The last one I heard on the subject was Mickey Edwards, but he echoes others in his revulsion at this. There is nothing about torture (not even redefining it) that makes it acceptable to these true conservatives.

jwest does not speak for them, I'm glad to say.
Some things are just inexcusable and unpardonable.

It's America's shame that we're even in need of debating it.
Some of us like to remember how we are different from the worst of the worst.

The last one I heard on the subject was Mickey Edwards, but he echoes others in his revulsion at this. There is nothing about torture (not even redefining it) that makes it acceptable to these true conservatives.

jwest does not speak for them, I'm glad to say.
Some things are just inexcusable and unpardonable.

It's America's shame that we're even in need of debating it.
Some of us like to remember how we are different from the worst of the worst.

Not really. If John Glenn had done his job in the Thompson hearings, the answer might be different.

That was just a bit of snark thrown back in Shaun’s direction.

Not really. If John Glenn had done his job in the Thompson hearings, the answer might be different.

That was just a bit of snark thrown back in Shaun’s direction.

As evidence that “conservatives believe words have specific meanings” you're calling Bill Clinton a traitor?

As evidence that “conservatives believe words have specific meanings” you're calling Bill Clinton a traitor?

“These people [ John Ashcroft, Jack Goldsmith, Ted Olson, Richard Shiffrin, five to six Supreme Court justices and Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice], by your calculus, would be the traitors, correct?”

No.

As always, we conservatives believe words have specific meanings. Traitor, for example, refers to an individual who engages in treasonous behavior. This would be behavior detrimental to the security of the U.S. for ideological reasons or personal gain.

The mentioned individuals might have different opinions than David Addington as to what constitutes torture (another one of those words with meaning), but all have the best interest of the U.S. at heart.

An example of treasonous behavior is Aldridge Ames selling military secrets or Bill Clinton allowing classified missile guidance technology to be sold to the Chinese for campaign contributions.

“These people [ John Ashcroft, Jack Goldsmith, Ted Olson, Richard Shiffrin, five to six Supreme Court justices and Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice], by your calculus, would be the traitors, correct?”

No.

As always, we conservatives believe words have specific meanings. Traitor, for example, refers to an individual who engages in treasonous behavior. This would be behavior detrimental to the security of the U.S. for ideological reasons or personal gain.

The mentioned individuals might have different opinions than David Addington as to what constitutes torture (another one of those words with meaning), but all have the best interest of the U.S. at heart.

An example of treasonous behavior is Aldridge Ames selling military secrets or Bill Clinton allowing classified missile guidance technology to be sold to the Chinese for campaign contributions.

[illogical additional advice deleted as a kind courtesy]

It doesn't refute what I say about Godwin's law (which would be misapplied to what Sullivan had to say, in fact, as well as in what Shaun had to say, which was the subject at the time, not Sullivan's statements — applying “Godwin's law” would be to say that both accounts are wrong simply because they refer to Nazi Germany in some way). You just supplied the opposite of what Godwin's law would mean.

And:

“his KGB sensibilities”

At least you got something correct, here. The whole abuse-and-torture effort is not so much Nazi-like (even if there is an element of _nicht_und_nibel_ to the status of communications held by the prisoners in Guantanamo, as well as good old methods of torture the Nazi Secret State Police would recognize). Rather, it is instead more Kremlinesque. This hasn't gone unnoticed before when discussing the White House's penchant for secrecy and in particular, Cheney's obscession with it. (It also is merited as an analogy given how the liberal journalists have been untrustworthy enemies, the Mongol hordes seeking information merely to exploit in future attacks, from the start, motivating part of the hiding within the walls of a kremlin, but the administration's behavior extends far beyond mere dealings with the media.) The behavior has struck me as more Stalinesque than anything else (cruder and less sophisticated than a true Nazi-style system of oppression). No boasts (at least, since the war against Hussein's forces was won), no claims, no propaganda campaign, no information at all. Just cynical, silent maneuvering. Very Kremlinesque, Stalinesque if one wants to characterize this.

[illogical additional advice deleted as a kind courtesy]

It doesn't refute what I say about Godwin's law (which would be misapplied to what Sullivan had to say, in fact, as well as in what Shaun had to say, which was the subject at the time, not Sullivan's statements — applying “Godwin's law” would be to say that both accounts are wrong simply because they refer to Nazi Germany in some way). You just supplied the opposite of what Godwin's law would mean.

And:

“his KGB sensibilities”

At least you got something correct, here. The whole abuse-and-torture effort is not so much Nazi-like (even if there is an element of _nicht_und_nibel_ to the status of communications held by the prisoners in Guantanamo, as well as good old methods of torture the Nazi Secret State Police would recognize). Rather, it is instead more Kremlinesque. This hasn't gone unnoticed before when discussing the White House's penchant for secrecy and in particular, Cheney's obscession with it. (It also is merited as an analogy given how the liberal journalists have been untrustworthy enemies, the Mongol hordes seeking information merely to exploit in future attacks, from the start, motivating part of the hiding within the walls of a kremlin, but the administration's behavior extends far beyond mere dealings with the media.) The behavior has struck me as more Stalinesque than anything else (cruder and less sophisticated than a true Nazi-style system of oppression). No boasts (at least, since the war against Hussein's forces was won), no claims, no propaganda campaign, no information at all. Just cynical, silent maneuvering. Very Kremlinesque, Stalinesque if one wants to characterize this.

In other words, it will not be tolerated.

In other words, it will not be tolerated.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily…

You need to watch out for the reflexive reaction and think harder about the context.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily…

You need to watch out for the reflexive reaction and think harder about the context.

November isn't far away, Shaun.

I'm not saying that Obama is a Muslim and a terrorists' Trojan horse…