You're trying to elide the crucial distinction between 'rogue state' (i.e., a state that defies international law) and 'terrorist state' (i.e., a state that actively commits or sponsors terrorist acts). What's more, the 'rogue state' language simply (deliberately) echoes Bush's own words: "rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit".

You're also trying to elide the distinction between 'proud to be an American' (there is no evidence that this does not apply to Matt) and 'proud of every single thing the American government does' (which, obviously, is something else altogether.

And speaking of 'proud to be an American'...if you're proud to be an American, why do you embrace the label of traitors?

Many of us who are proud Americans believe it is wrong to torture. That's what the bad guys have always done and they've always been condemned by the United States, even when we've been faced with threats more serious than Muslim terrorists. Until now. Until George W. Bush.

Until now. Until George W. Bush.

What an abject ignorance of history. FDR had six German saboteurs executed before they commited a single attack; Bush merely wants tough questioning to prevent attacks.

Not to pluck a well-worn harp here, but anyone with a blog entitled "Confederate Yankee" is utterly disqualified from making judgments about the "abject ignorance of history."

Regardless, I might draw your attention to a curious detail in the tale of the German saboteurs: each of the accused was in US custody by June 27, 1942. They were tried the next month and executed on August 9, 1942 -- less than two months after their capture.

Whatever one thinks of the sentence of death handed out by FDR's military commission, this much is obvious: What George Bush wants is not the right to carry out "tough questioning." What he wants is the right to imprison suspects (most of whom, unlike the German saboteurs, were captured not by US officials but instead the Pakistani ISI and various Northern Alliance warlords) for indeterminate periods of time without charges or trials; he wants the press and public to resist the urge to scrutinize his actions (enlisting, for example, the aid of various fools to insist that his only aim is to "prevent attacks"); and he wants to redefine a whole array of international human rights norms to indemnify Americans for "tough questioning" tactics (like sleep deprivation) that once softened up Soviet prisoners for show trials.

If your Fearless Leader possessed genuinely persuasive evidence against most of the prisoners he's holding in Guantanamo or Baghram or EuroDisney, can you imagine why he wouldn't relish the opportunity to place their crimes on display? Or does he just really, really like to have people waterboarded?

The ONLY place anyone called America a "terrorist state" was in YOUR post. Matt never said that. Only YOU used those words.

Does this mean you hate America?

You complain that "liberals like him are not proud to be Americans" because the don't want America torturing people. Are you actually saying that you are PROUD that America is torturing people?

More "tough questioning" (via The Independent -- for some reason, the link was rejected by this site due to "questionable content"):

It is alleged the nine Iraqis, arrested on 14 September 2003, were kept hooded, cuffed, deprived of sleep and beaten for failing to maintain stress positions - all pre-interrogation "conditioning" techniques the prosecution insisted are banned under international law. The hearing was told the prisoners were hit with iron bars, kicked, starved, and forced to drink their own urine. Mr Matairi told the court he feared his three children would end up fatherless. "We were hit all the time, continuously without knowing the reason why," he said. He warned staff at the hotel: "We are going to die". During interrogation by the British soldiers, he denied being a member of the Baath Party and insisted a cache of weapons found at the hotel was for protection. Nearby, he said, he could hear Mr Mousa's harrowing cries before he died. "His wife had cancer and had passed away six months earlier. He kept saying, 'my children are going to be orphans, I'm going to die, blood, blood.' The interpreter - helping the soldiers - was not interpreting that for him."

Mr. Yankee, do you think President Bush endorses the methods alleged to have been used by the British in this case? Or are innocent hotel operators also trained by al-Qaeda to allege torture wherever they go?

So, in the liberal mind, someone can be “disqualified” because you don’t like the name of their blog?

Deep thoughts.

