David, a well-thought out, insightful, logical and civil post. I applaud
you.

"David Gale" wrote in message
...
"Blue" wrote:
I agree for the most part "but" those representatives are supposed to
vote
as their constituents would have them vote and not as they themselves
wish.
thus the representatives are by design mere functionaries.

That'd be impressive; if you were representing even just three people, and
supposed to vote as all three of them would have you vote, you'd need to
vote at least three times--since everyone wants different things. There
is
nothing in the Constitution (or any other founding document) stating that
elected officials need to vote as anyone else would have them vote; even
the
electors in the electoral college are free to vote their conciences.
Rather, citizens are supposed to vote for the person(s) whom they feel are
best qualified for the job (look at how the vice-presidency was originally
decided--the runner-up in the general election got the post, because he
was,
presumably, the second-best person in the country to head the executive
branch).

Now, most voters believe that someone who doesn't hold their beliefs is
clearly not qualified to lead them, and thus they end up voting based on
issues; I am not saying this is wrong, but that it is not, strictly
speaking, what qualifies one for office.

But the real problem with democracy is the existance of the executive
branch
and its takeover of near total power in this country.

I'm afraid that here you expose yourself to criticism, as many (especially
those on the political right, though not limited to such) feel that the
judicial branch has usurped much of the power that was originally supposed
to belong to the legislative branch, and some that belonged to the
executive.

True, the executive has gotten around the limitation that "only congress
can
declare war" by declaring things to be "police actions" instead; Truman
did
this for Korea, and Johnson did this for Viet Nam; interestingly enough,
both were Democrats. By the time the Gulf War rolled around, people were
used to the idea of not declaring a full-fledged war, and getting an
authorization of force from Congress instead. You may guess that I,
personally, disagree with this belief, but the border is hard to
define--did
Clinton need Congress to declare war before sending troops into Bosnia?
Yugoslavia? I don't have a good answer for this one, I'll confess.
However, you even seem to concede that the executive branch has little
direct influence over domestic matters--yes, the president can give a nice
speech calling for lower taxes, putting a man on the moon, ending
segregation, etc., but that's all that is--a speech. For these things to
happen, Congress must pass laws, appropriate funds in the budgets, etc.
And, of course, the courts must rule that these laws pass Constitutional
muster.

Except, of course, for when the courts declare that someone has a right
that
no one had ever considered before, or orders the legislation to enact new
laws by a certain deadline, etc., thus circumventing the executive branch
entirely. The need for judicial reform, however, is a lengthy debate in
and
of itself, so I won't go into those details here.

That came about at
the first constitutional convention where the executive branch was
cobbled
onto the Articles Of Confederation because of the presence of G
Washington
who was at the time universally revered. The convention was for the
purpose
of correcting the lack of a federal government which they found was
necessary to fund national efforts such as defense but they went on to
reward GWashington for his revolutionary effort, a major mistake in my
view
and one the world continues to pay for as the executive branch is all
about
war-making, period.

Actually, if you look at the writings of the founding fathers, many of
them
wanted to have an "American King", while others wanted to have no federal
government at all. The system we have now, with both state and federal
governments, is a compromise; the federal government, many feel, has
slowly
taken more power upon itself, away from the states (forcing all states to
legalize abortion, and potentially forcing all states to deny gay
marriage,
are two obvious examples). I'm not aware of any founding father who
argued
that there did not need to be an executive branch; rather, it was given
certain powers that the congress was not, in order to institute a system
of
"checks and ballances". Whether you feel that system works or not is, of
course, your opinion, though I would argue that the fact that there are
people who feel that the judicial branch has too much power, while others
feel the executive has too much, and some who think the legislative rules,
is a fairly stong indication that the checks and ballances survive even to
this day.

As for your contention that the executive is solely about war-making, I
think you are wrong. Yes, as I stated above, the president has little
direct control over domestic issues--but he does help guide the congress
in
shaping laws, and gets to decide which ones are enacted. Also, it should
be
obvious that there's a difference between the president and the executive
branch--our diplomats, policemen, dogcatchers, etc., are all part of that
branch. Clearly, the executive covers much more than "war-making".

