I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with that comment, but it sure doesn’t square with how I perceive what is going on. Who is claiming (scolding) that you can’t support the troops and oppose the war at the same time?

Getting back to the main point – torture. It was bad when nazi’s did it and it’s bad when Americans do it. That’s the point. And you seem to be caught up in the “it’s not as bad as ….” stuff that is in fact, the right wing noise machine’s response. Durbin’s comment was totally appropriate. If Americans had been subjected to such treatment there is no doubt you and others on the right would be screaming the very same thing he said and making the same comparisons. That was his point. The behavior documented by the FBI, would be something we would expect from the worst of humanity, not the best. Your bloviating about what the story really is is just so much disingenuous hot air. Again, the story is torture and an administration that seems quite comfortable with it. Do you really think Durbin’s remarks are more important than that? It would appear so. So you can keep keep your dishonest remarks to yourself. I think that comparison is more apt to those who seek to turn this into a “Durbin said this and he’s a bad man” story.

Given the tedious bloviation that erupted when Santorum (was it?) mentioned the word “Nazi,” one would expect the same reaction in this case. One, however, is, as usual, disappointed. As usual, the old “right-wing noise machine” cliches get trotted out and the same old straw-men are erected.

Why is it so hard for people to believe that one can both find instances of abuse by the American military reprehensible as well as find Durbin’s comparisons to Nazi Germany, Khmer Cambodia, and Soviet Russia wildly inappropriate, nakedly partisan, and outright offensive? After all, these are the same people who routinely scold everyone else for claiming that it’s somehow impossible to support the troops and oppose the war at the same time.

I think it’s time for a little bit of consistency.

For the record, the Bush administration does with most torture what they do to every job- they outsource it. Rendition of “enemy combatents” to Egypt is where most of our torture is being done.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006827

Neither are non-uniformed combatants who’ve been captured on the field of battle against the United States military. You know. The very same people who’re locked up in Guantanamo Bay.

The hypocrisy of those who say “fuck them” to “mercenaries” and their relation to the “rules of war” while at the same time working themselves into a self-righteous lather over enemy combatants and their relation to the Geneva Conventions is utterly paralyzing. And quite revealing. A Qu’ran gets stepped on? Close down the “gulags!” A “merc” gets dismembered and his parts thrown over a bridge? Screw him.

Right?

And, for the record, Durbin’s comments were disgusting, over-the-top, and completely unwarranted. Indeed, Oliver Willis routinely employs such revolting rhetoric and just as routinely hides behind the laughable “But I’m not an elected official!” defense. And yet… I don’t see any reaction from him on this at all save a pathetic attempt to divert peoples’ attention toward an irrelevant attack on Dick Cheney.

What a hypocrite.

http://www.drjimchan.com/colon_therapy.htm

Great rejoinder! Not a single logical point made. But it’s what I have come to expect from the right.

End of story.

So, now you can answer the question, if a US soldier was treated like the Gitmo prisoners, would you be upset? Would it be torture then? Funny how you cons have a hard time answering a direct question. Why?

Mercenaries are not bound by normal rules of war. They are getting our soldiers killed. So to hell with them, they don t believe in any cause, they believe in $$$$.

They’re helping to rebuild Iraq. Heaven forbid they get paid for such hazardous work. Not that that line of reasoning will resonate inside your tinfoil hat.

So, now you can answer the question, if a US soldier was treated like the Gitmo prisoners, would you be upset? Would it be torture then? Funny how you cons have a hard time answering a direct question. Why?

Our soldiers aren’t systematically engaged in the same kind of genocidal goal that the Islamofascists in Gitmo were fighting for everyday before they were captured and incarcerated.

Therefore, your analogy doesn’t fit.

Furthermore, your question shows an ignorance of how the rules of the Geneva Convention are carried out.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good trap question?

Another question for the torture apologists- if a US soldier (not a KBR mercenary, fuck them) was treated like the Gitmo prisoners, would you be upset? Would it be torture then?

So you’re one of Kos’ Kids I take it.

That tells me all I need to know.

Once again you misread and misinterpret remarks made, this time by me which of course was the point I was making in the first instance. But I expected that. Senator Durbin’s remarks spoke to what has been occurring under American watch and command and in which Americans have unfortunately participated. Is that something you dispute? Nothing in Durbin’s original statement that I read would allow for any interpretation that ALL U.S. soldiers at our facilities have engaged in this. (Where do you read that? I don’t see anything in your rebuttal remarks that would allow for this interpretation or any interpretation other than the simple fact that American participation is a black mark against our country.) Yes, I read a lot of idiotic statements daily unfortunately. Your interpretation was only one of them. The real point which you conveniently ignore is that if (and I say if) our soldiers have been tainted by what has occurred it is because of the activity of those who have used and justified torture. Not as a result of what Senator Durbin says now. There has been a significant controversy as to whether the present administration sanctions, condones and even promotes such activity if not by Americans themselves then by shipping detainees to places where they are tortured by others. Your comment mirrors a common tactic used by the right – destroy the messenger of bad news by any means. Misinterpret whatever is said; ignore the context; ignore the evidence and attack to advance the cause of obsfucation.

