Of course, now you support people in little rooms who are torturing other people.

No, in fact, I supported their capture and trial, where their death in combat was not achievable.

Oops, you're not talking about Hussein or the Taliban, are you?

As usual.

RickDFL; you're the one that's a member of the one Minnesota political party to reach out to Stalin in the '30s.

I doubt that fact will make a dent in your invincible ignorance, but a guy has to try.

I too appreciate the book. It is a stark reminder of the importance of the constitutional protections we take for granted. I don't see it as an endorsement of republicanism, however. Unreviewed detentions, secret courts, warrantless wiretaps, and torture fail the human rights test under Stalin and Bush.

For the benefit of those of us who don't know where Sheila's site is, do you have a link?

Dear Mitch:

What about between capture and trial? Do you support torture then?

Dear Geoff:

I would rather belong to a party that 70 years ago may have included a small handfull of people who thought Stalinist thoughts, than belong to a party that endorses acts of Stalinist torture today.

Stalinist torture tactics like....

blasting Brittney Spears music?

turning on the AC so it's 45 degrees in the cell?

making the prisoner stand for hours on end?

As compared to...firing squads under Stalin?

Saddam's jumper cables, car batteries and wet floors and/or removal of limbs?

The moral equivalence floating in here is thick enough to cut with a blood-spattered chainsaw straight from Saddam's glory days.

To equate Bush with Stalin in any way is idiotic beyond comprehension. Stalin killed millions of his own people... in "peace" time. Bush is waging a global war against a nation-less enemy that could strike innocent populations at any moment.
Show me another leader who has been so congnizant of civil rights during a time of war.
Perhaps you'll find in in the pages of old NY Times articles, next to the fawning odes to Stalin written by Durante.
With fellow citizens who equate Bush with Stalin we have no chance when confronting real evil.

Stalin was a despotic tyrant. Bush is a misguided fool. The comparison of the two is not to say that they are equivalent, but rather point out Bush's can hardly be described as "congnizant of civil rights during war."

Keep in mind, Bush is the one who attacked Iraq. He is the one who advocated for disregard of the Geneva conventions. He has defended Git-mo without waiver. His double speak calls warrantless wiretaps "terrorism prevention."

If you respect the rule of law, then at lease appreciate the respects in which Bush has disregarded it. Screaming that Bush is not Stalin doesn't excuse his policies.

Dear Bill C,

You may not think the acts you list count as torture but Solzhenitsen disagreed.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/usdom12071.htm

• In The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksander Solzhenitsen describes Soviet interrogations including cases of forced standing and sleep deprivation: “Then there is the method of simply compelling a prisoner to stand there.” Among other techniques used to break prisoners was forcing them to stay in a fixed position for an extended period of time: “In the Novocherkassk NKVK, Yelena Strutinskaya was forced to remain seated on a stool in the corridor for six days in such a way that she did not lean against anything, did not sleep, did not fall off, and did not get up from it.” Solzhenitsen also describes sleep deprivation being used on a prisoner named Anna Skripnikova in 1952: “[The] Chief of the Investigative Department of the Ordzhonikidze State Security Administration, said to her: “The prison doctor reports you have a blood pressure of 240/120. That’s too low, you bitch! We’re going to drive it up to 340 so you'll kick the bucket, you viper, and with no black and blue marks; no beatings; no broken bones. We'll just not let you sleep.’ And if, back in her cell, after a night spent in interrogation, she closed her eyes during the day, the jailer broke in and shouted: ‘Open your eyes or I'll haul you off that cot by the legs and tie you to the wall standing up.’” Elsewhere, Solzhenitsen writes: “Sleeplessness . . . befogs the reason, undermines the will, and the human being ceases to be himself, to be his own ‘I.’”

Rick,

Nice try, but Solzhenitzyn - great writer and all - doesn't have exactly the standing of law.

Nearly every instance of *torture* (as opposed to aggressive interrogation - and yes, sleep deprivation to a point is legal under some circumstances) was discovered and was being investigated by the military BEFORE the media tripped onto the stories.

As to this bit here: "What about between capture and trial? Do you support torture then?"

On the one hand, it's a cowardly bit of rhetoric that is beneath contempt. I was a libertarian - big and small "l" - long before John Ashcroft was sworn in (the only thing that made most DFLers care about liberties other than the freedom to expose one's private parts and burn the flag); it's a lock that I am a harsher critic of government power and excesses than you (sing. and pl.) ever will be.

Secondly: Trial? They're terrorists, covered by neither US law nor the Geneva Convention. They should not get a trial - just a tribunal.

But no; as noted elsewhere, the only cases of "torture" are things the US military has already prosecuted, and (in every case I'm aware of) was moving to prosecute even before it came to the media/left's (pardon the redundancy) attention.

Mitch:

I do not care what party you belong to. I do not care what theory of government you espouse. I care very much that you do not seem to be able to type three little words - 'torture is wrong'.

I did not cite Solzhenitzyn as a legal authority and I have no desire to start a legal debate about torture.

Solzhenitzyn is a moral authority and a first-hand expert on the practical techniques Bill C thinks, and you seem to agree, are no big deal.

Solzhenitzyn's point was that these techniques make people say anything. They have no purpose other than to inflict pain and produce (temporary)agreement with some prefered version of events. That is wrong. The techniques wind up debasing the humanity of those who employ them and those who approve them.

Maybe you have some insight into the human soul that Solzhenitzyn overlooked, but on this matter I put my money on the old Russian.