Even worse the executive branch makes a mockery of democracy and makes us
think in terms of a "leader" to make all our decisions for us. That was
my
original point.

And, again, I think you're wrong. As should be clearly evidenced by the
debate on this thread alone. Very few people think of the president as a
leader making all of our decisions for us; they realize that congress and
the courts define our laws. Many people, in my experience, rarely even
consider the president, and then only as a figurehead. And, of course,
the
vast majority of our decisions are made by ourselves--I decide where I
drive, what I eat, what I do for a living, etc. The only decisions that
immediately impact my life that I do not make are ones that are clearly
against the law (hence I don't rob the McDonald's down the street, or
steal
computers from my office, etc.). And I know the president has very little
to do with those decisions.

GWB campaigned on pure bull**** while deliberately concealing from us his
intention to make war in the Middle East clearly showing that we don't
have
a clue about the presidents we vote for, Kerry included.

You are, of course, completely free to have your own opinions. Here, you
state them as fact, though many would argue against them. I do not claim
psychic powers, and so cannot know whether our current president intended
to
"make war in the Middle East", though I do tend to doubt it--anyone who
desires to become president of the most powerful nation on earth needs to
be
able to acknowledge that there's been violence in the Middle East for
centuries, and that the US would need to take some role in relation to
that.
Some are willing to watch from the side, waiting for a clear victor; many
would argue that that is one of the more dangerous postures available, and
that it is far better to take an active role. However, what that role
properly would be is very hard for anyone to define--try to put into words
exactly what you think the US should do in relation to the entire Middle
East, which would help calm the violence there, eliminate all threats of
terrorism, and not impact our economy too drastically. It's not an easy
exercise.

Chubs wrote:
Bush may not be the brightest guy out there, but he's sure better than
anyone else that has run against him. Sure am glad we had him in office
when 9-11 happened.

He wasn't in office. He was in a school reading to some kids, and kept
reading for quite a while, not knowing what else to do.

Now the republicans are trying to legalize torture.

Ah. A michael moore fan among us. What about the interview whereKerry
admitted to sitting in an office for 45 minutes "unable to think." What the
hell would you have done? It's all 20/20 hindsight, anyway. Kerry can say
what he wants about tearing off his shirt to expose the giant S and flying
off to save the world, but he cannot say what he would have done, because it
didn't happen to him. So Bush sat there for 6 minutes thinking "holy ****."
Big deal. Trust me, the fact that he continued reading for 6 or 7 minutes
mattered not at all to the execution of the expected disaster response plan.
It's not like everyone everywhere sat around on their hands waiting to hear
what the president wanted them to do.

Legalize torture?

wrote in message
...
Chubs wrote:
Bush may not be the brightest guy out there, but he's sure better than
anyone else that has run against him. Sure am glad we had him in office
when 9-11 happened.

He wasn't in office. He was in a school reading to some kids, and kept
reading for quite a while, not knowing what else to do.

Now the republicans are trying to legalize torture.

In article , "Jeff Harper" wrote:

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. We aren't
supposed to have a democracy. We're supposed to have a republic.


"Republic" is a broad category that encompasses "representative
democracies," which ours is (specifically a constitutional representative
democracy). Unlike, say, the Republic of China.

Actually, the Republic of China is also a constitutional representative
democracy, very much like ours. See http://www.gio.gov.tw/ for more
information.

Possibly you meant the People's Republic of China.

Side note: any nation whose official name includes the phrases "People's
Republic" or "Democratic Republic" -- isn't.

In article , wrote:
Chubs wrote:
Bush may not be the brightest guy out there, but he's sure better than
anyone else that has run against him. Sure am glad we had him in office
when 9-11 happened.

He wasn't in office. He was in a school reading to some kids, and kept
reading for quite a while, not knowing what else to do.

You're just a little confused here. Facts are, he kept reading for all of
_seven_minutes_ so as not to alarm the children. Meanwhile, by his own
admission, Senator Kerry sat in his office for over half an hour, again by his
own admission because he did not know what to do.

Now the republicans are trying to legalize torture.

Huh?

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. We aren't
supposed to have a democracy. We're supposed to have a republic.


