conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

By George, you've got it!

But there is a difference between civilisation and barbarism; it's just that, as you say, the powers that be say they are of one but are really of the other.

And unlike the liberals (including this crew trying to pass themselves off as conservatives) I don't believe it's the state's rôle to 'evangelise' 'democracy' to the world, certainly not at gunpoint nor through torture! (Orwellian really: 'freedom' = doing what this crew want. 'You vill be free und you vill like it.')

Incidentally that famous statue in New York, 'Liberty Enlightening the World', is not about immigration nor this but rather being a good example to other countries so that they adopt good principles on their own.

i don't think the "war on terror" is a war of ideas. i just think it's a war about power and control dressed up in highfallootin rhetoric about ideas. in other words, it's not all that different from any other war. the main difference is that, at least as mr. bush has been applying his military forces, our country is mostly in the wrong and is generally making things worse, not better.

Preach on, Preacher!!!

Tripp, I don't expect you to agree with me in any discussion of war, but I'd appreciate it if you read the Geneva Convention documents through, and got your facts straight before joining the demagoguery.

First, those who aren't signatories, or who violate the precepts of the GC, abdicate any right to their protection. This means that if you hide weapons among civilians, or decline to dress your fighters in uniforms, or engage in any of myriad other forbidden practices, then by the rules set out by the GCs themselves, even signatories to the GC don't have to observe them when dealing with you. Our Supreme Court decision to the contrary is both A) in violation of the text of the GCs themselves, and B) evidence of the American tendency to be better than the enemy anyway.

The GCs, by the way, are maddening in their ambiguity as to what is and isn't permissible, requiring every signatory nation to interpret them for itself. W is asking for clarification to protect our interrogators from the "holding to account" likely to be done by, for example, the Saudis, the Syrians, the Iranians and/or the North Vietnamese, all of whom have proven repeatedly their willingness to employ real torture (i.e., limb-chopping, beatings, starvation, rape of wives and daughters, beheading of family members) against their own political and religious prisoners.

As for the interrogation techniques W is asking for permission to employ, we're looking at things like sleep deprivation, forced standing, raising of voices, chilly rooms, loud music, and the missing of single meals. Brutal, truly.

Is there any way you'd be willing to inconvenience a prisoner to get information from them? Sadly, I think I know your answer: war and imprisonment resulting therefrom, let alone coercion in any form of a Fellow Human Being, are outside the pale of any situation you'd condone, so you feel free to sidestep the debate by refusing to engage in its particulars or "haggle over torture methods."

I understand I'm putting words in your mouth with this, but you appear to be standing up to be counted with the looniest among us, who believe that Evil Chimpy McFlightsuit Bushitler is at it again, and the only thing keeping him and Rumsfeld from eating Iraqi and Palestinian babies on national TV is the heroic obstruction of the Principled Pacifist Left.

The President is trying to save the lives of as many Americans as possible in a time of war. It's one of the primary things he was elected (and reelected) to do. He is thwarted in this at nearly every turn by people of philosophical bents very near to yours.

Rich, I'll get a copy and read the GC. Good idea. I made the mistake of trusting my local government official again.

Still, what is the basic drive behind the GC? Is it just to keep us from letting war get out of hand? Is it from one Christian nation to anaother? You know, historically, this is most likely...Western Europe and all that.

Where I will pick nits with you is whether or not we are formally at war. We are not. That is that. There has been no official pronouncemnt. This is an ongoing debate between people like ourselves. W says we are at war. Congress, well most of 'em, say we are not. It is an ephemeral type of warfare at best. But we are not "at war."

I agree that W's job is to protect the people of the US and it's Constitution. But when this places him against his own self-proclaimed faith tradition (Methodists wants to give him a good scolding if you recall.) and mine, I feel I should speak out.

Again, W's responsibilities take him outside what I see as the Christian perview. Perhaps to you this is looney. I understand that we disagree on this particularity of faith. I see no place for violence...even so-called minimal violence as you laid out before me.

