I still don't get why wearing panites on your head is torture. Where I'm from we call that foreplay.

Oh come on - acid showers are a lot cheaper than those poofy overpriced boutique skin peels.

Saddam was doing those complexion challenged ingrates a favor and they just didn't have the intelligence to recognize it.

No good deed goes unpunished I guess...

It's easy to see where a post is going when I see the author wildly misstate someone's position, then proceed to argue against her own misstatement. I'd like to see where Andrew Sullivan or Seymour Hersh said we are "the leading sadists in Iraq." Arguing that we shouldn't employ torture because it debases us and lowers us to the level of our enemies is hardly the same as saying we're the "leading sadists." It sure is easy to argue when you're articulating both sides. I always win when I play chess against myself, too. Restating an opponent's argument in the most simplistic and ridiculous terms imaginable may be pleasing and make you feel like an intellectual heavyweight, but it's in reality a cheap game that anyone can play. There may be good arguments for using torture, but they're certainly not advanced by portraying anyone who has a different idea as a jackass whose ideas aren't even worthy of serious consideration.

And it's more than a little disingenuous to imply that every known example of the US abusing prisoners can be attributed to a few malcontents. That's a rather sweeping statement, with absolutely no evidence offered to back up the complete exoneration of anyone higher up in the chain of command. Rather odd, considering Cheney's statements about torture.

US trained the major Central American torturers at the School of the Americas.

In another thread below I pointed out the links between some of the same death-squad leaders in CA and in Iraq. Same actual people involved.

Worth getting to know John Negroponte in this regard.

... no evidence offered to back up the complete exoneration...

Ah, a Frenchman! Welcome.

Not too many here are defenders of the Napoleonic code. Guilty until proven innocent never went over well in America, but its still alive and well in France I see.

Arguing that we shouldn't employ torture because it debases us and lowers us to the level of our enemies is hardly the same as saying we're the "leading sadists."

So we're not the leading sadists?

Time to read up. History repeating itself...

Our Guys

Some see U.S.-backed Iraqi guards as death squads

Salvadoran Option II

I still don't get why wearing panites on your head is torture.

What about raping boys? Fatal beatings? No?

I wonder where England got that dog leash while on duty in Iraq...

Restating an opponent's argument in the most simplistic and ridiculous terms imaginable may be pleasing and make you feel like an intellectual heavyweight, but it's in reality a cheap game that anyone can play.

Indeed, Chris. The democrats have been doing this, mistating Bush's war plan in the most simplistic terms, only because of WMDs, for quite some time. Intellectual dishonesty at it's finest and I sure you agree.

mistating Bush's war plan in the most simplistic terms

Bush had a war plan?

And Congress had access to the same intel, right?

Anyway, back to the topic: we just missed the annual protest at the renamed School of the Americas"

Those of us who are old rememberthe torture manual scandal from 1991 or so...

       \|||/         (o o)
,----ooO--(_)-------.
| Please |
| don't feed the |
| TROLL's ! |
'--------------Ooo--'
        |__|__|
        || ||
         ooO Ooo

Tubino:

Clarify something for me, please. Do you agree that terrorists are an unusually serious threat against US national security, requiring an unusual response (yes, torture) or not? That is, is it OK to use torture to fight terrorism, or not? My personal opinion, FWIW, as I think you know, is the following:

Terrorists exist, by their own choice, outside of the laws of civilized society. They do not obey internationl law, as armies do, nor are they ordinary criminals confined to one nation or state. That being the case, they are not protected by the US constitution, nor by international law.

So, do you agree that we need torture to fight terrorism, or not? If not, why?

Lets get this arguement out in the open. I do not agree with the idea that we should "outsource our torture" to third countries. I think the president should go on TV and say "terrorists need to be tortured and here's why.." And let congress vote yes or no. That way, if we as a country agree to use torture, fine. If not and we get attacked by WMD in the future, well, I don't want anyone saying afterwards "why didn't the government do everything possible to protect us".

If torture is a necessary evil, fine. If not, well do you consider the risks of not using torture to outweigh the benefits? Is it strictly a moral issue with you? Or do you believe torture is of no real use?

Tubino doesn't live here anymore.

Purple Avenger

Heather McDonald didn't claim that officals higher up the chain of command were "innocent until proven guilty." She said "But that abuse was the result of individual soldiers violating their power; it was in no way sanctioned by military authority." That's not innocent until proven guilty, that's complete exoneration, with absolutely no supporting evidence offered. See the difference? She also said "The prison abuse resulted from commander incompetence" again, with nothing to back that up.

And really, calling people French? That's so 2003. You really need to freshen the act.

And Sue! Another content-free post! I knew I could count on you. Does it make you sad when you post one of your brainless comments and none of your fellows jumps in to tell you how clever you are? Is the circle jerk taking a day off? Now you'd better get going. I think lauraw and the rest of the Algonquin Round Table are waiting for you.

Who's raping boys? I'd like some photos, please.