"Republic" is a broad category that encompasses "representative
democracies," which ours is (specifically a constitutional representative
democracy). Unlike, say, the Republic of China.

If you mean we aren't supposed to have a simple democracy wherein majority
rule carries the day on every issue, the kind ancient Greece had (both
Plato
and Aristotle to disliked democracy as a result), then I agree with what
you
are saying--in principle. Ours, where we elect competent people to
represent us and limit their authority with a constitutional document, is
far superior.

I agree but it is too bad we screwed that up by laying on a senate which
moves away from representative democracy and then just lost it completely by
laying on an executive branch because we were afraid of self rule (and
Washington was soooo handy!) which makes a mockery of any claim we have to
be a democracy.

Of course at the time we had thirteen colonies any one of which could opt
out and it was necessary to get them all to support the new constitutionl -
the large and the small, the rich and the poor, the slave states and the
free states and many other considerations as well.

But by instituting a presidency we lost one of the world's greatest
opportunities to turn away from the old idea of a king/warlord and return to
something like the great Roman Republic which had none. Washington was
fine and well known and devoted mimself to avoiding war to allow the country
to flower but there have been few to compare with him.

GWB with his : "I am a warlord." and "I don't have to explain myself to
anyone." is breathtaking andsimply my worst nightmare of a president.

Just one month from now is a defining moment every bit as important as
Ceasars crossing the Rubicon was known to be at that time. In my view Bush
will stop at nothing at all to retain his absolute power over the world's
only superpower and thus the world. Nothing!

In my dreams I see us taking a four sabbatical leave from an executive
branch to try and regain something of what we once were. As it is now Mr
Bush in his short reign has made our flag the international symbol of racial
and religious bigotry, a truly astounding vertical descent.

In article , "Blue" wrote:

GWB with his : "I am a warlord." and "I don't have to explain myself to
anyone." is breathtaking andsimply my worst nightmare of a president.

When, where, and to whom did he say that?

Or did you just make it up?

clipped

True, the executive has gotten around the limitation that "only congress can
declare war" by declaring things to be "police actions" instead; Truman did
this for Korea, and Johnson did this for Viet Nam; interestingly enough,
both were Democrats. By the time the Gulf War rolled around, people were

clipped

'Twas Kennedy who sent "advisors" to VN, around 1962 (and eight years
after France got it's a-- kicked out).

"Norminn" wrote:
'Twas Kennedy who sent "advisors" to VN, around 1962 (and eight years
after France got it's a-- kicked out).

I was about 90% positive that was the case, but couldn't find any reference
to Nam on Kennedy's bio at the Whitehouse website
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jk35.html, so I assumed I had
to be mistaken.

Ah, well, that's what I get for trying to get my post up relatively quickly.
:-)

-D.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
wrote:
Chubs wrote:
Bush may not be the brightest guy out there, but he's sure better than
anyone else that has run against him. Sure am glad we had him in
office
when 9-11 happened.

He wasn't in office. He was in a school reading to some kids, and kept
reading for quite a while, not knowing what else to do.

According to the 9/11 commission report, there were a lot things that should
have been done that weren't and nobody at the top was checking and
initiating. That was Bush's job! He damn well should have said "sorry
kids, something important has come up. gotta run." The kids would have been
fine. That's the lamest bull**** excuse Bush apologists have come up with
yet..that Bush was trying to protect the children from trauma.

Kerry on the other hand had no immediate responsibilities. The military,
FBI, etc., didn't answer to him. He wasn't commander in chief and head of
the executive branch. And..Kerry immediately sat down with colleagues and
watched the news to get informed. Bush didn't even attempt to do what most
of us did--try to find out what was happening.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

"John?] "
wrote:
In article , Norminn
wrote:

clipped

True, the executive has gotten around the limitation that "only
congress can
declare war" by declaring things to be "police actions" instead;
Truman did
this for Korea, and Johnson did this for Viet Nam; interestingly
enough,
both were Democrats. By the time the Gulf War rolled around, people
were

clipped

'Twas Kennedy who sent "advisors" to VN, around 1962 (and eight years
after France got it's a-- kicked out).

Earlier than that...