People in prison are in our care. People in prisoner-of-war camps are in our care and are deserving of such rights as we offer our citizens. Why? Because we should continually hold ourselves to the standard to which W claims loyalty. If we are going to proclaim high ideals, then we should do so without exception.

"All men."

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Oh, this is from the Geneva Convention...

Yeah, here is clarity? Oy.

Article 1

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

url: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

So, is Rich right, are we not bound by the treaty if Iraq is not? Or are we? Someone 'splain it to me.

It sounds like Rich is right. Others?

Rape, beatings, and humiliation have been used by soldiers acting on their own during this conflict, and the government has prosecuted these criminals.

I am afraid that if some people, disregarding or at least ignorant of the rules, behave so badly when our standards are higher, that we will see people take the authorization of these relatively tame interrogation techniques as authorization for even more intense techniques.

Because some people acted badly earlier, authorizing some currently prohibited forms of coercion seems like a bad idea: people go overboard easily, and often with no regard to the law.

For me this debate has little to do with the Geneva Conventions or US law. My experience has been that people (in general) cannot be trusted with violence and with the power of life and death. Think of the significant number of death row exonerations in Illinois; Republican Gov. George Ryan felt that these instance demonstrated enough error within the system that he commuted every death sentence. My family is from Cuba, and I know from their experience that people can act very, very inhumanely in and out of uniform, as part of a revolution or a counter-revolution, in the service of an ideology and sometimes not. Although I'm on the Left, I don't condone Castro's revolution because of its complete disregard of human rights. My grandfather was tortured because he faught for democracy and human rights. I don't think people can be trusted with the power of life and death. And torture can result in death and lifelong injury.

No, I'm not saying we can't have a police force. No, I'm not saying a person cannot kill another in self-defense. No, I'm not saying that we cannot act with deadly force to prevent (some would say "preempt") planned violence.

What I am saying is that people frequently abuse the power, position, and authorizations they are legally given, and to authorize a little bit more freedom to coerce now may mean authorizing a little bit later, and in the meantime may mean a lot of overstepping of the legal limits on such action. If the methods you've mentioned are in fact all that is being proposed, I would not have a problem with it. But I do not believe it would stop there. When does it? When do people respect the law when an enemy, perceived or real, is involved. Islamist terrorists do not respect religious, moral, or international law when attacking their enemies. Should we? I do not believe that our government and the individuals within it have a very good track record of treating enemies or perceived enemies morally.

Regardless of the Geneva Conventions, some things should not be done even if they are done to us.

Aren't we talking about whether the US can be tried in a public arena to determine whether they have violated the GC? The GC is ambiguous, the Prez is trying to make it black and white to avoid the embarassment of trial. If we believe that we are on the right side of ambiguity, then we ought to risk the trial and demonstrate our justification. But the reality is that we do not believe the world will treat us fairly and we do not believe that we will be found justified in the eyes of communities we do not hold up as peers. In fact, much of this stems from the total disregard with which the current administration holds the rest of the world.

Perhaps the administration thinks that the exportation of "democracy" will offset the trade deficit? If we are so "moral" as a country, let's propose our own enhancement to the GC that holds us to a higher standard than the rest of the world. We certainly are powerful enough to take a stand that will cost us economically in order to regain our moral high ground. And then, if we really want to stop terrorism, we need to go back to square 1 and export ideas, food and other charity without the strings, including the rope of profit. Some cultures will take advantage of us, but some will not, and that may be the best we can achieve.

Tripp, thanks for being willing to question. It's good to be reminded that not everyone in the debate is entrenched in their beliefs at the expense of fact.

As to whether we're formally at war or not, this is the best treatment I've seen: [http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20030319.html]. And the guy's hardly a supporter. Basically, Congress said "go to war if you need to," and W did. It's as legal a war as Korea, Viet Nam or Gulf War I.

