The point of the post was to point out that the ROW doesn't necessarily have our view of our sterling view of Human Rights that we do. And they have some reasons for it. We can choose to hold our own and other citizens indefinitely without charges or representation, but we can't concurrently claim any moral high ground on Human Rights.

T. B. - "Do you harbor the slightest illusion that how we treat our prisoners--and denying them legal representation in their near-luxury facilities doesn't exactly rank a 10 on the torture scale--would have anything to do with how our troops would be treated if the Al Quaeda captured them?"

First. "Near-luxury". You scream your lungs out if someone wants to limit the pollution coming from your car. I could hear you from my back deck if someone proposed stuffing you into that "near-luxury". That's funny!

Second. The US has to be better than the bad guys to be worth loving. A great person, a great nation, does not stoop to the level of the bad guy without becoming a bad guy.

Do the bad guys of the world determine the level of acceptable behavior? If they become "good", then does the US follow them into that, too? Is it the bad guys who determine the values of the US?

I don't know why that's so hard to understand. To be a good guy, one has to be a good guy. For the sake of being good.

And believe it or not, one can be good while relentlessly pursuing legitimate goals, such as national security.

One has to be better than the bad guys unless one is a bad guy, too.

Arf