I find myself obsessively pondering what I could and could not, er, hide there.

The "pre-menopausal" bit was not the TMI part.

For the neocon apologist's viewpoint of their enemy [us]to function, its necessary for them to assume that none of us have any relatives serving in the military; that none of us--even the ones that lived in NYC--could have possibly been affected by 9-11 the way they and other patriotic Americans were; and that none of us have ever experienced the horrors of war. Highly unlikely in a group of this size, no matter what the political inclination. They make all these assumptions while weaving highly dubious tales of their own patriotic sacrifices for their country.

Such assumptions and inventions make these posters look very, very stupid, from the moment they write their first sentences herein.

Mona... You get the "Depends" award for the evening with that comment, which surely swept the nation with a lot of embarrassing spills of all kinds.

Double you whoah whoah whoah.

But how do you know I don't know? I've said nothing about it.

-- Baldie McEagle

He knows because his son and his brother and his invisible friends are all "Special Ops" guys. So they, and bigsteve, have all the goods on you. You know? in this age of warrantless spying?

Once you've determined that saving American lives is more important than morality, you're on a slippery slope that you may as well just take down to the bottom.

-- scathew

Exactly right. Well said.

Laugh. Out. Loud.

Mona, that was funny!

Good idea for dealing with the TSA, however. Gonna have to think about that one. ;-)

My experience with my father, who was a navigator/bombadier in WWII was much the same. He just would not talk about it. He never voted for a Republican after Eisenhower, and he vocally campaigned against Bush 41. I'm relieved, for him, that he never got to see Bush 43.

My Dad was of the Korean War generation, not the "Greatest Generation", however he was a rabid conservative and lifetime Republican. He was even a member of the "John Birch" society, and did in fact vote for Bush 43.

However, and this is where Steve gets it wrong, he strongly voiced how unjust the Japanese internment was and thought McCarthy was evil. The point being, just because people come from the generation who might be inclined to vote for Bush, doesn't mean they would support torture. They may be conservative, but they aren't immoral.

The "pre-menopausal" bit was not the TMI part

No more grief from you, sir, or I shall set forth all of my considered objects with an opinion as to whether each could be so, uh, inserted (without walking like a penguin). Hrmmmmph.

I used a hand model for that picture, Mr. Anderson, who happened to hang drywall once in a while.

It's now clear that the Bush administration is setting up the Obama administration to issue pardons to top officials of the Bush admin. They may also have to grant immunity to people to get them to testify in front of congress. This is going to be very messy and occupy a significant portion of the justice department's resources.

Obama is probably not going to make prosecution a priority, because there's no political "upside" for him to do so. However, this assumes that the left-wing blogging universe is not on his radar, which may not be true: consider the case of John Brennan.

As for torture...I have nothing to add to this exciting debate about genitalia and explosives.

Re: force-feeding captives

Tube feeding is not per se torture or cruel and unusual punishment. Ordinarily, it is considered uncomfortable and the procedure of inserting the tube is sometimes painful, though when properly done, it needn't be. I'm familiar with the procedure, and I've seen well done examples as well as examples that have gone wrong.

Force-feeding captives, however, appears to be done to deliberately cause pain and discomfort -- as much as possible, for as long as possible -- both to punish the captives for their defiance of authority (by going on a hunger strike in the first place) and to dissuade them from continuing (so as to avoid the pain.)

This report of an ACLU suit appeared in Raw Story a couple of weeks ago:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote a letter to US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates Friday protesting the "inhumane and unlawful practice" of force-feeding hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay prison.

"I am writing to bring your attention to the cruel, inhuman, degrading and unlawful treatment of the thirty hunger striking detainees currently held at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility," wrote ACLU Human Rights Program director Jamil Dakwar.

Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said there were 34 hunger strikers at the prison and that 25 of them were being force-fed. The ACLU said it based its estimates on media reports.

"Force-feeding is universally considered to be a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," Dakwar wrote to Gates.

"We respectfully and urgently request that you immediately order the prison camp's commander to cease all force-feeding of detainees who are capable of forming a rational judgment and are aware of the consequences of refusing food."

Dawkar also cited various reports that found that force-feeding at Guantanamo Bay amounted to torture and violated several US Supreme Court holdings and international agreements, including the Convention Against Torture ratified by the United States in 1994.

Lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees told AFP that force-fed prisoners were masked and strapped to a chair twice a day and were force fed protein-rich liquids through tubes inserted in their noses. The lawyers said the practice amounted to torture.

"Debilitating risks of force-feeding include major infections, pneumonia and collapsed lungs," said Dawkar, recalling that five detainees have died in custody at the US naval base prison.

Smith defended detainee care at Guantanamo Bay. "As always, our dedicated medical staff provides superb health care to all detainees, and they closely monitor the health of those detainees who choose to hunger strike," she said.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/afp/ACLU_protests_force_feeding_Guantan_01092009.html

There's been some dispute over whether the procedures now in use are less stressful and painful than those previously used at Guantanamo. Nevertheless, the description above is not at all comforting.

As for prolonged isolation, it has long been known to drive prisoners quite mad. The barking mad prisoner caused by being held in solitary for too long is almost iconic of the prison novel genre c. 1800 and onwards. The Quaker penitentiary experiment in Philadelphia was a true horror that served as a model for other penitentiaries. While it may turn inmates into wimpering madmen, seems that's kind of what they wanted, eh?

And so, perhaps, the misery of encagement and abuse at Guantanamo and the rest of the GWOT gulag is meant for the same purpose.