Here's an interesting thought:

How many times do you think we'd have to waterboard Bithead to get him to confess that waterboarding is torture?

Uh-uh, Sam. No you di'in'! No you di'int! Aw, BAM!!

How many times do you think we'd have to waterboard Bithead to get him to confess that waterboarding is torture?

Well guys, bithead has to go through life as... bithead. Don't you think his pain threshold is pretty darned high?

How many times do you think we'd have to waterboard Bithead to get him to confess that waterboarding is torture?

Oh, SNAP!

How many times do you think we'd have to waterboard Bithead to get him to confess that waterboarding is torture?

And I don't know if Lindy English was under orders. She didn't commit all the abuse herself.

Fine.
When I start tossing charges around the usual thing that bounces back (And this isn't just directed at you, Bernard) is an appeal to some authorityor another. So, let's see, here. Do we have anyone else we might point at, bar the few individuals brought to trial? No?

Well, then the appeal to authority doesn't seem to back the case that this was systemic abuse at AG, does it?

To dispense with the ad hominem for once

,

A nice change.

...you're simply incorrect.

And yet you provide nothing to back the statement with... and this is shown clearly when you're forced to admit:

Not literally everything that happened in Abu Ghirab, to be fair, was specifically authorized - only about 50%

That 50% figure seems pretty generous to your argument. And let's remember the political environment in which that whole investigation was run, shall we?

I'll close with a comment I left Clariece Feldman a bit ago, that goes directly to the basis of these discussions:

Somehow, the willingly chancing the lives of millions as opposed to pouring water on the face of a few to save those millions, doesn't strike me as very moral.

Maybe we'd even find Padilla's name on that list. That might open a few eyes...

To dispense with the ad hominem for once, you're simply incorrect. Moreover, the inaccuracy of your statements has been demonstrated in such thorough and explicit detail that the more informed folks of your general mindset aren't really trying those lines anymore.

I suggest you spend sometime with this report.

http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf

Not literally everything that happened in Abu Ghirab, to be fair, was specifically authorized - only about 50%. Another 40% was non-specifically encouraged, along the lines of general demands to "get tough". Another 10-20% was genuinely non-institutional personal fun for the guards.

And I don't know if Lindy English was under orders. She didn't commit all the abuse herself. And we do know that soldiers at Abu Ghraib were ordered to soften up the detainees. We also know that the techniques used: hooding, stress positions, threats with dogs, and sexual humiliation were explicitly authorized at the very highest levels of the Administration. They appear in the "torture memos." They were briefed to Condi and the other members of the Principles Committee as early as 2002. They were used at Abu Ghraib. They were used at Bagram. They were used at Guantanamo. They were used in "black sites" elsewhere.

None of this actually is even disputed anymore. What people like Cheney, et al, are arguing now is that the techniques were necessary and that they worked.

So not only don't you seem to know the facts of the case, you're not even current with wingnut talking points.

Answer the question I asked.

Bit, who is the hero of "Atlas Shrugged"? If you can't answer, we are dealing with the fact that you don't know...

but rather a few rouges.

Ah yes, the "few bad apples" theory.

Actually there is truth to this premise. Except that the bad apples were named Cheney, Rumsfeld and so on....

Answer the question I asked. If you can't answer in the affirmative

As a lad, bit must have been the absolute king of "the dog ate my homework" excuses...

"Can you prove that the dog DID NOT eat my homework? If you can't answer in the affirmative...

Then again, neither was Abu Girab a result of a systematic policy of torture, but rather a few rouges

Okay... so basically you have not bothered to read any of the released documents, extensive reporting in the media, or the reports of congressional committees and international organizations. Good to know. Ignorance is bliss, eh Bit?

How is the specific application at Abu Ghraib of a systematic policy of torture "totally disconnected"?

It wouldn't be, were that the case... Then again, neither was Abu Girab a result of a systematic policy of torture, but rather a few rouges. Are you really prepared to suggest that Lindy what's her name was operating under orders?

And James, I think if you will look you will find the topic wasn't waterboarding, per se' but AbuGirabe, which is a totally disconnetced matter.

Huh?

How is the specific application at Abu Ghraib of a systematic policy of torture "totally disconnected"?

If you condemn what happened at abu Ghriab, you have to condemn the use of the same tactics elsewhere, no?