People in prison may be in our care, but in wartime they're also *enemies* who A) wish to do us harm, and B) are highly likely to possess information that would help us prevent harm coming from their brethren-in-arms. This is reality, and to fail to at least attempt to obtain the information in point B would be a dereliction of duty for a sworn protector.

Read this article: [http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_deadly_kindness_opedcolumnists_richard_miniter.htm] for example after example of how we pamper the enemy combatants we've collected. Read this article: [http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2361518] for examples of how we tend to be treated by practitioners of the Religion of Peace when captured, presuming we're not beheaded for rebroadcast on Al-Jazeera.

We are *already* more moral in our treatment of prisoners than the Islamofascists. What W's working for is clarity in the edgier means of self-defense we have available to us. Nothing more.

Rich, not the "Different Rich", you are welcome. But let me push you. I think that our beliefs should push us to look beyond the facts and live within bolder hopes. So, whether it is the "spirit" of the GC or the Constitution or Christian scripture, we should always push for more, a greater hope and not less.

My fear with this war and any is that it is a failure to live into what we are called to be. I am not sure that a person's actions or beliefs can exonerate (sp) them from a high moral claim, but neither can they keep that person from being a beneficiary. That is what this war of ideas is becomming for me. We no longer grant our enemies the benefits of our own standards. And in the process we actually reduce our standards.

First, those who aren't signatories, or who violate the precepts of the GC, abdicate any right to their protection. This means that if you hide weapons among civilians, or decline to dress your fighters in uniforms, or engage in any of myriad other forbidden practices, then by the rules set out by the GCs themselves, even signatories to the GC don't have to observe them when dealing with you

hey rich, have you read them? i have. and i think that what you wrote is completely and utterly wrong. they apply to the nationals of any country that ratified the convention, and that includes virtually every country in the world, including afghanistan, pakistan, iraq, saudi arabia, uzbekistan, basically the nationals of any country i can think of.

also, you are completely wrong that the conventions don't apply to anyone who violates them. in fact, one of the bedrock principles of the conventions is that they provide absolute protections, even if the prisoner belongs to a country that violates the conventions.

besides, if you were right, then our own soldiers could be tortured under the geneva conventions. after all, we employ all kinds of special forces that do not wear uniforms so they can pass freely among the locals.

The GCs, by the way, are maddening in their ambiguity as to what is and isn't permissible, requiring every signatory nation to interpret them for itself

also wrong. the international red cross is charged with determining compliance with the conventions. that's why the conventions require the red cross be given access to all prisoners. that's why bush's attempt to "clarify" the conventions is viewed pretty much around the world as an attempt to eliminate their protections. oddly, as ambiguous as these conventions are said to be, our military has had no problem enforcing them for over 60 years (and we were quite vigilent in enforcing them in vietnam and the gulf war)

for example, the Saudis, the Syrians, the Iranians and/or the North Vietnamese, all of whom have proven repeatedly their willingness to employ real torture (i.e., limb-chopping, beatings, starvation, rape of wives and daughters, beheading of family members) against their own political and religious prisoners

that's true. but it's also not relevant. just because someone else violates the GC doesn't permit us to. that's also crystal clear. and that's why the u.s. insisted (quite rightly, in fact) that it follow the GC during the vietnam war even as north vietnam refused to.

As for the interrogation techniques W is asking for permission to employ, we're looking at things like sleep deprivation, forced standing, raising of voices, chilly rooms, loud music, and the missing of single meals. Brutal, truly

it goes a bit beyond that. bush wants the standard to be that it's not torture unless the pain is equivalent to the pain experienced in cases of organ failure. that would mean that pulling fingernails out would be okay. not that there's any evidence that we've done that, but it would also permit things like waterboarding, electric shock, repeated beatings, that we have done.

ironically, this stuff doesn't even work. maher arad was tortured and confessed to all kinds of things that were completely untrue. one of the reason that so much of the military is against bush's proposal is because harsh treatment is only really effective at getting false confessions and bad information. the case of abu zubaydah is a perfect example.