As for the German saboteurs, FDR had them killed for being—get this—“unlawful combatants,” and in Ex Parte Quirin Chief Justice Harlan Stone supported the decision. As Matt Herrington notes in his review of George Fletcher’s “Romantics at War:”

The Germans obviously were not civilians; they had conspired to sabotage American targets at Germany's behest. But when they took off their uniforms and set out to do skullduggerous harm in plainclothes, they forfeited their license to act as capital "S" soldiers within the meaning and protection of the Geneva Conventions. They were indeed "unlawful combatants," in my view - just as the Supreme Court held. And while it makes sense for opposing sides to exchange POWs at the end of the war, rather than executing them all, it is a powerful deterrent against sabotage (and its cousin, terrorism) to execute saboteurs (and by extension, terrorists.) In short, rules matter.

If you are a bit slow on the uptake, it is this: The Justice Department has legal precedent passed down from a previous wartime President and Supreme Court that unlawful combatants have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. None.

Even under Geneva, by extending terrorists rights that they have not earned according to third Geneva 4.1.2, no nation is under obligation to try detainees. It is in fact preferred that those captured are not to be tried, as the practice of trying those captured in war can lead to “kangaroo courts” (or as you call them, “show trials”) trying soldiers and executing them without a fair defense. The standard, observed by all civilized nations, paid lip service to by less than civilized nations, and utterly ignored by our current foes, is that those captured are to be held until the conflict is over, and then repatriated, without trial.

By calling for these terrorists to be tried in courts by their opposition during wartime, liberals are going against the will and purpose of the Geneva Conventions. Once again, liberals are on the wrong side of history, and conveniently ignore the fact that they help justify the history they now circumstantially oppose.

As for “torture,” I don’t know of a single person who condones the practice, as effective as history has shown it to be in extracting information from those who have it.

But what the President is asking for has not historically been defined as torture; liberals and their allies-by-circumstance (terrorists and anti-America regimes, in this instance, who often use real torture themselves) have attempted to redefine torture and the terms of confinement to the point now that the terrorists interred at Guantanamo Bay have better nutrition, health, dental care, and living conditions than they ever did in their home nations before they were captured. Other than their confinement, they have a better standard of living than many Americans below the poverty line. We run the only POW camp in the history of the world where prisoners have actually gained an average of 13 pounds during confinement because of the liberal coddling of those trying to kill us.

We’ve seen real torture; our enemies are past masters of it, using rape, power tools, crude medical instruments, beheadings, amputation and other implementations of real torture, not to extract information, but to intimidate and strike fear into the hearts of others.

In response, we use techniques that are safe and cause no physical damage to make them uncomfortable and induce them to talk.

You seek to redefine torture as a political tool to attack an American Administration that is trying to save the lives of American citizens because you hate a President who has defeated you at every turn.

You don’t give a damn about these terrorists. You merely seek to redefine torture as a political argument, and don’t give a damn how many America lives are threatened by your posturing.

As we get closer to November, the American people at large are going to begin paying attention to politics once again, and they are going to see once more a liberal-led Democratic Party that is far more interested in gaining power by any means necessary than keeping them alive. You will lose once more, and I can only imagine the depths you will stoop to then in your impotent rage.

Is Yglesias anti-American? Only when his "progressive" side is out of power. Like so many progressives, Yglesias would side with any enemy of the US in order to regain that power. I watched this same behavior when the great struggle was over the future of materialism (capitalism versus socialism). We are now watching these same whackos attempt to continue this despicable effort with the war on radical Islam (aka War on Terror).

Yglesias only claims to become satisfied if enemies captured in this war were treated with the same consideration given to Americans arrested in a criminal case (otherwise, why else suggest that Habeas Corpus even applies to non-citizens captured).

But even if this were to come to pass--allowed by misguided individuals who don't understand the true goal of "progressives"--Yglesias would only find more faux reasons to make such bombastic statements like "An American prepared to casually toss out the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian diplomacy" (whatever that means) and "...a grim future brought to us by grim and deranged men...".

So are Yglesias and the rest of his ilk anti-American? No, they are even worse than that. They are merely opportunists for power as well as being apologists/appeasers for aggression. That is what the American people will see in the upcoming election and that is why Democrats--whose party has become overrun by these creatures--will lose yet again.

