home

Tuesday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:43:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's time for the Tuesday open thread. You're on your own here this afternoon.

Some things I'm following:

  • The only officer to be charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal has been acquitted of all charges except failing to comply with a directive not to talk about the matter.
  • ABC News reports Sen. Larry Craig will hold a presser this afternoon. My prediction: He won't run for re-election.
  • MSNBC names some replacements for Gonzales, quoting a source close to the White House source as saying George J. Terwilliger III is looking good.

< Hsu's Lawyer Responds to WSJ's Smear Attempt on Hillary and Her Contributors | Larry Craig: "I Am Not Gay" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Open Thread | 57 comments (57 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    this Terwilliger, the potential AGAG replacement - (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:55:46 PM EST
    is he related to these Terwilligers?

    c'mon already - (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    someone click through on the link ... please.

    Parent
    Was it you or BTD (1.00 / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    who I said had got what they wanted, but wouldn't want you got?

    Parent
    oh, jeez - click through and see that the link (none / 0) (#15)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:37:07 PM EST
    goes to an image of Sideshow Bob Terwilliger.

    I was just trying to have a little fun.

    Parent

    I did... (none / 0) (#27)
    by desertswine on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:51:19 AM EST
    and it got a smile out of me. Also, I had no idea that Bob's last name was Terwilliger. So I learned something really important too.

    Here's another terwiliger, a ball player with more than 50 yrs as a player, coach, and manager.

    Parent

    Are you giving odds? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:47:47 PM EST
    ABC News reports Sen. Larry Craig will hold a presser this afternoon. My prediction: He won't run for re-election.

      At 1000:1, I might venture a few bucks.

    the former astronaut facing trial in the (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:12:10 PM EST
    astronaut love-triangle case, is planning to use a temporary insanity defense.

    From what I can see in the article, it seems about the best option available to defend her.  IMHO, any attorney would have to seriously consider it, it the client had:
    major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, insomnia and "brief psychotic disorder with marked stressors," [... and ...] "the already-petite woman had also recently lost 15 percent of her body weight and struggled with 'marital separation.'"

    The weight loss is the most striking aspect - one has to be in serious shape to be a military pilot, let alone an astro, and that means there's no extra weight to begin with.  To then lose 15% of that in-shape weight tells me she was seriously depressed and not thinking straight enough to be culpable.

    This is tragic in the extreme.

    Moving to a larger issue - has anyone else just had enough of schadenfreude at prominent people getting into legal trouble?  Between Britney, Lindsay, Paris and Nicole, Michael Vick, Pacman Jones, Senator Craig and Astronaut Nowak, I'm just a little tired of making fun of peoples' being run into the grinder that is The System.  The bloom is long since off that rose, and I'm done laughing.

    Comment?

    Only that (none / 0) (#4)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:45:38 PM EST
      with the possible exception of Nowak it seems more accurate to say they ran into the grinder rather than were run into it.

    Parent
    Why might (none / 0) (#8)
    by Pancho on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:59:25 PM EST
    Nowak be an exception?

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:07:13 PM EST
     it seems possible she is in fact suffering from (or was suffering from) a mental illness which rendered her incapable of controlling  her actions. The rest are just idiots.

    Parent
    Fair enough, (none / 0) (#11)
    by Pancho on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:57:50 PM EST
    has she been diagnosed with any specific mental illness.

    What I don't get about the others is: why don't they get the hell out of Hollywood? Lindsay Lohan, in particular, actually has some talent and does not have to live out there to have a career.

    Parent

    I don't know whether she's been diagnosed, but (none / 0) (#16)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:40:52 PM EST
    if one is "petite", say, 5'2" and come in at an in-shape 110 or so pounds (picking numbers out of the air), then lose 15 percent of that weight (thus taking one down to about 85 or 90 lbs) without any organic disease and with the symptoms of depression, etc., catalogued above, this layperson says "you've got a serious emotional/psych problem."

    Parent
    Here is what the basis is (none / 0) (#24)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:40:32 AM EST
      The defense has averred, inter alia,  she was suffering from major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder,  had a "psychotic episode" and was diagnosed with Asperger's Disorder.