Did I misinterpret your remarks? Yes I did – intentionally. Really I thought that was clear. Of course you didn’t say in your original comments that you actually condone torture. But as I said using the same (il)logic that you employed to attack Senator Durbin I could say that and misinterpret your comments in the way I described.

Finally, Senator Durbin’s clarification of course was done because of his use of the comparison of torture tactics to those used by nazis. It wasn’t done for any reason that you advance. Nor was any clarification or apology demanded for any reason you advance because quite simply your interpretation is such a gross misinterpretation of what Durbin said that no serious person would advance such an argument. Again you misread, misinterpret and misuse Durbin’s comment, “I have learned from my statement THAT HISTORICAL PARALLELS CAN BE MISUSED AND MISINTERPRETED…”

As far as knowing something that I don’t – I’m sure Senator Durbin does and I’m sure he knows a lot more than you about this subject as well.

To say that Senator Durbin s remarks (were)  aimed at all the servicemen and women serving at the Gitmo prison is one of the most idiotic statements I have read in a long time.

Apparently, you’ve been struck with a mild case of Durbinitis, yourself. I couldn’t be wrong, or mistaken. Oh, no, I’ve made one of the “most idiotic statements” you’ve “read in a long time.” You’ve read a bunch of them, have you? And mine was the most idiotic you’ve read in a long time?
Well. let me ask you: In which way did Mr. Durbin distinguish any possible perpetators of the crimes against humanity he insinuated were being carried on at Gitmo, and those who were innocent of such crimes?
Did he use a term like “handful”, or “tiny minority”. I don’t think so
That being the case, didn’t he, indeed, aim his remarks “at all the servicemen and women serving at the Gitmo prison ?
By what logic do you get the idea that If I criticize Mr. Durbin for using one of the most hysterical hyperboles of all time, I am somehow condoning “torture of innocent civilians simply for torture s sake.”
Since how I feel about Mr. Durbin’s speech is in no way connected to how I feel about torture, or the guilt or innocence of the prisoners — and it needn’t be — how could there be a logical fit betwen the two.

By the way, if Mr. Durbin himself didn’t think that other people thought he meant all the soldiers at Guantanamo, then why did he say this:

My statement in the Senate was critical of the policies of this administration, which add to the risk our soldiers face,” he said in a statement released yesterday afternoon. ”I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: Our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration, and total support

Apparently, he knows something you don’t, but I do: What he meant. That’s why he’s apologizing for it.

No, it’s easier for him to just use ad hominum attacks. He did a very good job proving my point, when the truth is too painful, attack the messenger. His masters have taught him well.

Oh, BTW noone has proven that the Rather memos are fake, and noone has ever disputed that the gist of the memo is true. Why is it the Garry Trudeau’s reward for ONE person to come forward that knew GW in Alabama unclaimed?

As far as the “resignation letter”, you are obviously either very young or have never had a real job that you might resign from with a letter. When you resign in writing, you never say bad things about the employer. 98% are boilerplate “Thank you for the opportunity, it was an honor”. I also notice that nowhere in that letter did Clarke praise of Bush’s handling of terrorism.

It was a “feel good” letter. You know, just like the note that Bush sent to Clarke praising his work.

Go on believing that Dick Clarke has no credibility. 3,000 victims of 9/11 would differ.

Another question for the torture apologists- if a US soldier (not a KBR mercenary, fuck them) was treated like the Gitmo prisoners, would you be upset? Would it be torture then?

In 1944 Roosevelt had a few choices. We could execute all of the Nazi war criminals. Or, we could have an open and fair trial for the world to see. Churchill wanted to execute. Stalin said “In the Soviet Union, we never execute anyone without a trial.” Churchill agreed and because of that we had Nuremberg.

Th world got to see our ideals in action. They saw that they weren’t just empty rhetoric. Were the Nazis worse than the terrorists are today? I would call them equal.

I wonder if you would be crowing so loud about what isn’t torture if you had experienced a few of the things that you don’t think are torture.

Using the worst case scenarios of regimes that used torture to minimize what this country has done is kinda like experiencing a car wreck which leaves you with two broken legs and a flailed chest, and then having someone tell you that it wasn’t that bad because your car didn’t blow up and catch fire.

Think about it, Brandon.