So, in the liberal mind, someone can be “disqualified” because you don’t like the name of their blog?

I believe d's point was that anyone ignorant enough of history to embrace the America-hating terrorists who styled themselves the 'Confederacy' is likely to be equally ignorant about other areas of history. This appears to be true, at least in so far as the German saboteur incident is concerned.

Here's a little history lesson:

There is a world of difference between the military tribunal created in 1942 and the tribunals authorized by President Bush. After the capture of eight Germans who arrived on two submarines in June 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a proclamation to create a military tribunal to try the men. Roosevelt therefore targeted eight specific individuals.

The Bush military order covers a much larger universe: any individual who is "not a United States citizen" (about 18 million inside U.S. borders) who gave assistance to the September 11 terrorists. The president need only determine that there is "reason to believe" the person is or was a member of al Qaeda, "has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism," caused injury to U.S. national security, foreign policy, or the economy, or has "knowingly harbored" one of more individuals described in the Bush order. FDR looked backward at a handful of known saboteurs who had confessed. Bush looked prospectively to 18 million noncitizens and resident aliens who had yet to be apprehended or charged....

According to the Bush administration, whoever fits the category of enemy combatant is held but not charged, is denied the right to an attorney, and (according to the Justice Department) federal judges have no right to interfere with executive judgments.

Compare that to the eight German saboteurs, who were charged by the government, granted counsel, and tried by a military tribunal. They even filed a petition of habeas corpus in federal district court, eventually arguing their case before the Supreme Court over a two-day period, totaling nine hours of oral argument....

The 1942 process was badly crafted. Roosevelt created the tribunal, picked generals (subordinate to him) to serve on the tribunal, appointed the prosecutors and defense counsel (all subordinate to him), and when the tribunal completed its work, the trial record went to Roosevelt for final review. Stimson thought it made no sense for Attorney General Francis Biddle and Judge Advocate General Myron Cramer to serve as prosecutors. Why should an attorney general spend a month prosecuting eight saboteurs? Cramer should not have been co-prosecutor. His function was to perform a reviewing role to assure fairness.

For the two saboteurs who arrived in late 1944, Stimson succeeded in removing Biddle and Cramer as prosecutors. Trained military professionals handled the prosecution in early 1945. Stimson also saw that the trial took place not in Washington, D.C., with the circus atmosphere of 1942, but at Governors Island, New York City. Justice Felix Frankfurter, a member of the 1942 Court, later said that "the Quirin experience was not a happy precedent."

I understand the precedent I cited well enough, and find it humorous that you resort to an opinion piece to support your position. My cited facts stand, your interpretive submission I'll leave for the readers to judge on its merits.

I suggest you read a bit more on your hero FDR and Woodrow Wilson, both of which lied to the American public and censored news they didn't like far more than the Bush adminstration would ever dream of.

BTW, if there were "terrorists" in the American Civil War, the overwhelming majority of them wore Army of the Potomac blue, not Army of Northern Virgina Gray.

Lee invaded both Maryland and Pennsylvania with military objectives in mind, while Sherman's March to the Sea specifically targeted Southern civilians in a hundred mile wide swath.

Your definition of what constitutes a terrorist is, as always, murky and ever-changing.

I suppose by your historical methodology -- citing a 1942 Supreme Court case to carve out an exception to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, or alluding to the propaganda techniques of the CPI in 1917-1918 to deflect questions about the current American president -- one could argue on behalf of all sorts of insanity. But the issue here isn't about presidential lies, or the fiction of the "unlawful combatant" (a term that appears nowhere in the Geneva Conventions and is neither acknowledged nor endorsed by any of its signatories.) The issue here is your silly logic, abundantly displayed in your initial post and your last comment.