Is there any way you'd be willing to inconvenience a prisoner to get information from them? Sadly, I think I know your answer: war and imprisonment resulting therefrom, let alone coercion in any form of a Fellow Human Being, are outside the pale of any situation you'd condone, so you feel free to sidestep the debate by refusing to engage in its particulars or "haggle over torture methods."

actually, the GC permits you to inconvenience a prisoner to question him/her. you just cannot subject them to inhumain or degrading practices. that's what this is about. for 60 years the international community has carefully catalogued what is considered inhumain and degrading. bush wants to throw that out and redefine it to allow people to be hung from shackles for days, waterboarding, and electric shock.

actually, what he's doing is trying to avoid a war crime charge at some point in the future. by admitting to violate the GC, that means bush qualifies as a war criminal. that's why every proposed reinterpretation is being made retroactive. this is as much about covering the president's ass as "giving him the tools" as he puts it.

I understand I'm putting words in your mouth with this, but you appear to be standing up to be counted with the looniest among us...

yes, the loonies. colon powell, most of the brass at the pentagon, several prominent republican senators, the international red cross society, most legal scholars... the list goes on and on. loonies everywhere! that's why when bush's party controls both houses of congress he still can't get his bill passed.

> I think that our beliefs should push us to look beyond the facts and live within bolder hopes.

And how do they not currently? What is the coddling of Guantanamo detainees if not outright denial of fact in the service of a greater ideal? Read Miniter's piece!

> We no longer grant our enemies the benefits of our own standards.

YES WE DO, and then some. There are currently more restrictions on an interrogator in our military when getting information out of a prisoner than on our own policemen when dealing with a citizen suspect.

We already hold ourselves to an incredibly high standard when dealing with our enemies, to the point that we endanger ourselves by accosting grandmothers and eight-year-olds at the airport, while letting nervous-looking 18-to-25-year-old men in Khafiyyas pass without a glance.

I don't grant your premise that we're lowering ourselves to the standards of our enemies. War is a dirty business, though, and denying the fact of it transforms our high standards into a suicide pact.

Nice rebuttal, upyernoz, although that tag does undermine your credibility a tad. I agree with your interpretation of the GC, at least the part that Tripp reprinted. It seems clear that signatories are bound regardless of the behavior of others.

I also intended to point out the quality of the opposition to the Prez as you did in your last paragraph. It isn't often that the side of compassion has military allies. But they know that it is their ox that will be gored if we weaken the GC in such a public way.

Do you suppose that Mr. Bush's attorneys have realized that they have committed several clear breaches of the GC at the direct command of the Prez? This might invite his trial for war crimes. Of course, he would never present himself, and the political complex would protect him until he died, but the embarassment to the US and to the Bush clan would be horrific.

Sorry Rich, that last sentence is hyperbole. The fact is that we have fought war after war without torture and without lowering ourselves to the level of our enemies (for the most part). Nothing makes this any different, and if a few more Americans are killed in order to protect our basic decency, that sacrifice appears much more noble than the sacrifice of Americans to protect the oil fields and to impose our version of democracy on others. If we carry your philosophy further, we may as well nuke every section of the Middle East that foments terror because it will save American lives that you perceive to be much more valuable than the lives of others. You are making an inherent value judgment that because we live in America, we have the right to pretend that an offensive war is a defensive effort.

Upyernoz:

>also, you are completely wrong that the conventions don't apply to anyone who violates them.

False. From Article 2 of "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War":

---
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts [!!!]and applies[!!!] the provisions thereof.
---

If the latter doesn't apply the provisions, then bang, they're off the list.

> after all, we employ all kinds of special forces that do not wear uniforms so they can pass freely among the locals

Fine with me. Live by the law, die by the law.

