XDA

Why do Democrats take such relish in slandering their country? asks Ann. Slander: to maliciously utter a false report that injures a reputation. No mention of whether the utterer has to believe the report is false, or whether the injury done was the utterer's intent. But I would claim that slander implies both of these, and that's what people generally think slander is: knowingly and intentionally uttering a false report..etc. Maybe what the "liberals" are saying is false, and that for the detainees it's just one long Carribean vacation. I don't think they think it's false, and i don't think their reports are intented to injure our reputation - they are intended to effect an improvement - make our country better. The question is: why can't Ann see that? (maybe it's because the target is too irresistable - she has to make a living after all!). Does the fact that I can and do criticize my daughter's behavior mean I don't love her? Not if what I'm trying to do is make her a better person. Isn't this obvious?
 

couple more comments, than I'm done:
a. it's almost certainly true that the treatment of GB prisoners is neither Nazi-like (liberal claim) nor comfy chair-like (conservative claim). sensationalism vs. sarcasm, take your pick.
b. there's a distinction to be made between torture (ones nuts in a vice) and, oh, nasty persuasion techniques (sleep deprivation, solitary confining confinement, endless loud noise (=rap), etc. Given torture is unacceptable and perhaps ineffective (see Fraley comment), where do we draw the line with NPTs - for whom is it okay to use NPTs and at what point does NPT become torture?
c. I shouldn't even be commenting, I'm so ignorant of what's actually going on in this national debate! sorry!
 

The word 'maliciously' encompases the thought that it is done on purpose with knowledge that the things said are false or reckless indifference to the truth or falsity of the things said. Another element, if a claim in court is brought, is damages, but some things are considered damaging in themselves (there are four but let's not get into that becasue I can't remember them all). You don't have to have the intent to cause damage if indeed you cause damage. So let's take an example. If I said you have AIDS (which I'm morally certain you don't) and as a result of that no one ever slept with you again then I would have damaged you (by your loss of enjoyment of life) even if my intent was merely to defame you and not to cause you to not have sex ever again. Specific damage caused but not contemplated is still counted as damage. There are forseeability limits on this, but I just don't want to talk about Palzgraph (nor am I sure I can spell it) at this time. Both Ann and I don't care if the slanderers are able to rationalize the slander as doing some Cosmic greater good if the immediate result is making the war tougher and giving the enemy a propoganda boost. We do criticize our children to teach them and impprove them because we love them but the leadership of our country is not some 5 year old needing guidance. Nor is it good parenting to humiliate our children in front of other children. (I always had helpful instructiional talks in a closed door room one on one) And I think you'd agree that method is a better way than yelling at your angels in front of other people. Part of my complaint about the political grandstanding Durbin and the other lefties are doing is that it is in the open where the enemy hears it. A letter to Rumsfeld or the commander at Gitmo, a truly closed door hering or secret investigation into alleged abuses, if that were warrented, are all OK. That's not what's been going on and it makes the motivation of the slanderers irrelevant (I for one doubt good motivation--a wanting our country to be good kind of thing. I think it's to cut down the Republicans in charge at the cost, an extreme cost, of cutting down the whole country in the eyes of the rest of the World including our enemies).
I disagree with your 'a' and it's false choice. I used to visit my clients in jail and just being in jail as a visitor is terrible. No one argues that it's a vacation spot (well, Rush Limbaugh does but he's using comic overstatement as a tool of persuasion) because no matter how humane and comfortable it's still like jail.
'b' when we (Republicans in the government) try to draw the line between real torture and interrogation techniques (I'm going to forgo using the adjective nasty) the effort is criticized and twisted by the left into an endorsement of torture (not very helpful to the effort--don't you think?) but there is indeed a line and I tried to make it clearer in the post above about your helpful listing of the AI report. Here's what I think: If a guard gets shit thrown on him by a prisoner and goes into the cell and beats the shit out of him, that's not torture. If the guards punish ths shit thrower with having his arms handcuffed behind him for the next 24 hours, that's normal prison punishment and not torture. If a prisoner is trying to hurt a guard and the guard maces him and then beats the shit out of him, that's not torture. See above. Even if tales of what could conceivably be torture are true, we'd still need to know the context of how it happened to judge if it's torture or not.
Finally, re 'c', No, you have every right to voice an opinion even on the barest of factual bases and the thoughtful questions you ask need no apology. Thanks for the comments.