Go back to school and learn to write a cohesive argument. At least learn to use proper sentences.

You bet there is a difference.

2) I’m not intimately familiar with the previous restrictions, or the new guidelines, but I would hazard a guess that the old guidelines were too restrictive. “Failed to set up a system to prevent this” How does one set up a system to prevent all crimes, especially in a war zone? And what’s your evidence for the claim that he “threw out the Geneva Conventions”?

3) I assume you’re referring to Rumsfeld here again. If he indeed “let them loose”, and you put it, and there is evidence of such, he will certainly be fired, at the least. As far as people who we have actual reason to suspect (as opposed to people who are just unliked), I know at least one general is facing consequences.

When I clicked on William Saletan’s chronology of the term “rape rooms”, I was expecting to enjoy some quality snark at the Bush administration’s expense. But by the end, I was nearly in tears. This stuff isn’t funny anymore. It’s…

2) The responsibility for this goes all the way up to Rumsfeld, who felt that the previous regulations on interrogations were too restrictive and burdensome. Maybe, but they were there for a reason, and when he failed to set up a system for preventing this, he became responsible. He threw out the Geneva Conventions back in 2002, and now it’s bit him.

3) Yes, the torturers will be punished. I’m not as optimistic that those who let them loose will similarly face consequences.

I think it’s childish of you to equate the actions of a few with the standing of our entire country. Such a standard absolves the individual of personal responsibility. Our country is doing its duty with regards to these soldiers. They will be prosecuted.

That said, what is your point? Is every crime/sin/injustice equal? Sorry, I don’t buy it. Do you think that every little thing we do wrong makes us as bad as Saddam’s regime? Sorry, I can’t buy that either. America sucks and you hate it lots? I don’t buy it, but if you do, you should look for a job with Nader’s campaign.

Did I miss your point?

Grant, forgive me if I’m misunderstanding, but you seem to be engaging in moral equivalence.

Given the tone of your post, that is no small irony.

Fuck moral equivalence. Dodging moral equivalence and fifty cents will buy you a phone call. What matters is what it does, and what it does is damn well equivalent: It tyrranizes, it terrorizes, it dehumanizes. It’s just another fascist dictatorship in Iraq, however you slice it. The action implies the intent; we needn’t quibble about _morals_ when we are in the face of _evil_.

It doesn’t matter who’s morally equivalent to whom. It’s not about morals. It’s about reality, about what you _are_. And what America is, at this moment, is a two-bit tyrant ruling a broken and terrorized nation from Baghdad. It no longer matters who is morally equivalent; it never has and never did and never will. It matters who can represent human decency, and the answer sure as hell doesn’t seem to be America.

I am never more ashamed of this country than when I hear someone pull out “moral equivalence” as if it were an argument. It’s a pandering excuse from either side for contemptible behaviour and craven unwillingness to face reality. Is our torture “morally equivalent” to theirs? Who gives a fuck? It has one crucial difference — it’s ours! — and one crucial equivalence — it’s torture! — and if those aren’t enough to shut a person up about “moral equivalence”, that person should run for congress. Or perhaps join the Army — it appears that they have places for people who can justify anything with sophistry and casuistry.

Each and every person who brings “moral equivalence” into an argument about basic human decency is on a morally equivalent plane, whether you’re defending the “he started it first” grade-schooler or defending the bomber walking into a bar full of civilians. If you think that there are moral equivalents, that there are shades and degrees of rape and torture and murder to be toted up on some ledger of moral accountancy, summed to a bottom line and compared with other virtue scorecards, you have already left virtue far, far behind.
–G

Not that either one is acceptable, I’m just saying I don’t grant the moral equivalence.