The US Military Assistance Advisory Group(MAAG) assumed responsibility
for training ARVN military forces on April 26, 1956. The 1st Special
Forces Group(ABN) opened a commando training center in Nha Trang in
1957. The first US casualties were 13 wounded in terrorist bombings in
Saigon on 22 October 1957. The first two American military personnel
killed died on 8 July 1959.

Whom did you say was President...?

Ok, let's get down to picking real nits.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001292.html First advisors were sent to
Viet Nam in 1950 by President Truman, to aid the French. Later, Eisenhower
increased the number of advisors somewhat; in 1960-63, Kennedy increased the
number of military advisors "from 900 to 15,000". That's an average of more
than 3,500 advisors per year.

Of course, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution wasn't passed until 1964, when
Johnson was the president; which allowed him to begin large-scale fighting.

Which all goes to support my original statement, that the "border" between
using troops legitimately in a non-war situation, and a true war situation
(requiring a declaration of war passed by the Congress), border "is hard to
define". Which I followed up by asking, "did Clinton need Congress to
declare war before sending troops into Bosnia? Yugoslavia?" And, I guess
you could add, did Truman need a declaration of war to send advisors to Viet
Nam? What about Eisenhower?

Where would you say the border between "non-war deployment of troops" and
"war" truly is? When does the president need a Congressional declaration,
and when does he not?

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Blue" wrote:

GWB with his : "I am a warlord." and "I don't have to explain myself to
anyone." is breathtaking andsimply my worst nightmare of a president.

When, where, and to whom did he say that?

Or did you just make it up?

In so many words

When: April 2004
Whe Washington, D.C.
To Whom: The U.S.Supreme Court

WAKE UP, you freaking MORON!

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html...ls_article.htm

In article , Ermalina wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Blue" wrote:

GWB with his : "I am a warlord." and "I don't have to explain myself to
anyone." is breathtaking andsimply my worst nightmare of a president.

When, where, and to whom did he say that?

Or did you just make it up?

In so many words

When: April 2004

April First, no doubt. Do you get your news from "The Onion"?

Whe Washington, D.C.
To Whom: The U.S.Supreme Court

WAKE UP, you freaking MORON!

I'm wide enough awake to recognize a lie when I see one. If you can't prove
it, then shut up.

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html...ls_article.htm

That cite does NOT back up the claim that Bush actually said those things. Try
again.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Ermalina wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Blue" wrote:

GWB with his : "I am a warlord." and "I don't have to explain myself to
anyone." is breathtaking andsimply my worst nightmare of a president.

When, where, and to whom did he say that?

Or did you just make it up?

In so many words

When: April 2004

April First, no doubt. Do you get your news from "The Onion"?

Whe Washington, D.C.
To Whom: The U.S.Supreme Court

WAKE UP, you freaking MORON!

I'm wide enough awake to recognize a lie when I see one. If you can't prove
it, then shut up.

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html...ls_article.htm

That cite does NOT back up the claim that Bush actually said those things. Try
again.

You should learn to read and consider the MEANINGS of collections of
words (i.e., sentences, paragraphs, etc.) and not merely the words, per
se, MORON.

As I said, "in so many words," the disgraceful "argument" presented to
the Supreme Court on behalf of Lord Bush and his lawless neocon henchman
was PRECISELY equivalent to the assertion: "I am a warlord." and "I
don't have to explain myself to anyone."

That was too much, even for the current Supreme Court-wannabe, to
accept.

mark wrote:
Legalize torture?

Yes. Hidden in the bill that is supposed to implement the recommendations
of the 9/11 Committee is a provision that would allow the US to send
certain prisoners to other countries where they might be tortured. Under
current US law this is not allowed. To make matters worse, the proposed
legislation would allow these prisoners to be sent to *any* country
(not just the country they're from, have ties to, or are alleged to have
committed a crime in), and it would be up to the prisoner (who might be
held in secret without access to councel) to prove that they are innocent
and should not be extradited.

Note that this so-called "extraordinary rendition" is contrary to the
recommendations of the 9/11 Committee, and contrary to statements Bush
made after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.

Blue wrote:
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...