    Link

     It's worth noting that Florida has apparently to date not not recognized the "irresistable impulse" test and still recognize only the M'Naghten rule (the  accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.)

     

    Parent

    Dow down 280 (none / 0) (#5)
    by ccokz on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:25:44 PM EST
    Dow down 280

    Dodd&Bernanke-Iraqi kickback schemes

    yeah, and a German bank (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:39:32 PM EST
    having invested too heavily in US mortgage-backed "investment vehicles" having to be bought out over the last week by another German bank.

    Summarizing German radio reports over the last couple weeks, in so many words, our mortgage crisis has them on tenterhooks over there.

    Parent

    From Cuba today, (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:47:38 PM EST
    Fidel on U.S.  Presidents and candidates

    I think he has a rosy future as a blogger on U.S. Presidential politics.

    Maybe as a Leftie... (1.00 / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:39:22 PM EST
    From the link, Castro says about Gerald Ford....

    Given his irregular manner of ascending to the office, one might characterize him as a symbolic President.

    As opposed to killing a 100,000 give or take and not allowing elections for 40 years or so???

    Parent

    ppj (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:20:20 PM EST
    Are you refering to elections in which the CIA bumps off the winner if they dont like the result or actual elections?

    Parent
    jondee (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:02:27 PM EST
    Really, you have seen to many Gollywood thrillers. Please try to connect to reality.

    Parent
    The reality is (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:28:42 AM EST
    you're f.o.s as usual.

    What happened in Gautamala and Iran in the early fifties and Chile in the early seventies?

    If use "the Cold War" as an excuse than you might as well excuse Che's alleged actions as well.

    Parent

    Well, of course as a leftie. (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:46:39 PM EST


    Parent
    So, you think we can (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:14:09 PM EST
    have a discourse with such people??

    Parent
    I'd just say its better than pretending (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:17:40 PM EST
    they don't exist.

    Parent
    You need to reconsider who your (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:00:12 PM EST
    friends are.

    Oh, no one is pretending they don't exist. Castro's desire to let the Soviet's checkmate us with missiles right off out our shores was hard to ignore. In fact, it was rather edgey there for a while.

    Perhaps you weren't alive then, or if you were the prospect of nuclear war and the end of the world didn't bother you.

    I just wonder why he should be even mentioned. What is it about Castro and Che that makes the Left love him so?? Is it this type of derring do that some find so attractive??

    Soon Che's goons came back, the rusty steel door opened and they yanked the valiant boy out of the cell. "We all rushed to the cell's window that faced the execution pit," recalls Mr. San Martin. "We simply couldn't believe they'd murder him! Then we spotted him, strutting around the blood-drenched execution yard with his hands on his waist and barking orders ? the gallant Che Guevara.

    "Here Che was, finally in his element. In battle he was a sad joke, a bumbler of epic proportions [for details see "Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant"], but up against disarmed and bloodied boys he was a snarling tiger.

    "'Kneel Down!' Che barked at the boy.

    "'ASSASSINS!' We screamed from our window. 'MURDERERS!! HOW CAN YOU MURDER A LITTLE BOY!'

    "'I said, KNEEL DOWN!' Che barked again.

    "The boy stared Che resolutely in the face. 'If you're going to kill me,' he yelled. 'you'll have to do it while I'm standing! MEN die standing!'

    "COWARDS! MURDERERS! Sons of B**TCHES!" The men yelled desperately from their cells. "LEAVE HIM ALONE!" HOW CAN ...?!"

    "And then we saw Che unholstering his pistol. It didn't seem possible. But Che raised his pistol, put the barrel to the back of the boy's neck and blasted. The shot almost decapitated the young boy.

    Link

    Yes, Ford was irregular. Che was Castro's regular killer.

    Parent

    I have no admiration for Che or Fidel. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:45:42 AM EST
    I am aware of what they have done to the Cuban people.  

    Parent
    Then I would expect a ringing condemnation. (1.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:54:14 AM EST


    Parent
    You've already taken care of that. (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:29:31 PM EST


    Parent
    I could always use a little help. (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:01:13 PM EST


    Parent
    I'll give you that there are lots of rose-colored (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:50:21 PM EST
    glasses wearers in the left blogs on the merits of Fidel and Che's doings. Why anyone would wear at T-shirt with Che's picture on it is incomprehensible to me. Such an evil man.