> our military has had no problem enforcing them for over 60 years (and we were quite vigilent in enforcing them in vietnam and the gulf war)

Because we've never addressed an enemy in 60 years whose every major method of action was a GC violation, and which adhering to the GC hampered us so completely in responding.

> bush wants the standard to be that it's not torture unless the pain is equivalent to the pain experienced in cases of organ failure. that would mean that pulling fingernails out would be okay. not that there's any evidence that we've done that, but it would also permit things like waterboarding, electric shock, repeated beatings, that we have done.

Got a source for this standard?

> ironically, this stuff doesn't even work.

Ah, yes, was wondering when that would come up. Ask one of those Special Forces guys (who undergo torture-resistance training) whether it works. Besides, if it's so universally known that coercion is ineffective, then why would the Bush Administration be interested in inaccurate information?

different Rich:

"Nothing makes this any different" is the first premise I'm going to deny. As I mentioned in my reply to 'noz, the terrorist enemy is qualitatively different from any other type. Terrorism only occasionally attacks military targets: its primary target is noncombatants: civilians. Violation of the GCs (and then hiding behind them for protection afterward) is their stock in trade. It's practically the definition of terrorism. So reinterpretation may in fact be necessary.

"if a few more Americans are killed in order to protect our basic decency, that sacrifice appears much more noble than the sacrifice of Americans to protect the oil fields and to impose our version of democracy on others"

Wow, just wow. I could go into the need to establish a beachhead in the Middle East, self defense, etc., but I have a sneaking suspicion you're not listening to that flavor of reason today. That and, you're willing to sacrifice Americans to *appear* more noble?

"If we carry your philosophy further, we may as well nuke every section of the Middle East that foments terror because it will save American lives that you perceive to be much more valuable than the lives of others."

I'm an American. I and others like me were attacked five years ago by Islamic nutjobs. Islamic nutjobs, and the governments and social forces that support them, devalued themselves against the American radically by attacking. I hope it never comes to nukes, but speak to Mr. Ahmadinejad about that, wouldja?

"You are making an inherent value judgment that because we live in America, we have the right to pretend that an offensive war is a defensive effort."

No, I'm making the value judgment that because I live in America and America was attacked by Islamofascists, that taking the war to the I-fascists is a defensive effort, to which we have a basic right.

rich:

(1) "accepts and applies"

"accepts" means signing. "applies" means confirming by legislation. i.e. ratifying the conventions. as my link in the above post notes, pretty much every relevant country ratified the convention (including iraq and afghanistan). remember, once a country ratifies the conventions, then they apply even if the force that is doing the fighting is not recognized as a legitimate government by our country.

(2) me: our military has had no problem enforcing them for over 60 years (and we were quite vigilent in enforcing them in vietnam and the gulf war)

rich: Because we've never addressed an enemy in 60 years whose every major method of action was a GC violation, and which adhering to the GC hampered us so completely in responding.

the nazis didn't honor the geneva conventions. neither did the north vietnamese. once again, the GCs are clear that you have to honor them once you ratify them, even if the side you are fighting does not. that is what our line was in every war since we signed the first convention in the late 19th century, even though our country has faced many opponents who didn't honor them.

(3) me: bush wants the standard to be that it's not torture unless the pain is equivalent to the pain experienced in cases of organ failure.

rich: Got a source for this standard?

yes, the so-called "bybee memo" written by alberto gonzalez to define what is acceptable torture (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/bybee80102mem.pdf). the legal standard they recommend to define torture was: "Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

once again, because pulling out fingernails is suborgan failure, it would be entirely kosher under the bush standard. so would sodomizing someone with a broomstick. what they're talking about is "reinterpreting" the prohibition against torture to allow them to do things that have been accepted as torture for decades. that's why bush's proposal is being rejected by such a wide swath of the military and republican leadership, as well as by democrats.

