...are strictly banned for that reason by the Torture treaty and by its implementation in the U.S.

-- ondelette

Thanks for your great post (and all of your great posts on this topic). But, I wanted to point out this one passage. This should be repeated over and over again.

For example, this should be the response to the "ticking time bomb" argument. Do people who make that argument think that those who drafted and approved of the Torture treaty (and other international bans on torture) didn't think of that possiblity? The global decision that torture is unacceptable - in any form - was one that was made taking all the possible scenarios into account. Torture is so inhumane, so horrible, that there is no mitigation. There's no hemming and hawing on it, or shades of grey. There is a clear definition of torture, and whatever meets that definition is illegal.

If someone wants to argue that something doesn't meet the definition of torture, okay (though, good luck winning with that argument). But, to claim that there's some difference in the kinds of torture - especially in the context of whether investigation and prosecution should occur - is just asinine.

People take it personally, so there's a defensiveness. It's like, "okay, maybe my government broke the law, but it isn't as bad as that guy." Because, to admit otherwise, would probably cause a discomfort most Americans don't want to deal with, even those who aren't Bush supporters. But, they need to be remined that the laws exist for a reason - torture is unacceptable no matter what the form. Discussions of which torturer is worse are counter-productive.

Glenn, these are the types your anti-Israel rants attract.

-- WinSmith

Do you believe that criticism of Israel is ever legitimate?

I don't know why so many on our side become so pathologically rage filled when the word "Israel" is spoken.

-- WinSmith

I was wondering the same thing about WinSmith.

Name names please.

-- Paul Daniel Ash

...While you're at it, WinSmith, please provide what criticism of Israel you've seen that you've found acceptable.

The US adopts a non-interventionist foreign policy.

-- Chris Sinnard

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that advocating for a non-interventionist foreign policy makes you an anti-semite. You might want to double check with one of our resident experts.

ISRAEL IS TEH EVIL!!!

-- WinSmith

This hyperbole is both infantile and dishonest. Furthermore, I'm starting to get downright pissed off the way the term "anti-semitsm" is being thrown around and cheapened in service of salving the feelings of someone who doesn't like his political views to be challenged.

Learn the difference between criticism of Israeli foreign policy and anti-semitism. You have yet to say what criticisms of Israel's policies are acceptable. When challenged,you attempted to deflect, but it didn't work because you're not dealing with a bunch of idiots. (Though, I think my dog could have seen through that load of BS.) So, go ahead - prove to everyone that you can rationally see the difference between criticism of a foreign policy and an active hatred of group on racial/cultural/religious/ethnic grounds.

And, while you're at it figure out a way to coherently argue why Israeli foreign policy is correct without throwing around false accusations.

I see you got to it first. Now I shall read on to see if we actually get an answer. I suspect not. His fingers would spontaneously tie themselves in knots before they would let him type up any criticism he actually agreed with, or even found reasonable, if such a thing exists.

-- Pedinska

When I asked him to provide legitimate criticism is when we got the teenaged-level rant about "there is no anti-semitism." Nevermind that no one said any such thing.

I don't think he can tell the difference, really. Some part of him knows that, to appear rational, he had to admit that there legitimate criticism exists. But, see his latest response to Kitt: it appears that his current position is that, because of a potential for anti-semitism, he has to reflexively refer to all criticism of Israel as anti-semitic. Clever. (And, by "clever," I mean completely transparent and lacking any sort of logic or rationality.)

UtbK - it's like the deafening silence that was heard when some poor slob of a reporter asked Bush to give one example of his administration's mistakes. I wonder if Win has the same stupid expression on his face.

-- Pedinska

I'm actually picturing him as bright red and stamping his feet. ;)

I sure hope it's not genetic in nature 'cause I'm about as blonde and blue-eyed as a Shiksa Sex Goddess (h/t Mooser) gets.

-- Pedinska

You and me both, babe.

I hesitate to point out that I have family members who are Jewish and that I regularly attend temple, becuase it sounds too much like, "some of my best friends are black" (or, in the case of Sarah Palin, "some of my best friends are 'teh gay'"). I don't think that gives me a pass, anyway.

Apparently, the only acceptable path is to, well, blindly support Israel. Ironic, eh?

(I actually think that WS is just pissed off that anyone dared to disagree with him, and he's taking it personally. That's what happens with the resident trolls - they so identify with a particular side that they will not tolerate any criticism of that side, no matter how accurate. Basically, his feewings got huwt. Poor baby.)