    Parent
    Why do you think that is?? (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:24:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Some apparently accept whatever (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:10:34 AM EST
    Fidel's government says as accurate information.

    Parent
    Oculus - Okay, that is a start (1.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:00:46 AM EST
    But why do they do that?

    The same people who you say accept what Castro says without questioning it are intense critics of the US government, especially any Repub administration, and any thing they see as the "Right."

    It seems that if they are just anti all governments, they would question both, so that isn't the reason.

    What do you believe is the root cause for their actions? I am tempted to say ignorance as to the real world and a total lack of understanding as to cause and effect.

    Note that I didn't say "stupid" or "dumb." A very intelligent person can be ignornant of facts, and come to a wrong conclusion.

    Could it be their education? Public high schools and universities have trended towards a Left wing view of the world for years, especially in the so-called "soft" schools of journalism, history, english... Could it be that their professors, radicalized in the 60's have been allowed to teach their mostlty anti-american nonsense without input from the "workers" of society? Especially the "tenured" professors who it is almost impossible to fire?

    As for Gollywood, most of the current batch of "stars" are not particularly well educated. Has the "big money" they have made convinced them that they actually are expert in all things? If you make millions and millions, a 10% tax increase is meaningless after a certain point. Is that why they blindly accept man made global warming and call for tax increases to reduce carbon consumption? "I deserve to fly in my private jet, but you can take the bus!"

    If you make $65,000 with a spouse and two kids, a  10% tax increase is huge.

    I look forward to your comments.

    Parent

    Doesn't make them disappear (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:18:40 AM EST
    into thin air though huh?

    Parent
    Tracy - Sad to see you defend Che and (1.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:59:23 AM EST
    Castro's brutal actions.

    That you again want to claim that Castro and Che are the moral equivalents of the US is no surprise and again speaks volumes about you.

    I invite you to go to Cuba and attack the government.

    Parent

    Who's defending Che? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by glanton on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    It's a red herring issue.  Che is not relevant to the problems our nations face today.

    Parent
    Wait--from your link (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by glanton on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:08:31 PM EST
    Observations likes this have always been relevant, always will be.

    "Here Che was, finally in his element. In battle he was a sad joke, a bumbler of epic proportions [for details see "Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant"], but up against disarmed and bloodied boys he was a snarling tiger.

    Aint that true of all "Dear Leaders"?  

    Parent

    Try to follow the nest (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:11:25 PM EST
    From Cuba today, (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:47:38 PM EST
    Fidel on U.S.  Presidents and candidates

    I think he has a rosy future as a blogger on U.S. Presidential politics.

    Well, oculus brought the subject up, and when I went to her link I found that Castro was opining that Ford was an "irregular" President....

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by glanton on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:30:13 PM EST
    Ford WAS an irregular President.  You know, you don't have to like Castro to acknowledge when he's right about something.

    Geez.  Talk about manufactured outrage.  But then the team you play for pretty much trades in that.  And, of course, manufactured fear.

    Parent

    Well, Che's remains were only recently (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:51:39 AM EST
    found and returned to Cuba from South America. As to Fidel, he hasn't made a public appear for so long its hard to tell.

    Parent
    Meanwhile (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:23:00 AM EST
    Jim's hero St.Ron instructs nun rapers at the School of the Americas for the good of the cause of keeping El Salvador and Nicaragua safe from Communism.

    Parent
    Jonee - You're not worth arguing with. (1.00 / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:00:59 PM EST
    Come back later.

    Parent
    All you've got (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:55:34 PM EST
    is our murder and torture is justified, theirs isnt.

    Possibly you'd have a different take on things if you'd ever seen any of it first hand, rather than relying on those eminent historians at The Spectator and Powerline.

    Parent

    Once again into Jondee's swamp. (1.00 / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:06:42 PM EST
    Our government investigates, charges, tries, covicts and punishes people it finds to have done evil thing.