I agree but it is too bad we screwed that up by laying on a senate which
moves away from representative democracy and then just lost it completely by
laying on an executive branch because we were afraid of self rule (and
Washington was soooo handy!) which makes a mockery of any claim we have to
be a democracy.

At our founding, the Senate was to represent the states, not the people,
which is why each state has the same number of senators. We unbalanced
this early in the last century when we decided to have senators elected
by the people, which diminished the power of the states and led to the
federalization of all of our lives.

Also, as the legislature was not originally continuously in session,
there had to be some sort of executive power to manage the day to day
activities of the federal government. Even Switzerland, possibly the
closest to a true democracy today, has an executive to run things. I
can't think of a single current country that doesn't have some sort of
executive authority; the major difference is whether the executive is
elected by the legislature, or by the people, or more precisely, by the
people we elect to the electoral college.



Of course at the time we had thirteen colonies any one of which could opt
out and it was necessary to get them all to support the new constitutionl -
the large and the small, the rich and the poor, the slave states and the
free states and many other considerations as well.

But by instituting a presidency we lost one of the world's greatest
opportunities to turn away from the old idea of a king/warlord and return to
something like the great Roman Republic which had none. Washington was
fine and well known and devoted mimself to avoiding war to allow the country
to flower but there have been few to compare with him.

I agree with your assessment of Washington. I seem to recall reading,
however, that over the course of time, Rome was most often ruled by
strong executives, rather than the senate. In any event, I doubt most
Americans would want to live in a true democracy, as in a large and
complex society such as ours, most of us would not want to be bothered
with constant elections, much less learning what we were voting on. I'm
sure even my congressperson doesn't know what is in most of the bills he
votes on; would I want to have my friends and neighbors with that power?



--
SPAMBLOCK NOTICE! To reply to me, delete the h from apkh.net, if it is
there.

Thank you Ermalina. Junior Bush said both things on TV.
Miller just argues in this manner and probably knows the truth full well but
is just a partisan footsoldier with overweening pride and cheap sophistic
tricks. His game is to discredit and there is just no way in hell of ever
getting him to publically admit it.

Yes, I did paraphrase. When I reflect Junior told us all on the six oclock
news: "I am a war president. When I deal with foreign nation leaders I am
always thinking of war."
That is probably closer to his actual words but I gave him: "I am a
warlord." That's probably the way "El Jeffe" as he refers to himself would
have put it if he had thought of it.

The good news is that he was right out in front with his self-view. The
bad news is that he said something quite different to us when he wanted us
to vote for him in 2000 even though we now know he was planning war at the
time against defenseless small nations which had never threatened us in any
way, probably to prove his manhood - to himself. In fact he has now done
precisely the opposite to all the world.



"Ermalina" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Blue" wrote:

GWB with his : "I am a warlord." and "I don't have to explain myself
to
anyone." is breathtaking andsimply my worst nightmare of a president.

When, where, and to whom did he say that?

Or did you just make it up?

In so many words

When: April 2004
Whe Washington, D.C.
To Whom: The U.S.Supreme Court

WAKE UP, you freaking MORON!

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html...ls_article.htm

In article , Ermalina wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Ermalina
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Blue" wrote:

GWB with his : "I am a warlord." and "I don't have to explain myself to
anyone." is breathtaking andsimply my worst nightmare of a president.

When, where, and to whom did he say that?

Or did you just make it up?

In so many words

When: April 2004

April First, no doubt. Do you get your news from "The Onion"?

Whe Washington, D.C.
To Whom: The U.S.Supreme Court

WAKE UP, you freaking MORON!

I'm wide enough awake to recognize a lie when I see one. If you can't prove
it, then shut up.

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html...ls_article.htm

That cite does NOT back up the claim that Bush actually said those things.
Try
again.

You should learn to read and consider the MEANINGS of collections of
words (i.e., sentences, paragraphs, etc.) and not merely the words, per
se, MORON.

Can't you be any more inventive than that? Your vocabulary seems rather
limited.

As I said, "in so many words," the disgraceful "argument" presented to
the Supreme Court on behalf of Lord Bush and his lawless neocon henchman
was PRECISELY equivalent to the assertion: "I am a warlord." and "I
don't have to explain myself to anyone."

