WOW James,

You don't think that is overstepping the evidence a bit?

In Gitmo a single detainee was singled out for harsher treatment in order to get time critical information from him. Approval was sought from the command structure and it went all the way to Secretary of Defense's desk... That is a far cry from the panties on the head antics.

As far as the abuses being more "widespread" that is still dubious. The media is hoping it is widespread. They will look for any shred of evidence that might make that case. So they "link" different events over the last 2 years and try to paint them as a single picture.

When you have a few hundred thousand people detained, some will die in confinement. We have no idea what injuries these guys sustained during - you know- the war before we picked them up. To automatically imply, as the papers due (and you seem to back up,) that it was murder is getting several carts a head of the horse.

Do we need to investigate? Obviously.

Are people getting way, way, way ahead of the facts? Obviously.

I think you can read the "special permission" cases as evidence for either side. I read them the way you do. At first. But the evidence now seems to indicate that there were numerous "exceptions" granted and that respect for the Geneva protocols was non-existent. It's also clear that military intelligence folks, apparently at least including junior officers, were violating the law.

My initial reaction to the scandal was that, of course, it isn't systemic because it goes against the training that soldiers received when I was in and would have been culturally anethema to us in those days. Apparently, though, there has been an effort to override that culture.

It's still unclear what exactly went on and what the extent was, but it's been a huge disaster for our effort in Iraq. And Rumsfeld and company have, at the very least, been absolutely incompetent in managing the information flow.

It's odd that a sentence containing the word "absolutely" would still strike me as an understatement. At the very least, the Department's actions (or lack of same) in regard to the Abu Ghraib story certainly undermine any accusations of managing information so only the desired story gets out.

For now lemme mention this:

I think you can read the "special permission" cases as evidence for either side. I read them the way you do. At first. But the evidence now seems to indicate that there were numerous "exceptions" granted and that respect for the Geneva protocols was non-existent.

When you have a group of terrorists that might have information that saves lives of course you grant special permissions. (note I did not say exceptions)

You can not say that "respect for the Geneva protocols was non-existent" because Al Qeada is not covered by the Geneva Protocols. IN FACT terrorists are specifically excluded from them.

Remember that in the days after 9/11 we had constitutional and legal scholars saying that (true) torture was not against the constitution or the Geneva convention. At the time there was some discussion of using these methods.

Fast forward 2 years and a (legit) strip search is now called torture.

We're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Big time.

---