essentially mean being liberal?

Seems like it's almost a rule when talking about the Iraq war.

I wonder.

"the motives of the players are basically irrelevant," why dwell on them?

Motives are for psychologists, maybe historians, but not, as far as I understand it, for political scientists. Is it really that difficult to realize that any discussion in that direction will be construed as mitigation?

If one is so eager to express one's "understanding" -- why not wait until the prosecution begins, and then contribute as a character witness? As it stands, this discussion on "understanding" undermines the entire cause for prosecution. Indeed, it thrusts directly against it.

I find it very hard to believe in "good intentions" when torturing -- and in "good intentions" when "understanding" torturing. Torture is one of the rare cases when taking a strong and "cut and dried" moral stance is easy. These two guys make it sound so hard... it's sinister.

Torture is torture is torture.

is fallacious:

1. When speaking of "economic growth" as a result -- as the positive outcome -- of Israeli occupation of Gaza, he essentially expresses a belief that Palestinians don't have the right for nationalist ideal and sovereignty, and that they should "sell" their freedom for economic progress. Not only this is a diminishing view of an entire people, it's also the opposite of Israeli-Zionist ideology, which takes pride in its drive for nationalist self-identification.

2. He fails to deduce that it is precisely the economic growth that led to Palestinian resistance: when people are relatively well-off, their mind turns to occupations less pressing than immediate survival. One of theses occupations is the struggle for political independence. The whole notion of expecting Palestinians to be content with economic growth is self-refuting and contradictory -- independence and freedom is the next thing people want (especially considering the cultural importance of honor) when they are not hungry.

By routinely bombing Gaza, by destroying its infrastructure and economy, Israel puts the region's residents back in a state where all they could worry about is immediate survival. Israel denies Palestinians the right for political independence, and does all it can to remove the social-economic platform that can support these nationalist desires.

That is the epitome of oppression.

the prosecution of Charles "Chuckie" Taylor, Jr. may have an underlying motive that is baser and meaner than the apparent display of misplaced justice and double standard.

It very well may be a calculated move that relies on the worst of human prejudices -- racism or xenophobia -- to draw a clear line between "real torture," as it was done in Africa, and American torture. The Bush administration needs this as a publicity move that would point the finger at the other (the foreign black man) and symbolically relieve the American people of communal responsibility. I don't doubt that they hope this will render litigation of American torture even more inconceivable in the minds of many people.

This case is an indirect continuation of the undermining of prosecution efforts. And maybe not so indirect.

Torture is something they do... those dark-skinned, uncivilized African tribesmen.

very interesting and insightful.

One thing that bothered me was how Hewitt was trying to corner GG into a concession by forcing the utterly inapplicable example of Hitler (isn't there a saying that goes "whoever mentions Hitler in a debate immediately loses it?").

I think these historical comparisons are futile and irrelevant. Moreover, there's no way to know when would have been the right time to "crush Hitler like a bug." The whole notion of retrospectively "crushing Hitler like a bug" is a populist slogan that comes very, very cheap. It's much harder to do the right thing in the present.

In my view the correct answer is not after Anschluss, not after the invasion of Poland -- it is simply "I don't know." Nobody knows. I'm sure Hewitt thinks he does, however.

Hugh Hewitt has shown that although he presumes to learn from history, he actually doesn't, while Glenn Greenwald, who carefully acknowledges history's complex uniqueness, in fact does.

at all if in fact the whole Dodd thing was carefully staged, the senator being aware of his political end, and deciding to take the blame in return for a bonus we will never learn about.