For example:

(A) Yglesias argues that the US has become a "rogue state";
(B) My brain cannot conceive a difference between "rogue" and "terrorist" states; ergo
(C) Yglesias argues that the US has become a "terrorist state"

Or:

(A) "d" believes the Bush administration tortures people;
(B) My brain tells me that only terrorists and other enemies of America torture people; ergo
(C) "d" doesn't give a damn about terrorists . . . and . . . and . . . AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO LOSE IN NOVEMBER!

But this is the real gem here:

As for “torture,” I don’t know of a single person who condones the practice, as effective as history has shown it to be in extracting information from those who have it.

If torture is soo bloody "effective," CY, why on earth would you deny your President -- whose job, he constantly reminds us, is to "protect the American people" -- this valuable tool in the war against Islamofascists who want to return us all to the 7th century? Why the squeamishness? Why resolve ourselves only to the use of "safe" techniques that make people "uncomfortable?"

Since you've clearly never actually read anything about the history of torture, and since your understanding of torture's "effectiveness" appears to have been gleaned from watching several seasons of 24, and since you've clearly plugged your ears to avoid hearing uncomfortable disclosures about US interrogation practices (as well as those used by countries like Egypt and Syria, to whom we've rendered prisoners for "tough questioning"), I'm not sure there's much more to be gained here.

But I will point out one last fleck of spittle that just issued from your mouth:

If I read your last comment correctly, you just suggested that Tom Hilton's definition of "terrorist" is "murky and ever-changing" while claiming (in virtually the same breath) that if anyone was guilty of "terrorism" during the Civil War, it was the uniformed, lawful combatants of the Union Army.

I'll let you get back to your fingerpainting now.

I understand the precedent I cited well enough, and find it humorous that you resort to an opinion piece to support your position. My cited facts stand, your interpretive submission I'll leave for the readers to judge on its merits.

The point of posting those passages was to bring forward factual content of which you appear to be ignorant (or which you choose to ignore). Pointing out that there is opinion in addition to the factual content does not make the facts go away. (The author, by the way, has written a book specifically about the German saboteur incident. Whatever your opinion of his opinions, I assume you and I can stipulate that his factual assertions are solid.)

The facts cited make it pretty clear that a) the Bush tribunals go much further in scope than those constituted for the German saboteurs, b) the saboteurs had access to basic rights including access to attorneys and judicial review that are not available to Bush's detainees, c) they were all guilty (by their own confession), unlike the population of Guantanamo (where something like 2/3 of the original population were never involved in terrorist activities) or the speculative population of potential 'supporters' of terrorism, and d) it wasn't a particularly felicitous precedent in the first place (hence Frankfurter's comment; hence its relative disuse in the intervening decades, until Bush).

As for the Confederates, call them what you will--'terrorists', 'traitors', whatever--the fact remains that they took up arms against the lawful government of the United States. (In fact, it's worth pointing out that they, much more than al Qaeda, really did 'hate us for our freedom'; our freedom--that is, the freedom that existed in the Northern states--was their casus belli.) You cannot be a loyal American and, at the same time, glorify the treasonous anti-American scum who tried to destroy America; you can be loyal to one or the other, but you cannot be loyal to both.

The one mistake Sherman made was not killing more Confederates, people who broke the nation up in order to keep black people enslaved. If slavery is not terrorism, I'm not really sure what is.

Just one more comment: I can't let your casual use of the word 'wartime' pass without objection. If 'wartime' justifies exceptions to Constitutional protections that apply in normal times, then 'wartime' has to be a very strictly defined thing; otherwise, any president could (as Bush is trying to do) simply unilaterally declare 'war' (on terrorists, on narcotraficantes, on domestic militias, on organized crime) and blithely suspend the most basic guarantees of personal liberty. If 'wartime' means anything at all, this is not wartime.

The applicable sections of the Geneva Conventions relevant to FDR's executions were carved out in 1929, not 1949. That is why the Supreme Court was able to comment on it during its decision in the 1942 case, Ex Parte Quirin.

Rogue State (noun): "a Third World state that possesses weapons of mass destruction and sponsors terrorism."

