Note to self: IDF1 while reading this thread.

My perspective doesn't dissolve anything, Roachboy. I understand the "facts" presented in this thread for what they are: 000'd statistics.

I am simply responding the opinions expressed in the thread. You can't argue the atrocity, you can only argue the reaction.

if you want the numbers, read the material that's behind the thread.
i've been working through small chunks as time permits.

you can argue the atrocity to the extent that you can point out the routines that enable it and in some cases the people who commit it. the routines are more important. in the case of systematic collusion with torture, those routines extend directly to donald rumsfeld. was/is it a problem for people on the ground that those routines extend to donald rumsfeld? perhaps. and they didn't **have to** participate in the collusion. but what were folk to do? report something. so they reported something. and the directive was that nothing was to happen on the basis of those reports. so nothing happened. so a system of torture was enabled. so the united states became the same as saddam hussein's regime, except incompetent.

but politically and ethically it does matter that these routines existed and that they can be extended directly to donald rumsfeld and george w. bush?
absolutely.

this seems to me a grounds for at the very least legal proceedings.
it's not ok, this torture business. and the "definition" of the ""gwot" as "not a real war" has everything to do with legitimating the use of torture.

we aren't even talking about trigger-happy us troops mowing civilians down at checkpoints. that's inside the routine horror of war, yes?

Okay, seriously? Torture operations and the run of the mill activities of the US military are not connected.

I also find it funny that you seem to be supporting Saddam with your comparisons. The Kurds wouldn't like that.

And you can stop hanging things in quotes. It is what it is. The definitions are debatable, the names are not.

You're answering your own questions. I disagree with very little of your nouns. Some of your adjectives, however...

Major cases of Iraqnophobia in this thread.

that separation between torture and the run of the mill operations of us forces was the result of policy directives that originated with rumsfeld. it is self-evident that not all aspects of us forces were in the same physical proximity to these situations. so it is self-evident that not all of us forces were implicated in the same way. but the way this policy worked---it's obvious, yes? use the arbitrary definition cooked up by the bush administration to cover a "war on terror" (in quotes because it's a joke) to suspend the rules of war for us forces. but they couldn't just do that because the political damage would be too high. so they replicated the logic of renditions in iraq.

the policy itself is far more clearly criminal than are any of the actions guided by that policy. and i suspect this is the point of the policy design.

and i am not interested in playing the cheap little game of being accused of supporting saddam hussein by saying that the united states, thanks in part to this torture policy--which is documented in the release as are many instance (i can give a count to this point, but am on my way to work.) i simply find it ironic that the us "liberated" iraq so that iraqis could be subjected to the same abuse but at slightly different hands.

i'm sure that can be justified by the strategic incoherence of the operation itself in its earlier phases. but that too can be laid squarely at the feet of rumsfeld, wolfowitz, etc.

i like the iraqnophobia joke tho. i'll likely steal it. is that yours (tm)?

I'm a sellout. I don't even own these posts.

Glad we can dispense with the cheap games.

I won't call you a Saddam fan if you don't call me GI Joe.

Just call me Mr. Yuk. I don't like either side.

are we adopting names?
i can be mister fabulous hat with the feather.
mr. fhf for short.

====

i just ran across this new and improved lunacy courtesy of fox "news":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...-iraq-war-logs

this gives a little idea of what fox's routine red-baiting can translate into when they stop using it as a way of galvanizing the backwater and instead find a progressive/left target....

neo-fascism in action, kids.

Yay ratings!

Is there a significant difference between declaring a party an enemy combatant and charging them with treason?

It seems to me a distinction between lumping them with the terrorists vs. suggesting they have betrayed the government.

Oh, pshaw! He's just concerned about preserving the republic!