But he didn't actually say those things, did he? That's just your opinion of
what you think he meant. And considering your demonstrated lack of thinking
skills, that opinion isn't worth much.

I'll go out on a limb here, and predict that your response will be, again, to
call me a MORON. Or maybe it will be IDIOT this time; you don't seem able to
find any other words to express yourself.

No matter, I won't see it anyway. You're in the killfile now, dearie. Maybe
someday you'll learn that name-calling is a poor substitute for debate.

In article , wrote:
mark wrote:
Legalize torture?

Yes.

No.

Hidden in the bill that is supposed to implement the recommendations
of the 9/11 Committee is a provision that would allow the US to send
certain prisoners to other countries where they might be tortured.

That's not the same thing as legalizing it here.

In article , "Blue" wrote:
Thank you Ermalina. Junior Bush said both things on TV.

You lie. He did not say those things.

Miller just argues in this manner and probably knows the truth full well but

Indeed, I do: the truth is that he did not say what you claim he said.

is just a partisan footsoldier with overweening pride and cheap sophistic
tricks. His game is to discredit and there is just no way in hell of ever
getting him to publically admit it.

You're doing a fine job of discrediting yourself without my assistance:

Yes, I did paraphrase. When I reflect Junior told us all on the six oclock
news: "I am a war president. When I deal with foreign nation leaders I am
always thinking of war."
That is probably closer to his actual words but I gave him: "I am a
warlord." That's probably the way "El Jeffe" as he refers to himself would
have put it if he had thought of it.

Ahh, so now you even admit that you lied. He never said what you attributed to
him, and you know it. Thank you for admitting that the words you _quoted_ him
as saying, are only your opinion of what you think he might have meant.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:
mark wrote:
Legalize torture?

Yes.

No.

Hidden in the bill that is supposed to implement the recommendations
of the 9/11 Committee is a provision that would allow the US to send
certain prisoners to other countries where they might be tortured.

That's not the same thing as legalizing it here.

It's outsourcing of torture, which in turn indicates that this
administration thinks that it is OK to use torture (as if it
wasn't clear already that they feel that way).
Even worse, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have shown that there
are Americans perfectly willing and able to torture people,
so these jobs don't even *need* to be outsourced.

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
mark wrote:
Legalize torture?

Yes.

No.

Hidden in the bill that is supposed to implement the recommendations
of the 9/11 Committee is a provision that would allow the US to send
certain prisoners to other countries where they might be tortured.

That's not the same thing as legalizing it here.

It's outsourcing of torture, which in turn indicates that this
administration thinks that it is OK to use torture (as if it
wasn't clear already that they feel that way).

That's quite a leap of assumption you're making there.

Even worse, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have shown that there
are Americans perfectly willing and able to torture people,
so these jobs don't even *need* to be outsourced.

Oh, please. That wasn't torture. You obviously don't have any idea what
torture really is.

Saddam and his sons tortured people.

WAKE UP, you freaking MORON!

Anyone who differs in opinion is a moron?

Doug Miller wrote:
It's outsourcing of torture, which in turn indicates that this
administration thinks that it is OK to use torture (as if it
wasn't clear already that they feel that way).

That's quite a leap of assumption you're making there.

If you legalize the outsourcing of torture, you're in effect legalizing
torture. Under current US law, outsourcing torture is illegal. Yet, this
administration has done it anyway (look up the case of Maher Arar). Lawyers
for the administration have written lengthy documents explaining why
torture is not against the law when the President orders it. And now they
want to make the outsourcing of torture fully legal.

Even worse, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have shown that there
are Americans perfectly willing and able to torture people,
so these jobs don't even *need* to be outsourced.

Oh, please. That wasn't torture. You obviously don't have any idea what
torture really is.

You can nitpick all you want, but if you stick a broom up someone's ass,
it's torture. When you systematically beat them with a chair, that's
torture. When you pour acid on them, that's torture. All of this happened
at Abu Ghraib. There have been beatings and even killings at Guantanamo
Bay. There are reports of children being raped in front of their parents.
It is understandable that Americans would rather not hear such things, but
sticking your head in the sand isn't going to make these events "unhappen".