By definition, a rouge state is a terrorist-sponsoring state and therefore a terrorist state. Perhaps Yglesias and the liberals that still continue to insist that calling the United States a rogue state is not equivalent to calling it a terrorist state should invest in a free online dictionary.

As for 24, I've not actually seen the show in question, but I know quite a bit about torture. Being a history buff, I've read about it as it has been practiced over the centuries in various cultures from the Middle Ages to the present, used as a means of extracting information, and as a means of producing intimidation and extracting revenge. Simply put, torture works, however despicable as it may be.

It is because I understand real torture that I find liberal attempt to equate our intelligence gathering methods with those of real torturers as shrill and childish political stunts.

Making a man stand for hours on end or denying him sleep for several days, or giving him a sever chill or even waterboarding, where a person is tricked into feeling like he is drowning, does not even begin to equate with having his eyes plucked out, or his fingernails ripped out, or his skin peeled away, or being force to watch as his daughter and/or son are gang-raped in from of his eyes.

Regular prison inmates in the Cook County jail in Dick "Gulag" Durbin's home district suffer far worse abuse under Chicago prison guards than does a al Qaeda terrorist in the hands of our military of CIA.

As for calling one side or another terrorists in the Civil War, Hilton made the charge, not I. I merely stated the fact that if either side was guilty, the Northern "scorched earth" tactics against Southern civilians was far close to how one might define terrorism.

Terrorism is defined as:

the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

In his infamous "March to the Sea" as stated in wikipedia, General Sherman:

...therefore applied the principles of scorched earth, ordering his troops to burn crops, kill livestock, consume supplies, and destroy civilian infrastructure along their path.

You decide if the definition fits. I do not personally hold that either side committed torture, but Sherman was far harder in his treatment of civilians than was Lee.

The amount of ignorance displayed here by liberals, equating the populations of 11 states, black and white (up to 65,000 African-Confederates served in the Confederate States Army), to terrorists, shows an ignorance and smug bigotry not easily cured.

And Tom, conflicts in two countries with over 140,000 soldiers deployed is not "war" by your definition?

Again, a dictionary is recommended.

Erik, in my more misanthropic moments (as, for example, in arguing with the Terror-Loving Yankee) I am tempted to think that the greatest tragedy of American history is that General Sherman did not have thermonuclear weapons.

I'm sure it's probably wrong to think that, though.

Erik, in my more misanthropic moments (as, for example, in arguing with the Terror-Loving Yankee) I am tempted to think that the greatest tragedy of American history is that General Sherman did not have thermonuclear weapons.

Thank you, Tom. It's about what I would expect.

Consider yourself banned for the genocidal hopes, BTW.

Hey, call what Sherman did what you want. The good guys won and the bad guys lost. The South deserved everything they got and more.

And anyone who waves a Confederate flag today should be tried for treason. It should be classified the same way the Nazi flag is in Germany. George Allen, Trent Lott, Saxby Chambliss, all anti-American traitors.

I can't believe I'm still arguing with you over this. But why not?

It is because I understand real torture that I find liberal attempt to equate our intelligence gathering methods with those of real torturers as shrill and childish political stunts.

This is rich. Explain to me how it is that you "understand real torture." Being a "history buff," as you say, I'm sure you understand the difference between noting the factually obvious -- that torture has been used in the past -- and claiming, on the other hand, that "torture works" as an instrument of policy. Even the Greeks understood that a rational man will lie during torture. This, as I'm sure you know -- being a "history buff" and all -- was why the Greeks only allowed slaves to be "put to the test." Slaves, after all, were judged to be irrational creatures, too stupid to deceive their interrogators.

But that was then, this is now. By every conceivable definition of torture -- and here you have to go beyond your online dictionary and actually read the relevant international and domestic law -- torture includes the very techniques that you claim are merely "intelligence gathering methods." Waterboarding is torture; hypothermia and hyperthermia are torture; sleep deprivation is torture. Only the Bush administration -- which defines torture as anything causing "organ failure," death, or permanent disability to "vital" human functions -- sees things differently. But as a "history buff," I'm sure you've read about all this already.