    No one claims it is perfect.

    And no one has claimed that Washington's top aid went around executing 14 year old boys by shootibg at the base of the skull, as was the case cited of Che's activities.

    I understand that you can't see the difference.

    The vast majority can.

    Parent

    Ahh, the ole "bad apple" canard (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by glanton on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:48:31 PM EST
    Our government investigates, charges, tries, covicts and punishes people it finds to have done evil thing.
    No one claims it is perfect.

    Will you and yours ever tire of spewing this kind of stuff?  

    Here on Earth:

    Many Americans unapologetically proclaim their endorsement of institutionalized torture.  Then there are many who are horrified by it.  But you know what has become practically extinct?  Americans in their right mind who think this government isn't torturing.  

    Parent

    Jondee raise a strawman from his swamp. (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:25:57 PM EST
    Many Americans also do not.

    What that has to do with "government" actions, of course, is exacyly zero.

    Nice try.

    Parent

    Point is (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by glanton on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:11:34 PM EST
    Nobody is buying the "bad apple" argument anymore.

    Like it or don't like it, Jim: For a long while it's been understood by the American people that this government tortures people.  What is (very sadly) open for debate is whether people are okay with that.  Your own stance on the issue has been clear for a while.  

    Parent

    I love it whenever the subject (1.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:20:11 PM EST
    of some country with a proven record of killing people comes up, people such as yourself line up to complain... not about the country with the proven record of abuse... but about the USA.

    So complain Glanton. I really don't care if you do, or if you don't.

    But frankly, if I thought so poorly of the US, I'd have been out of here years ago.

    Why do you keep hanging around? The knowledge that no other country would put up with you?

    Parent

    Villification and a Redeck Talking Point (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by glanton on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:32:59 PM EST
    Is one of your faves.  I wouldn't have you change tactics for anything, really.

    This might surprise you but I am frankly a lot concerned with what is happening now in this country than in getting into some discussion about Cuban politics.

    Also my standards for this country are far, far higher than they are for the Castro regime, for God's sake.  Why you seem to think it matters to point out we're better than Castro, is beyond me.  

    Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations!

    And then there's this erudite rejoinder:

    But frankly, if I thought so poorly of the US, I'd have been out of here years ago.

    Why do you keep hanging around? The knowledge that no other country would put up with you?

    Ahh, the redneck Talking Point par excellance, wonderful for showing off to drunk toothless buddies and even better as a tactic for avoiding actual debate:

    "If'n ye don' lahk et then leeev!"  

    Parent

    Glanton - Hope of heaven (1.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:57:11 PM EST
    This might surprise you but I am frankly a lot concerned with what is happening now in this country than in getting into some discussion about Cuban politics.

    Then why did you join the discussion at:

    Who's defending Che? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by glanton on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:05:24 PM EST

    You do, of course have the right, but why now say you don't care?

    The thread started with oculus providing a link to a Cuban newspaper and the resulting comment I made re Castro calling Ford "irregular." We had a nice reasonable discussuon until Jondee jumped in with one of his patented "US bad" "CIA kills" comments.
    Then Tracy jumps in with her "into thin air" comment.

    And yes. If I point out that Castro and Che were killers.. big time killers and someone jumps in talking about how bad the US is, then that is defending Castro/Che by the old moral equivalence argument.

    You can't condemn them because we also do bad things.

    And we do. But the fact is we are a constitutional  republic, and we do try and correct problems. And we don't lock people up or kill them for pointing out those problems. This blog is proof of that. Castro/Che did and Castro has continued.

    And Ford was not "irregular." His path was totally constitutional. Castro's comment was a slur. I noted that, and the rest followed, including the moral equivalence defense.

    As for my question as to why you remain, while noting that I would have been gone years ago if I felt the way you apparently do, I stand by it.

    Your lack of an answer is interesting. As before, your defense is a claim that someone else has problems.

    Glanton, why can't you, and many others on the
    Left just admit that America is a great country, better by far than our enemies, and many of our friends. We are not perfect, but we strive for perfection. And as a country we have that "hope of heaven," and that it is that hope that moves us forward.