(4) rich: Besides, if it's so universally known that coercion is ineffective, then why would the Bush Administration be interested in inaccurate information?

because they don't believe in evidence. they have their theories, largely formed out of ignorance (e.g. that saddam and al qaeda cooperated, or the new version that iran and al qaeda cooperated) and will not give them up, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. there are many lay people who believe torture works. it seems to when you watch "24." but the military establishment doesn't think so. nor do psychologists. there are also a ton of examples. maher arar admitted to all kinds of stuff under torture, none of it was true. abu zubaydah was tortured by the CIA and started "revealing" a plot to target that building in LA, several tunnel plots, the jose padilla "dirty bomb" plot. none of them turned out to be true. american authorities spent millions of dollars running around trying to stop non-existent threats

(5) rich (to the other rich): I and others like me were attacked five years ago by Islamic nutjobs. Islamic nutjobs, and the governments and social forces that support them

just to be clear: most of the 14,000 currently detained by the u.s. government have nothing to do with al qaeda.

Rich,

We aren't going to convince each other. You think I am irrational and I, you. So I'll take one more crack at it since I'm one behind, but I think I'm done.

"Wow, just wow. I could go into the need to establish a beachhead in the Middle East, self defense, etc., but I have a sneaking suspicion you're not listening to that flavor of reason today. That and, you're willing to sacrifice Americans to *appear* more noble? "

With all due respect, look who is calling the kettle black about not listening to that flavor of reason. First, it is not to appear more noble - it is to behave more decently. You essentially are espousing the Code of Hammurabi (sp?) - an eye for an eye etc.... The use of the word "noble" in that comment was my own value judgment. Doing the right thing instead of doing what is expedient is the point. It is clear that the Right is fed up with only one kind of death and destruction. It is not self-defense anymore. It is aggression.

"I'm an American. I and others like me were attacked five years ago by Islamic nutjobs. Islamic nutjobs, and the governments and social forces that support them, devalued themselves against the American radically by attacking. I hope it never comes to nukes, but speak to Mr. Ahmadinejad about that, wouldja?"

You don't have to tell me about 9/11. I knew and worked with 15 people who perished that day at the hands of those people. Over 300 more of my colleagues died that day. But none of that devalues the entire Islamic world as people in my mind. When we attacked Afghanistan and drove the Taliban out of open power, there was a clear mission and a clear connection to 9/11. Very few people would draw that same line between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq based on what we know today. This was the beginning of a real war that cannot be halted. We could have stopped after Afghanistan and then thrown all of the resources we have wasted on Iraq into maintaining the gains in Afghanistan. Instead, we waged a vendetta to remove Hussein and left Karzai to wait for the aid that never came and for the lack of resources to overwhelm their government. So it is a double tragedy. Thousands of people would still be alive today and Hussein would still be an impotent leader. The bulk of the Arab world appears to think that he was a nutjob too, but he was their nutjob. Meanwhile, Afghanistan might actually be moving forward toward a real economy and stability. And with all of our resources in one place, perhaps we would have found and eliminated Bin Laden by now.

Don't kid yourself. This war in Iraq is not going to mitigate terrorism. At best, it will make the terrorists more active and easier to catch after the fact. At worst, it is the beginning of a 21st Century version of the Crusades, with terrorist events to which we will overrespond and bring more unity to a fractured Islamic and Christian world. When both groups see themselves as unified against a common religious enemy, the real apocalypse will begin. We may not be able to stop this, but I'd rather show my faith by promoting compassion and decency instead of sacrificing our humanity to stay alive.

It really isn't that far away from suggesting that I'd rather die a free man than live in captivity. If I have to die in a terrorist attack because our government couldn't get enough information fast enough due to the inability to torture people, that is a sacrifice I am willing to make. And I would make that sacrifice any day over sending one more teen to war when they don't even have a clue what they are fighting for.

Hi Rich,

My name is Beth and I'm an American, too. And, with all due respect, may I humbly disagree with several of your arguments?

