenario would be a narrow exception to her opposition to torture.

I just want everyone to understand that a Clinton presidency means a continuation on the waffling on whether we will torture or not. Like Bush, Clinton will not come out and say that we are torturing - she will parrot the Bush line of defining torture into a word that carries no meaning and thus declare that we don't torture by lexicographical fiat not a genuine change in policy.

Hey, the Nazis didn't torture, either. Just ask them. They all rationalized it - it was because of all those intransigent factions that kept forcing the Germans to torture them. It was all the victims' fault.

And afterward, at the Nuremburg trials and through the later years, how many of them ever admitted that they did it or sanctioned it?

It will be like that after our own people are in the docket - everyone will disavow it. Everyone will parse words over what they said way back in 2004, and into 2009. They are all trying to say they would be tough on 'terrorists', too, whether or not they themselves would torture anyone. They have to try to not lose the pro-torture vote.

And selling their souls in the process...

Regardless of how one feels about the possibility of a limited expection for some type of enhanced interrogation techniques, don't you at least have to wonder about all the certainty expressed by Kevin? I realize this is an opinin site, but the more gifted opinion writers, such as George Will, do talk in such certainties. Below is a quote from Kevin's post where I "ALL CAPPED" his certainty about various things which an objective person would agree there is no certainty:

"Conservatives keep reminding us that the war on terror is not like a conventional war. And they're right. It's one in which military force IS relatively less important and gaining allies against terrorism IS relatively more important. But a nation that tortures will NEVER succeed in gaining those allies. Instead, the pool of jihadist sympathizers WILL continue growing, and with it the size and lethality of the hard core terrorists themselves. The end result WILL, eventually, be catastrophic.

The ONLY way to win this war is to turn entire countries against terrorism, and the ONLY way to do that is to live the values we preach and win them to our cause. And that means an end to torture."

Kevin may be right about some, or even all of these things, but he can't reasonably be certain about them.

Ooh yes, you kicked my ass....

All those impressive "facts" & stuff. I'm just thankful you don't know who I am....since you'll all be coming after us GOP criminals after you win this fall - civil libertian that you are (ha)

Regardless of how one feels about the possibility of a limited expection for some type of enhanced interrogation techniques, don't you at least have to wonder about all the certainty expressed by Kevin? I realize this is an opinin site, but the more gifted opinion writers, such as George Will, do talk in such certainties. Below is a quote from Kevin's post where I "ALL CAPPED" his certainty about various things which an objective person would agree there is no certainty:

As I've done before, let's see how "brian's" wormlike filth reads with a simple word substitution:

Regardless of how one feels about the possibility of a limited expection for some type of
rape , don't you at least have to wonder about all the certainty expressed by Kevin? I realize this is an opinin [sic] site, but the more gifted opinion writers, such as George Will, do talk in such certainties. Below is a quote from Kevin's post where I "ALL CAPPED" his certainty about various things which an objective person would agree there is no certainty:

"Conservatives keep reminding us that the war on terror is not like a conventional war. And they're right. It's one in which military force IS relatively less important and gaining allies against terrorism IS relatively more important. But a nation that rapes will NEVER succeed in gaining those allies. Instead, the pool of jihadist sympathizers WILL continue growing, and with it the size and lethality of the hard core terrorists themselves. The end result WILL, eventually, be catastrophic.

The ONLY way to win this war is to turn entire countries against rape , and the ONLY way to do that is to live the values we preach and win them to our cause. And that means an end to rape ."
.

Wes Clark for Veep!

Chris, you are a pathetic, pissing coward, and you are stupid, too. By the way, don't get too cocky about your anonymity - the mods have your IP.

GOP Criminals, by the way, need to be locked up. The operative word there is "criminals" by the way - your president politicized Justice so just being a Democrat was enough. What you fuckers have done to my grandfather's Republican party makes me physically ill, but at least he didn't live to see it.