Great article. It's about time someone put this out there in simple terms.

I did not know that. I stand corrected.

I think using it could become a habit of sorts though. Either way, it makes people look completely ridiculous.

The strategy just doesn't make sense. An actress presumably gets botox to assure some level of longevity in her career, ie wanting to be young and fresh faced to assure gigs down the road. But this have no long-term aspect to it. Think about it: when these actresses get way older, they are going to look over-the-top absurd, and will not be cast for serious older roles that pre-botox accomplished actresses have knocked out of the park.

It was my understanding that after 1947 there was not supposed to be any sort of exceptionalism for any one Western country.

The way Liz Cheney speaks is indicative of the fact that no other country is so obsessed with its own mythology than the United States. And privy talking-heads of the right like Liz Cheney, Goldberg, and all the rest are like our modern day Catoists.

The reality of 'American Exceptionalism' is a much more dour tale than these people would readily acknowledge.

You would have to travel very far back into the past to find a computer that knows less than Kristol.

Clearly James W. von Brunn is far too dangerous to be held on US soil. He should be shipped to Bagram as soon as possible. Anyone know what he was wearing? Was he in a uniform or what? Hmm...confusing. Guess we should invent some sort of special commission to deal with this guy. Or we could just confine him until he's dead.

It also looks like he was in Mensa, so he must know something. There's definitely some actionable intelligence in there. We should do whatever we can to him to get the answers we want. Maybe he knows something about an impending attack on Los Angeles -- We've been trying to break up this Library Tower attack for years.

"Are you saying that North Korea is more CIVILIZED and FAIR than the United States of America???"

All I'm saying is that they gave their detainees a trial of some sort. And in a timely manner as well. I'll leave it to others to determine which situation is more "civilized" or "fair."

For the record, though, it does look like the chief torture technique of NK prisons is holding back on food. Sounds familiar.

The Current TV reporters still got a better deal than Guantanamo detainees: they were given some sort of trial, no matter how "legitimate." So they at least had some sliver of a chance. And guess what? There's a limit to their detention!

Some here have pointed out that languages evolve, and that natural languages are constantly changing, shifting, and splitting, and that they have for thousands of years. Good point.

The difference between the "thousands of years" and the present is that we recognize this evolution and have a greater understanding of it. That's precisely why conlangs have emerged; we can adopt cognitive and logical rules to create a better way for ourselves. In other words, in this realm, we are on the verge of controlling our own evolution (just as it seems we are in biology). That's not necessarily a bad thing.

The best I've seen to date is the preposterously obscure "Mirad" or "Unilingua," which is an a priori language with an ingenious structure and pretty basic grammar. There is so much meaning in each word. It's pretty impressive. Check it out at wikibooks.

Glenn,

Am I mistaken, or was President Obama simply saying that he wouldn't start or be involved in torture investigations (and you've correctly argued before that he shouldn't/can't), but left open room for the DoJ or Congress to do whatever it sees fit? That's a much different construction of his "don't look back" argument than we've actually heard from him before.

Did I read that incorrectly?

If our jurisprudence operates on the idea that guilt is proven via the Court system, then so it goes that innocence is the default mode of classification for a detainee.

So these guys don't exist in some Schroedinger feline superposition where they are both guilty and innocent until something is proved. They are all innocent. For now.

The War President and pundits can say what they want, but only Courts can label someone guilty, ie a "terrorist."

Actually, I forgot. George HW Bush was in the Navy.

bignose just made one of the most interesting points I've heard on this topic in a really long time.

Looks like the "center" is that space occupied almost exclusively by people willing to be told anything, and the enablers who do the telling.

The current narrative is that there's nothing wrong with torture. It's accomplished by simply not addressing it as "torture."

The "center" is that place where common language is redefined for the purposes of telling people what to think.

Mission Accomplished.

We also need to address how an expert in the Law -- someone who dedicated an important chunk if his life to its study and teaching of it (and did it at the highest levels) -- could suddenly engage in activities that are so antithetical to its practice. In other words, what is it about the political establishment that can so quickly change such a seemingly ethical individual? That's also something that's pretty scary.

What I mean is, your posts argue from the side that says "regular courts can convict terrorists". I am saying we need to also highlight the opposite: that it's most likely that there are people in there that are entirely innocent who've been held for years and years for no reason (and even tortured). Our duty --- as a higher priority -- should be to prove the innocence of these people.

We are coming to the same cave, but digging from opposite sides of the mountain I think.