Let's call it the "McCain Treaty With Al Qaeda."

Okay.

Who decides if Suspect Abdul is al Qaeda or not? If we torture an innocent is it like the medieval test for witches? If you die then we know you weren't a witch.

> Who decides if Suspect Abdul is al Qaeda or not? If we torture an innocent
> is it like the medieval test for witches?

As Abraham Lincoln said, calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg. Likewise, calling anything short of actual surrender "torture" does not make it torture.

Since you claim the right to define anything you don't like as "torture," perhaps you'll soon tell us that not spending tens of billions on unnecessary but politically correct Shuttle-derived vehicles would be torture?

Bill, I hate to break this to you, but we are in a war.

A war? Sure.

It's Mark Levin vs Andrew Sullivan, correct?

> A war? Sure.

> It's Mark Levin vs Andrew Sullivan, correct?

That statement speaks for itself, Bill.

You really haven't a clue.

It just so happens that Al Qaeda specifically operates in the manner the Geneva Conventions describe as being mercenaries. A mercenary doesn't have to be Al Qaeda. Abdul is SOL if he is discovered armed in a war zone but not wearing a state military insignia. If he is found like that, then the Geneva Conventions dealing with Torture do not apply.

A couple of keys points:

1) Torture is a loaded word that doesn't have a well defined meaning in the context of this debate.

2) Several very acceptable techniques are being lumped into the so-called "torture" ban

3) I have no trouble using real torture on non-uniformed AQ persons. They kill babies. They cut heads off. Any questions?

4) Great framing of the debate: "McCain treaty wiht AQ". I love it. Why should be agree to that ; we know what they do to our soldiers.

--Fred

1) Torture is a loaded word that doesn't have a well defined meaning in the context of this debate.

Agreed.

2) Several very acceptable techniques are being lumped into the so-called "torture" ban.

Agreed. With (1) & (2) agreed, we need clear guidelines established by Congress (we are a republican form of democracy after all) on where the line falls between acceptable and unacceptable practices.

3) I have no trouble using real torture on non-uniformed AQ persons. They kill babies. They cut heads off. Any questions?

Agreed.

I am less sanguine that we can accurately distinguish al Qaeda from non al Qaeda. Who makes the call whether someone is al Qaeda or just another Shia militiaman? What about the Kurdish peshmerga?

To use harsh techniques on non al Qaeda harms our national interest. We cannot be seen over there as rounding up the innocent with the guilty and treating them all the same.

4) Great framing of the debate: "McCain treaty wiht AQ". I love it. Why should be agree to that; we know what they do to our soldiers.

I agree. Great framing.

Which goes to show that positioning for the 2008 GOP primary is what is really at stake in the ongoing NRO versus Andrew Sullivan "war"

The guidelines are refered to as the Geneva Conventions. The US has ratified that treaty and is bound by our Constitution to uphold the articles of those documents. Some simply want a new treaty with terrorists that provides them the protection they are not granted by the Geneva Conventions. Any recommendations on who our emissary should be?

> Any recommendations on who our emissary should be?

Sounds like Bill's already taken the job.

Unfortunately, the Geneva Convention does not prevent him from torturing us with his twisted logic. Since we're not terrorists, though, Bill will not have to sue himself for failing to serve us tea and crumpets. :-)

I think people who have never been in battle should
not comment on the laws of war.

> Any recommendations on who our emissary should be?

Not me. How about John Cole. John not Juan. ;-)

How leftie is John Cole, anyway, because his post makes sense to me.