I really get tired of having to start so many replies by correcting your mischaracterizations of what I say. I know that's how the Bush campaign does things, but I expect better of you.

I didn't call them "human shields". I pointed out that the author of the NRO article was, in effect, describing the Iraqi prisoners as something analogous to human shields by being at risk from the attacks by their fellow countrymen (which is the plight of a human shield by definition). He seems to be trying to argue that, first, the abuses at Abu Ghraib are trivial in relation to the danger posed to the prisoners by the attacks; and second, it's not really our fault because it's other Iraqis doing it (and thus, nothing is our fault). That sure sounds like the logic of the human shield to me: "It's on your head if the hostages are killed, not ours. Our hands are clean."