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by glanton on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:11:32 PM EST
    First, the answer to my question who is defending Che is NOBODY.  

    Second, there is a difference between "irregular" and "unconstitutional."  For'd path was the former, but not the latter.  Because almost every Pres gets there through elections.  And then of course there was the Nixon/Watergate scandal.  There was an irregularity to Ford's ascendance, that is just common sense.

    Third, I don't owe you or anybody else explanations for why I stay in this country, but I'll skim a couple of points.  It is my home, there is much about it that I love and admire.

    Fourth, those who love this country in my opinion should be the most outraged at the idea of an American government sanctioning torture.  That is a far worse prospect than the Cuban dictatorship, or Russia, or the Middle East whackos sanctioning it.  

    And yet I have found that the loudest and most consistent deniers and apologists of the tortures love to point out these other systems, how mich worse they are. At least we don't saw off heads and all that.  This to me is nothing to brag about.  

    Parent

    I understand you don't see (1.00 / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:47:34 PM EST
    that "moral equivalence" statements constitute a defense. If they aren't, why make them?

    BTW - adjective: irregular


    not being or acting in accord with laws, rules, or established custom

    I rest my case.

    And no, you don't owe me an answer. I didn't say that you did.

    And yet I have found that the loudest and most consistent deniers and apologists of the tortures love to point out these other systems, how mich worse they are. At least we don't saw off heads and all that.  This to me is nothing to brag about.

    My point wasn't that we should brag about the ACT, but the fact that we oppose the act. That we prosecute such acts. That we punish such acts.
    And by doing so we are a 1000 times better than al-Qaeda and Castro/Che.

    So, I ask again. Why bring our sins up as a defense when someone mentions the beheadings, the car bombings, the killing of 14 year olds...?

    Parent

    I agree, Jim (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:50:56 PM EST
     but don't you engage in the same "moral equivalency" defense every time a Republican is criticized for some lapse by reminding everyone about Bill clinton?

    Parent
    There are great (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 07:28:52 PM EST
    people and great events; "great country" is more than anything a product of your starved, intimidated, imagination in need of someone to be better than.

    Parent
    Also (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by glanton on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:43:52 PM EST
    If you had not brought up the "bad apple" canard, then I wouldn't have had to patiently remind you that this government tortures people.

    You see, Jim, you were spreading misinformation (the "bad apple" canard) and so were bound to be called on it by someone.  That you apparently believe that misinformation proptects you from being a liar.  But it's also very sad that you believe it: almost as sad as the pride you take in the United States government being better than Castro.

    Soft bigotry, meet low expectations.


    Parent

    My guess (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 09:52:32 AM EST
    is that if the U.S were beseiged, blockaded and continually harrassed and terrorized by a nation a hundreds of times more powerful, people like Jim would be donning their Official Gen Patton Fan Club Tank Commander Helmets and hunkering down in their homemade, razor wire sarrounded bunkers, getting ready to plug the first fellow citizen/potential commie that dared to venture near his personal Land of Freedom.

    Parent
    Bad apple carnard?? heh (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:56:46 PM EST
    My point was that their acts were illegal and we investigated/indicted/tried/comvicted/punished.

    That, in your mind allows you to claim that Castro/Che's acts are the moral equal of America.

    At the end I see that you cannot help but say:

    this government tortures people.

    BDS finally blooms.


    Parent

    This government tortures people (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by glanton on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    Is no rhetorical provenance of BTD.

    "Bad Apple" canard doesn't have any currency left.  That's just the way it is.  "Heh" all you want.  Doesn't change this fact.  That you don't like it doesn't change this fact.

    That this government tortures people is by now largely understood throughout the culture.  Only question now is, how do people feel about it.  Are they willing to counenance it in the name of what they see as necessity?  For example, many defend it using ersatz the "ticking time bomb" theory.  Others are just sadists and openly express it that way.

    Others justify by playing around with definitions of torture.  So as to establish what can be gotten away with.  I can't imagine what it must be like to think this way.  What can we get away with doing to these people we have locked up.  

    Tell me.  What does it feel like to think this way?


    Parent

    Tuesday Open Thread | 57 comments (57 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment