perfidy

I don't think he should apologize if he doesn't mean it. Or rather, if he meant what he said.

If he actually believes that American military police or interrogators = the SS, or sees equivalence between Gitmo and Auschwitz, he shouldn't apologize for it.

He should attend a history course to remedy his astonishing stupidity. But should one apologize for being stupid?

What part of what he said was factually wrong? What would have been the factually correct way to complete the sentence, "If I read you these words, you would think they had been done by _____________ ?"

Phil, there are not piles of bodies stacked up like cordwood. The average detainee gains 13 pounds - we are not working them to death on starvation rations in bitter cold with no coats. We are not singling out every Muslim with glasses because glasses are an indication of education and the status of "class enemy."

Comparing Gitmo to the atrocities of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or the Khmer Rouge is factually incorrect, and just plain wrong on many levels.

Real instances of abuse, like at Abu Graib, or of torture I oppose completely. But that doesn't prevent me from saying that even if the situation is as bad as the worst wingnuts are claiming, it still doesn't hold a candle to what Durbin was comparing them to; and that to make that claim is not merely wrong, but damaging to American interests and verging on giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Show me brutality and murder in an American prison camp, and I'll say its wrong and say that those responsible should be sent away for decades. But mishandling the Koran is not even on the same planet as Auschwitz. Other, similar, complaints of abuse like this - coming from people who support things like killing innocent Americans with airplanes - are offensive to me.

Phil:

Depending on which of the supposed atrocities one wanted to discuss, I could see filling in the blank above with "Jennifer, my favorite exotic dancer down at Club Spunk". But then I'd also be forced to deny that it was torture, even if years of stupid teachings had been drilled into me that such things were unclean.

As for mishandling the Koran, it's not only not in the same league as Auschwitz, it's not even in the same league as a minor personal foul in the average junior high basketball game.

Seriously - the worst < 1% of things that American soldiers have done to prisoners in captivity are criminal and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. A law that none of the victims subscribe to, or whose benefits they'd allow to their own enemies, but nonetheless the law. Perhaps another 30% are worthy of embarrassment among polite society (including the faked menstrual moment, along with anything Lynndie England does, including continuing to breathe in and out), and the other 70-ish % are simply the supposed-victims' price of playing poker, neither worthy of comment nor complaint.

And, as Buckethead rightly points out, the sum total of them all, including the worst, squared, don't rise to the level of rhetoric embodied in Durbin's goofy outbursts. What's next? International scorn because we don't provide them with Jihad-TV?

OK, so that's two votes for "no proper way to complete the sentence." Noted, and moving on.

Patton, you're awfully far out on a limb with . . . A law that none of the victims subscribe to . . . Out of 500-odd prisoners in Gitmo, at least 33 have already been determined to be neither "enemy combatants" nor terrorists, and many of those have already been released. Were any of them victims of any of the worst abuse? Yes, no . . . ? If so, can you fill me in on their opinions regarding the rule of law. Since you've obviously polled them.

We've got a tribunal claiming a 94% success rate on ferreting out bad guys among the detainees, but a federal judge saying the tribunal is making shit up. Do you want to stick with "none," here, or . . . ?

Buckethead, when you say, Phil, there are not piles of bodies stacked up like cordwood, it can't just be that you think the only difference here is one of scale. Let's take the descriptions Durbin was talking about here -- the ones you both retreated from rather quickly to fall behind the sandbags of "abusing the Koran" -- chaining people naked on the ground in fetal positions, forcing them to defecate on themselve, letting them tear their own hair out in piles . . . how many people would we need to do that to before it became apparent we were compromising American values? 100? 1,000? A million?

I'm sorry, but "Still better than the Nazis" is not sufficient for me, by a long goddamned shot. I know you guys are GOPers, and it's cool, this country thrives on a robust exchange of ideas, blah blah blah. But you don't have to beat these drums and spin these talking points, these stupid fucking irrelevant distractions that keep preventing anyone from addressing the actual issue. (You know -- the issue about abusing prisoners?) You're better than that.

Phil, why not put the actual words into your sentence? Let's see how "factually correct" it is.

Ending the sentence with "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings." doesn't make any sense to anyone who knows anything about those things.

And I noticed you left "most certainly" out of your example. The quote is "you would *most certainly* believe this must have been done by..."

Are you actually claiming that US Senators would "most certainly" immediately think of Auschwitz, the Gulag, and the Killing Fields when they heard this report?

Anyone who would "most certainly" think that obviously is either seriously misinformed or intentionally misleading. Most certainly.