I don't think you're saying it's justifiable to suspend habeous corpus, order torture, etc. during a "real" civil war, but it almost sounds like it. Wouldn't it be stronger to say that even in times of war a President should not suspend habeous corpus or commit other crimes against its people? Lincoln was wrong. Bush is wrong. Taylor Jr. is wrong.

Right?

I wasn't saying it's justifiable to suspend habeous corpus, order torture, etc. during a "real" civil war and didn't come close to saying it.

I agree with the points you make but they have nothing to do with the point I was making.

Bush defenders claim that they ordered torture because there were legitimate threats they faced. The same could be said of the Taylors of Liberia and most other war criminals. That's the point I was making.

the gist of DCLaw1's comments, it's interesting that s/he feels that in order to effectively ridicule Tommy [who is presumably male] he must be turned into a [caricature of a]woman.

One has to wonder if Israel would've launched their current illegal campaign if Bush had been held responsible for his sundry of war crimes.

After all, if an American President was held responsible for war crimes then EVERY President around the world would be too.

We're headed towards lawlessness, the consequences of which are too horrible to imagine.

I will say one thing; engaging someone politely and professionally is usually more likely to change their mind about something, rather than backing them up into a defensive posture where they become just more obnoxious about defedning their point of view. Unless, they write something that really pisses me off about an issue I care deeply about. Then screw em.

I suppose it depends on what your goal is at any given time.

...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.

The streets of Washington will flow red with nosebleeds.

It may be true--

Obama stirs and blood flows red,

But if he doesn't

it spills liberal blue.

No rules apply to us. Standards of behavior are not based upon abstract standards, or generalizations (some might say 'laws'), but on simple comparison to Our Enemies.

I think other commenters have said it in the past, but the intense irony of this is that this view comes from many of the same people who make a cottage industry of condemning liberals' "moral relativism."

That itself is, of course, just another form of chauvinism - to attempt to claim the moral high ground by accusing your social/political opponents of not adhering to an objective and immovable moral standard when that standard is your own, then immediately taking shelter in relativistic comparisons to worse people when "your side" violates some other objective moral standard.

That is, the shifting "meta-lens" through which they view moral questions themselves, and its being anchored to nothing other than a childlike inability to see beyond one's own importance and superiority, is itself the epitome of moral relativism and, consequently, immorality.

Unless, they write something that really pisses me off about an issue I care deeply about. Then screw em.

I would only add that if someone comes here to intentionally push buttons, and has shown time and time again to have no interest in really learning anything or changing their perspectives... then why not engage in a little flamage? It's a stress alleviant, and helps sharpen your arguments for someone who might actually be willing to learn.

Why should their side's assholes have all the fun, I guess is what I'm saying.

We now return you to the on-topic discussion, still in progress...

Right on.

As for their assholes, I wouldn't know anything of their comings and goings.

Glenn, it's absolutely mind boggling that these people refuse to face up to their hypocrisy.

When Elise Keppler of Human Rights Watch said the following about the Taylor prosecution I immediately thought about how our "beltway aristocrats" just can't seem to grasp this simple concept when it comes to our homegrown war criminals.

"This whole process has sent a message that when it comes to the most serious crimes, there cannot be impunity," she said. "Without a penalty that fits the gravity of the crime, it risks sending a message that these crimes will be tolerated."

Because our "aristocrats" will probably be successful in their campaign to make sure that Bush officials are not held accountable, one day we might just see someone from Iraq or Afghanistan hunting down Bush war criminals like the Mossad did with Nazi war criminals. Of course should that happen our aristocrats will probably forget all about how they supported hunting Nazis and just call the new war criminal hunters, terrorists.