I suppose, on the other hand, that countries like Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, and now Iraq would perhaps share Bush's view of torture. They are, after all, using it quite handily on our behalf. Egypt, in fact, provided the Bush administration with valuable "intelligence" on al-Qaeda training bases in Iraq -- intelligence that was exctracted by torture from Ibn al-Shayk al-Libbi. It turns out, sadly enough, that the information was completely fabricated, but I'm sure the Egyptians had a whale of a time with Mr. al-Libbi.

If your riposte to all of this is an Ace of Spades hieroglyph that unashamedly (and I'm sure prematurely) celebrates the Pakistani ISI, then I suppose we at least have some insight into where you believe the threshold for American conduct should lie.

Ah, the old "65000 African-Americans fought for the Confederacy". A position that is held by zero reputable historians, that overstates actual black participation in Confederate Armies by about 65000, and that serves only to mildy assuage the consciences of white guys who really, really, really want to fool themselve into thinking that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Kudos, CY.

Rob, somehow I don't think Frederick Douglas would appreciate you calling him a liar. In 1861 speech meant to raise support for a black regiment in the Union army, Douglas noted that African-Confederates were already serving the South.

It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas, and they are probably there still. There is a Negro in the army as well as in the fence, and our Government is likely to find it out before the war comes to an end. That the Negroes are numerous in the rebel army, and do for that army its heaviest work, is beyond question. They have been the chief laborers upon those temporary defences in which the rebels have been able to mow down our men. Negroes helped to build the batteries at Charleston. They relieve their gentlemanly and military masters from the stiffening drudgery of the camp, and devote them to the nimble and dexterous use of arms.

I think I find Douglas' contemporary observations just a little more credible than your modern-day revisionism.

Well CY, there is a difference between serving in the army and being forced at the point of a whip or gun to serve their Confederate masters. But leave it to you to read Douglass completely out of context in order to serve your despicable political purposes.

Some African-Confederate soldiers were slaves, but many were free black southerners. The battle Douglas spoke of in particular, First Manassas, saw black militiamen operating Battry #2 of the Richmond Howitzers, and two black "regiments"--it is doubtful they were actually of regimental strength-- fought for the South in that battle. One was free one was comprised of slaves.

I invite anyone to read Douglas comments (they are linked above) and see if they come to the conclusion that you do that they were forced to serve at the point of a whip or a gun. Certainly nothing Douglas says reinforces that idea, which I suspect you made up entirely.

Oh, CY, could you please come and lecture for me when I talk about the Civil War? Your knowledge and historical analysis are so overwhelmingly amazing. I completely leave out the part about how blacks wanted to stay in slavery and how much their loved their masters, especially when they were being whipped or raped. Only someone with your clear view of the real history of the Civil War and slavery can really teach the truth.

So Erik, you teach? That's a delightful thought.

I don't know how you are with your job, but here, you've made wild accusations without supporting them, you've made incorrect assumptions, and you've misrepresented what I've said and linked to, while providing no factual support for your own commentary.

I'm not sure what you teach, but I taught freshman composition on the collegiate level. Based upon what I've seen of your jumbled thoughts and mischaraceterizations here, you would not pass.

Yes, clearly I would not pass. Your academic judgment of me means a great deal.

When you come and teach for me, will you wear your full Klan garb?

When pressed repeatedly for facts to support his commentary, Erik instead decides to go for a Klan reference. How intelligent, not to mention classy.

When confronted repeatedly with commenters who make him look (even more) like a stone fool, CY bans them. Way to stand strong!

I invite anyone to read Douglas comments . . .
The battle Douglas spoke of . . .
I think I find Douglas' contemporary observations just a little more credible . . .
I don't think Frederick Douglas would appreciate you calling him a liar.

Someone who claims to be a "history buff" should know how to spell Frederick Douglass' last name.