Sometimes life is stranger than snark…

Best of luck having conversations with people with, um, wide wide wide open minds.

I’ve no intention of getting involved in an argument with you because that would suggest that this is something that reasonable people can politely disagree about. It isn’t, anymore than reasonable people can disagree over whether slavery or anti-Semitism is a good or a bad thing. In a quite real sense, you and other torture apologists are morally depraved . . .

Good to know! Again, my goal has been to determine if you want comments from people like me at CT. It’s clear you (and John Q? and Belle? and even open-minded Daniel?) do not.

It’s your blog so I’ll abide by your wishes. Best of luck having a conversation with a bunch of people who all agree with you.

People who are in custody of US forces or their allies are people in custody.

People in custody whose status has not yet been subject to any real review or consideration are people in custody of uncertain status.

People in custody who have received good review of their status and found to be hostile combatants may have any of several labels, depending on the details. Categories recognized in prevailing law include prisoner of war, spy, and prisoner awaiting civil or criminal justice. There have been fine posts about this by others; I won’t go into all the options here.

People in custody who have received good review of their status and found not to be guilty of anything that warrants criminal or military attention are innocent people in custody awaiting release.

“Unlawful enemy combatant” with its implication “and therefore undeserving of basic protections established in treaty as applying to all” is a made-up category by people who are trying to dodge their legal obligations. It’s like “flying pink elephants” as a category for domestic pets – the fact that you can assemble the words like that, or in this case those words and implications, doesn’t make them mean anything to the rest of us.

People who deliberately violate their obligations in law, whether it originated domestically or as a result of treaty, are criminals. People who deliberately violate their obligations with regard to war and the treatment of people in custody may be war criminals, depending on the outcome of the sort of good review they’re denying to others.

Hope this helps.

Anyway, Belle, I think it’s both.

If that’s not a weasel, then it’s certainly Mustelinae in its implication that
we’re cowering from some hard by necessary truths. If it’s a choice between a ‘conversation’ in which one side tries dancing around torture and no conversation at all, then count me in the ‘no conversation at all’ camp.

There are polities in which one can have that conversation. In best Lockean tradition, I don’t think this is one of them. Perhaps you can find some absolutism-friendly spaces for your ‘conversation’.

Inducing a moral panic to destroy a republic is a classic junta technique. This is why there are checks and balances on majoritarian rule—for instance, a hard to change constitution. Of course, constitutions are “parchment protections”, as Madison said, if the legislative and executive branches reach a certain point of moral corruption. Madison was right. Bush is his nightmare. Hopefully, though, on Bush’s next visit to a foreign country that has recognized the International court in the Hague, he’ll be picked up for crimes against humanity. It is pretty much an open and shut case. Sic Semper Tyrannus.

“I believe that it is a statement of fact” — Ah, it’s the “in my opinion, it’s a fact!” schtick again. Same old, same old.

I think “no weasel phrases” (which’ll cover the kind of nonsense above) is a good description of a ground rule.

2) Honestly, I used the term “enemy combatant” in an attempt to be neutral. The term “terrorist” would obviously beg the question. What (short) term would CT prefer I use? “Suspected terrorist”?

3) Several authors of CT are much more expert than I as to US public opinion, but I believe that it is a statement of fact that a vast majority (75%?) of Americans are in favor of the recent bill. If Anarch can point to other evidence, he should do so.

4) I am sorry that John did not have time to read the whole post I linked to. If you want to know why (intelligent) Republicans think the way they do, that post is a good guide.

5) Again, my point here is to clarify what the authors of CT want in terms of comment participation. Although I can’t find the link (does CT’s search work for comments?), the last time we discussed this, the claim was that right-wing commentators were welcome in the comments. Now, both Henry and John use the terms “infests” to refer to me and people like me. That’s fine! It is your blog! I (and, I hope, other conservatives) won’t comment here if you don’t want us to.