Mitch-

Due process is not a special treat given to those who deserve it. It is a fundemental right guaranteed by our constitution. The fact that someone is not a citizen does not affect the analysis, according to the Supreme Court (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 03-6696).

The fact that you discount their rights by summarily defining them as "terrorists" (neverminding the now 50+ individuals released from git-mo with no evidence of wrong doing), strongly discounts your self-proclaimed belief in libertarian ideals.

Alleged criminals and ex-cons get due process for the same reason that we all do if we are to be accused of a crime, and for the same reason that so-called terrorists should- it is a fundemental tenet of fairness in a free society.

Reagan knew that, Nixon knew that, and history will judge Bush for forgetting it.

I'm fine with shooting enemy combatants on sight.

Kyle, it is truly mind-boggling how desperately the Left wants to return to "the good old days," including among other things, a status quo that benefited a ruthless dictator who modeled himself on Stalin, the terrorists he trained and funded, and deeply corrupt politicians of our so-called allies, while starving millions of innocent Iraqis, penalizing them for being Saddam's victims (not to mention putting our armed forces in danger daily for the sake of endless "containment"). How progressive.

I'd bet money that a solid majority of Iraqis would find you to be a complete and utter fool.

"I do not care what party you belong to...I care very much that you do not seem to be able to type three little words - 'torture is wrong'."

Do you care what species I am?

Because I don't drink from the toilet bowl, I don't fetch, and I don't type things on command.

I reject the premise that what the vast, vast majority of the detainees have suffered was "torture" in any sense that the people at, say, the U of M Center for Torture Victims (many of them victims of the regimes that the detainees support) would recognize.

"Solzhenitzyn is a moral authority and a first-hand expert on the practical techniques Bill C thinks, and you seem to agree, are no big deal."

Didn't say they were "no big deal"; just that most of the instances of "torture" over which the left has its undies in a knot are not torture.

"Solzhenitzyn's point was that these techniques make people say anything."

Which is why a judicious interrogator abjures genuine torture, and uses the more aggressive interrogation techniques in a very focused manner, if at all.

"They have no purpose other than to inflict pain and produce (temporary)agreement with some prefered version of events. That is wrong."

And irrelevant. If you can show me a case of the US using "torture" (the real thing, not Britney Spears or minor sleep deprivation) and NOT being prosecuted to the full extent of military law, then you might, possibly, have a point.

"Maybe you have some insight into the human soul that Solzhenitzyn overlooked, but on this matter I put my money on the old Russian."

As did I, when I abandoned the Democrat party.

Y'know - the party that (thanks, Geoff) supported Stalin, (and has elements that probably would today).

Bostonian,

Is it due process or absence of torture the iraqis would take issue with?

The debate on this post has been exactly what currents of stalinist policy are found in Bush's actions. While the righties here seem to continually call lefties communists, they don't respond to the issue of Bush's transgressions.

As for shooting "enemy combatants," I'm not sure what that means. Is Moussaui an enemy combatant? How about Richard Reed? Jose Padilla? Ted Kazinski?

Your lack of regard for procedure is either troubling or simply reflects a lack of understanding on your part. However, if rough justice is your desire, you needn't wait for the last vestiges of our civil institutions to fail- Darfur already to your liking.

"I don't type things on command"

I never asked, let alone commanded, you too. I will let your unwillingness to simply say 'torture is wrong' stand for itself.

"While the righties here seem to continually call lefties communists, they don't respond to the issue of Bush's transgressions."
That's because Bush's transgression have been few, far between, fully investigated, fully publicized and brought to account. That's because Bush, unlike Stalin, had to stand before the American people for election and will forever be legally accountable for his actions.
Minor differences.

Kyle, I'm delighted you recognize Stalin as a despotic tyrant. As for Bush being a misguided fool, history will judge. As for civil rights, I think he has done a remarkable job of balancing protecting us from the next attack that most of us have grown too complacent to expect, and the rights of enemy combatants and US citizens. You and I disagree. I am, however, glad that it is W and his principles safe-guarding my family and not you.
(And no, Ted Kazinski is not an enemy combatant; that's ridiculous on its face. US citizen, US crime, not part of a greater war. Padilla: US citizen trained with enemy as part of greater war. Moussaui: Duh. Richard Reed: UK citizen allied with enemy in greater war. Johnny Taliban captured in Afghanistan? I'm gonna go out on a limb and tag him an enemy combatant.)
As for Darfur, I'm confident the UN and its procedures will quickly solve the problems.

"I never asked, let alone commanded, you too. I will let your unwillingness to simply say 'torture is wrong' stand for itself."

And I will let your unwillingness to deny you molest children speak for ITself.

Bullshit, Rick. I was decrying torture back when your party was still turning a blind eye to the killing fields.

Oh, yeah:

" I will let your unwillingness to simply say 'torture is wrong' stand for itself."

Yeah, um, the old "you didn't say you opposed [something evil], you must *support* evil..." play.

While I'm sure that fourth-grader playground "logic" will get you noticed at DFL meetings, in the real world it is regarded more or less like farting on the bus; you can do it, but it's bad form.

If that's the best you can do, go back to "Norwegianity".

I'll concede a Stalin/Bush similarity when members of his and previous administrations are being lined up for the firing squad. When whole populations are rounded up and shipped to northern Montana wearing t-shirts and shorts. With no food or water.
This is so weak.