The Cons lie. It s what they do.

Unfortunately, it seems like many left-wing commenters do as well, as evidenced by several different people trying unsuccessfully in this and another thread to claim Glenn Reynolds supports torture.

The very use of that phrase telegraphs what side you are on.

It is the responsibility of the person making the accusation to provide the evidence.

What evidence do you have that Reynolds supports the torture of humans? If you fail to provide evidence, then you are exactly the type of person that OW was condemning in this post.

First, whether or not torture is okay doesn’t depend on the Geneva Conventions; one might decide that torture isn’t okay even regarding those to whom the Conventions do not apply, after all. I also wonder whether torture would be effective in getting the likes of Mohammed Atta to offer truthful information. I’m skeptical, which is one reason why I oppose torture.

He separates the issue of torture from the Geveva Convention. Using the phrase “unlawful enemy combatants” does not mean one supports torture.

Reynolds has argued repeatedly against the use of torture as well as unregulated detention. Both you (SadieB) and TomY are demonstratably wrong in claiming otherwise. The fact that you continue to claim the opposite just because you don’t like his politics proves the point of this thread.

Find me one person who uses the expression “unlawful enemy combtants” who opposes torture. The very use of that phrase telegraphs what side you are on. Sorry.

The best I can tell, Mr Reynolds is pro-torture

Find me one, just one, post from Reynolds that says he supports torturing human beings. You’re trying to take a statement regarding the imprisonment of people (specifically comparing Jose Padilla to other combatants) into a support of torture.

Some of you on this blog are so pathetic that you can’t even get the point of the post you are commenting about.

Say anything, indeed.

“American citizens arrested on American soil are a whole different kettle of fish from unlawful foreign enemy combatants. Most significantly, the risk of political abuses, as I ve noted before, is much, much higher when it s American citizens being imprisoned.”

“American citizens are a whole different kettle of fish” — from what? from non-citizens. With me so far?

“Unlawful enemy combatants.” This is a made-up category not recognized by the UN, the Geneva Convention, or any self-respecting human being. What it really means is “people it is okay to torture.” That’s why they made this category up.

In practice what “unlawful enemy combatant” means is brown people.

“The risk of political abuses is much higher when it’s American citizens being detained.” He is totally talking out of his ass here and I have no idea what this means. I don’t think that Canadian guy who was kidnapped and send to Saudi Arabia for torture would share this point of view. The best I can tell, Mr Reynolds is pro-torture, but he gets squeamish at the idea of Americans being tortured (even wingnuts have their limits) so he tries to make up some bogus-sounding explanation of why torture is good for some people but not Americans.

You’re welcome.

So Glenn Reynolds only believes in torturing foreign brown people.

This statement is so unbelievably stupid. Oh, wait…”say anything” is acceptable now, right?

How about one piece of evidence to support your statement? Or are you as pathetic as the RNC bloggers that you despise?

It s okay if you re NOT a republican?

I agree with Lynch that this deserves a lot more scrutiny. American citizens arrested on American soil are a whole different kettle of fish from unlawful foreign enemy combatants. Most significantly, the risk of political abuses, as I’ve noted before, is much, much higher when it’s American citizens being imprisoned.

Hmmm…maybe “say anything” isn’t just limited to the GOP? It seems as if you will “say anything” about someone else without any supporting evidence.

Seriously, is this the best you can do? Is this your idea of a defense?

Up in New York, Jeanine Pirro says Democrats are pro-child-molester.

If they had any sense of shame (I know, asking a lot isn’t it?) they’d never be able to open their mouths again.