One. You write, "As for the interrogation techniques W is asking for permission to employ, we're looking at things like sleep deprivation, forced standing, raising of voices, chilly rooms, loud music, and the missing of single meals. Brutal, truly." Please, tell me you are joking. If not, you and I are certainly reading different news journal, listening to different radio programs, and watching different television stations (okay, not so much on the TV, maybe). My understanding is that much of what is going on in Guantanemo (and elsewhere) far, far exceeds the sort of friendly pressures you mention above. May I recommend to you an essay from the September issue of Harper's? "American Gulag: Prisoners' tales from the War on Terrror" by Eliza Griswold? If even half of what she includes in the article is even half true, the US has truly relinquished the moral high ground. Now, I will concede that Harper's is a voice from the left but, with the sole exception of perhaps Fox News, I've heard more than enough of these sorts of stories in the last couple of years to believe that, should this all end badly, there are several members of the administration who might find themselves in front of a court at the Hague. Let's not even talk about the prisoners who have died in our care as a consequence of "heart failure" (28-year old man) and "internal injuries" (32-year old man). Wow. Guess those "Islamofascist nutjobs," as you so kindly call them, are not made of very strong stuff after all.

Two. Rich, you write, "People in prison may be in our care, but they are also our *enemies* who a) wish to do us harm and b) are highly likely to possess information that would help us prevent harm..." Really! If this is true, then why have so few of them actually been charged with anything? In fact, the last report I read suggested that there are many, many people in our "care" who are most likely completely innocent--as many of 70%, according to a recent NY Times article, of the current detainees are simply cabdrivers, farmers, workers, etc. who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. There's a heartbreaking photo in the Harper's I've referred you to. A man sits in the desert wearing a hood and cradling his son, who is maybe five or six years old. His son's shoes are in the dirt. You can tell it's hot out there. The boy's shoes are off; the father presses his palm against his child's forehead. I have no idea what sins the father may (or may not) have committed, but I do wonder what vital information that child possesses. Let's not kid ourselves about how badly our administration and its minions are behaving.

Three. You write, "We are *already* more moral in our treatment of prisoners than the 'Islamofascists.'" Okay, first: I wish you wouldn't toss around words like fascist so easily. It denigrates the memory of those who suffered under ACTUAL Fascism. Remember actual Fascism? Second, this line of reasoning feels a little to me like that old "If Jello Biafra beats his wife five days a week and kills her, but Henry Rollins only beats his wife three days and sends her to the emergency room, then Henry Rollins is clearly the more 'moral' man." Um, okay. But they still beat their wives. (NOTE to reader: This is not to suggest that either Jello or Henry beats his wife; I'm sure they don't. But I'm minding a soup and I'm in a bit of a hurry now and these are the two names that occurred to me. This is only an example. I'm sure both Jello and Henry are lovely to their wives, if they do indeed even have wives...)

Where was I? Oh, yes, and four. Rich, you write, "What W's working for is clarity in the 'edgier' means of self defense we have available to us." Really, I wish he would stop. I'm not sure how much more the world can take of W's edginess. If edgy is "the look" he's going for maybe he could do what the rest of us do: Dye his hair; get a new jacket; mix it up with Laura a little more.

Tripp, I hear you. The fact that my countrymen are even engaging in serious discussions about the upward limits of torture simultaneously enrages me and breaks my heart. Truly, we have abandoned whatver moral high ground we occupied in those awful days after September 11th.

I have a lot of trouble with that pesky little dictum that we are to love our enemies. This, I truly struggle with. In Beth's world, it is far, far easier to despise my enemies and deny them any claim to humanity. I'm working it. The truth is, I struggle to love those folks who flew airplanes into the Towers and I struggle to love those folks who park cars outside markets and blow them up and I certainly struggle to love those members of the administration who tell me that I should just sit down and shut up and be a "good American" while they stomp all over the planet and behave like, well, like barbarians. And now we have Iran in our sights. God help us all.