So you don't think that crucifixion is as bad as any torture you can imagine (with or without breaking the skin, it matters not)?

Maybe in your next life you can experience it yourself, and thereby learn the truth. Hell, maybe you'll get the opportunity to experience it in THIS life, if things continue in the USA in the same direction they've been going for quite a while now.

Glenn,

You said this to a commenter today:

(One of the vital points, in my view, is that there is not "two sides to every issue.")

Really...I never thought of you as being this close-minded. I usually associate this attribute to more conservative elements...lol. This is disappointing to me.

If your statement is true then what is the answer to gun control, abortion, intersection stoplights....surely there must be room for debate on every issue. If not, why is the first amendment worth anything or the press? And who is to say which issues there are not to sides to? You, me, who?

In any case, I do enjoy this article and please keep hammering for justice and getting government officials prosecuted for the the crimes of warrantless wiretapping and torture.

Respectfully,

vv

By NEVE GORDON and JEFF HALPER

Not one of the nearly 450 presidents of American colleges and universities who prominently denounced an effort by British academics to boycott Israeli universities in September 2007 have raised their voice in opposition to Israel’s bombardment of the Islamic University of Gaza earlier this week. Lee C. Bollinger, president of Columbia University, who organized the petition, has been silent, as have his co-signatories from Princeton, Northwestern, and Cornell Universities, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Most others who signed similar petitions, like the 11,000 professors from nearly 1,000 universities around the world, have also refrained from expressing their outrage at Israel’s attack on the leading university in Gaza. The artfully named Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, which organized the latter appeal, has said nothing about the assault.

While the extent of the damage to the Islamic University, which was hit in six separate airstrikes, is still unknown, recent reports indicate that at least two major buildings were targeted, a science laboratory and the Ladies’ Building, where female students attended classes. There were no casualties, as the university was evacuated when the Israeli assault began on Saturday.

Virtually all the commentators agree that the Islamic University was attacked, in part, because it is a cultural symbol of Hamas, the ruling party in the elected Palestinian government, which Israel has targeted in its continuing attacks in Gaza. Mysteriously, hardly any of the news coverage has emphasized the educational significance of the university, which far exceeds its cultural or political symbolism.

Established in 1978 by the founder of Hamas — with the approval of Israeli authorities — the Islamic University is the first and most important institution of higher education in Gaza, serving more than 20,000 students, 60 percent of whom are women. It comprises 10 faculties — education, religion, art, commerce, Shariah law, science, engineering, information technology, medicine, and nursing — and awards a variety of bachelor’s and master’s degrees. Taking into account that Palestinian universities have been regionalized because Palestinian students from Gaza are barred by Israel from studying either in the West Bank or abroad, the educational significance of the Islamic University becomes even more apparent.

rest of it is at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon12312008.html

or click sig

==========

To target civilians in this manner is a war crime worthy of Nazis. Have the Jews become the Germans?

....surely there must be room for debate on every issue.

VV,

Since you posted your question in comments, I'm assuming you wish to discuss it with all of us. Otherwise, if it was intended as a private communication, I'd have expected you to have emailed it directly to Glenn.

To the substance of your question, then... why must there be room for debate on every issue? Is there room for debate, in your mind, as to whether the person who comments under the name "Vox Vocis res Publica" should have the right of freedom of speech, or of assembly? Is the question of whether you shuld be tortured or not something that is open to debate? I'm not asking whether you can defend those abstract concepts in debate - anyone should, of course, given adequate wit and the time and motivation to do so - but whether you think there are two reasonable propositions of equal value on either side of the issue.

If not, why is the first amendment worth anything or the press? And who is to say which issues there are not to sides to? You, me, who?

These questions make me think you have a profound misunderstanding of what Glenn was referring to. Maybe you could help me by talking about the assumptions that underly such questions.

Again, if you intended your question to be for Glenn alone, please send an email to GGreenwald@salon.com.

Happy New Year.

Glenn,

Just one last note, what about our legal system that you were once a part of? Isn't the fact that we have a system of justice based on opposing views with a judge or jury to decide truth or guilt and innocence prove that we, as a society, do in fact believe there are two sides to every issue?

Just food for thought,

Happy New Year!

vv

If your statement is true then what is the answer to[...] intersection stoplights....

-- Vox Vocis res Publica

Unless you think there is two sides to a debate about whether or not it would be acceptable if some people obey intersection stoplights while others do not, then you have answered your own inquiry, as faulty as it was.

The Constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment applies equally to commenters with Latin screen names. Are there "two sides" to that proposition? Do I have to give consideration to its converse in order to be "open minded"?

Thanks for the comment. To try and answer, I would expect there to be debate on every issue in order to keep us from becoming to absolute on any one issue. Without debate, what do we have? Tyranny possibly?

I would not try to defend such horrible things like torture although I might be able to dream up some situations (if I try hard enough...:)) that should be open for debate.

As a former auditor, I don't really believe in absolutes on political issues. I do believe in absolutes for things like mathematics,etc...

I just think absolutes lead people down paths they should not take eventually.

Those are just my thought.

Happy New Year you also. Thanks,

vv