After reading the leaked documents offering a legal opinion on what exactly crosses the line and counts as torture. That Bush asked the question seems like a pretty damning issue, but then again we don’t know how it was phrased. “What can we do during interrogations?” is a politically-correct question, and “When does it become torture?” is a little harder to defend.

I have to admit that the separation of powers defense (Congress or the courts have no authority to tell the President how to use his constitutional power, even if the President chooses to use torture) and the “self-defense” defense (if the torture could arguably have been needed to protect [self, family, nation] it should get a green light) both bother me. However the Supreme Court has shown its creativity in working around such defenses (in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court held that the President’s war powers included taking and holding prisoners, but not continuing to hold prisoners).

The appeal of Reagan is best understood by looking at Carter. Carter wanted to be a good world citizen, and bent over backwards to not ride roughshod over other countries. Carter had a personal goal to not threaten military lives (although he did support Reagan’s use of force in Afghanistan). Carter was elected more because of lingering issues over Watergate than because of his more sensitive America.

Reagan campaigned on nationalism. Carter explained how US agents had basically fooled Panama into creating the Canal and the Canal Zone. Carter wanted to Do The Right Thing, and give the Zone back, and Reagan declared that we paid for the Canal, so we should hold onto the Canal Zone.

Bush’s popularity, IMO, comes from his nationalism. That is why he continually “won’t outsource national security” or “let Paris decide when America needs defending.” Kerry is trying to get local support from populism, and international support from thinking like Carter. Interestingly, roughly the same percentage of Europeans who support Kerry (66%) believe that a strong US is undesirable (58%).

It is true that when IDF goes after terrorists, the terrorists do shoot back, and sometimes kill Israeli forces. However when Palestinian terrorists can choose their targets, they target civilians.

Thanks for referring me to the CIA factbook, I don’t know why I hadn’t already looked there.

And, I know that I originally said “images,” although the only way to link these particular images to violence against the children pictured would be through the story they appear with. Perhaps I should have asked, “If this is so common, why haven’t the reporters released stories detailing the practice? We know that international journalists have filed stories embarrassing to Sharon, and the Israelis have even admitted fault in some cases.”

I would like to clarifiy the “tanks aren’t good at close range” comment. I must first admit that I am not ex-military, and my understanding of the subject comes from talking with former soldiers and reading publicly-available information.

The US M1 Bradley (which is used by the Israelis, although they may have other tanks as well) has several “models.” The M1’s main gun is mounted eight feet above ground, and cannot be pointed downward. It can be pointed straight out or upward, and has a maximum range of over 3 km. Ignoring lift caused by traveling through the air, the rocket should take roughly 3/4 seconds to drop eight feet. According to what I can find, the rocket leaves the gun traveling 1500 feet per second, so in 3/4 seconds it should travel over 1000 ft. It is possible to aim at something not on the ground (eg., a wall), but aiming at a person is very difficult.

The US is using tanks in city fighting in Iraq, but most close shots from the main gun hit buildings above the ground floor. We know that the Israelis use tanks for street fighting, even if they must first use armored bulldozers to create a wide enough path to enter alleys and such. In such a small area, I simply can’t imagine the main gun being aimed at all. In the end, I believe the Israelis rely on the machine gun, which is very useful at close range.

BTW, my remaining issues are:

/* Having seen estimates for the number of Palestinians killed in the last four years at 3,020 (373 of whom were fifteen years old or younger)
*/

The Palestinian estimates of dead in Jenin originally topped 1,000. Now, Human Rights Watch has put that at around 60. I think the number you link to may not have been revised by a third party. I would also point out that (1) people under 15 can hold weapons, and those weapons can kill others, (2) even with potentially inflated numbers, the Palestinians put the underage dead at roughly 10% of the total, simply not what you would see if Israeli soldiers commonly went into neighborhoods and shot little boys, (3) not all those 373 underage deaths were caused by tank/machine gun fire, and (4) far more underage Israelis have died in the same time — in fact virtually every Israeli killed has been unarmed, the only exceptions to that have been accidental killings (a single soldier who happened to be riding the bus, for instance).

/* It is, however, an interesting principle that it is OK to kill innocent people as long as �terrorists� are also killed.
*/

It would be wonderful if only armed terrorists were killed in the fighting. However, the terrorists, even when armed, hide out in populated areas — trying to use human shields and increase the numbers of dead noncombatents. It is also definitely not OK to kill innocent Israelis as long as at least one suicide bomber is killed. Neither side is virtuous, but between the two, I believe the Israelis have tried harder to act humanely.

/* in a Sept. 9, 2004 ABC News (AP) story ��soldiers opened fire from a tank-mounted machine gun, killing three Palestinians, including a 9-year-old boy��. In this case it is excused because the group that was fired on included �gunmen, stone throwers and bystanders� which presents some logical problems of it�s own if one tries to imagine what the group that was fired on actually looked like.
*/

What were gunmen (note plural) doing in the middle of a crowd that included a 9-year-old boy? Trying to rack up the numbers, possibly? Is it possible that the gunmen actually posed a threat to the bystanders? Inquiring minds want to know.

/* Being part of an effort to set up a (Jewish) ethnic homeland for (primarily) immigrants from the United States and Europe in a place where Palestinians are very close to being a majority puts the Israeli soldiers in situations with inevitable tragic consequences.
*/

My understanding is that the Palestinians far outnumber the Israelis. That is why suicide bombing doesn’t threaten the Palestinians as much as the Israelis. I don’t know if that (Palestinians > Israelis) includes Palestinians that live in countries other than Israel, however.

I agree that modern-day Israel is a product of US and European immigration. Muslims, Jews and Christians have lived in the area since the Crusades, and (aside from the Crusades themselves) used to get along pretty well. The large numbers of Jewish immigrants shifted the balance, and led to our present-day situation.

If the goal of the IDF is only to prevent violence against Israelis then they gain little but, if the goal of the IDF is to make life so difficult for the Palestinians that they will leave their land, then killing the Palestinian’s children is very effective.

It is, however, very unlikely that Ariel Sharon gives direct orders to Israeli tank crews to bait Palestinian children in order to kill them. It is, however, entirely plausible that Israeli tanks are sent into the center of Palestinian towns without a clear military objective as part of a general campaign of belligerence and intimidation. Furthermore, the Israeli military is fully aware that the situation is likely to escalate to the point that Palestinian children are fired at with a tank mounted machine gun.

…why haven’t those images been released?

By way of example, a quick google search gives this and this.

When responding to nearly every IDF targetted killing, the Palestinians do have to admit that some of the dead were terrorists.

Palestinians tend to talk about those killings where it can be proved that only innocent civilians were killed. It is, however, an interesting principle that it is OK to kill innocent people as long as “terrorists” are also killed.

The most glaring counterexample to IDF’s respectful record is…

Having seen estimates for the number of Palestinians killed in the last four years at 3,020 (373 of whom were fifteen years old or younger), I suspect that your counterexample may not be the only one.

If media were able to see Israelis baiting Palestinian children before shooting, I’m sure the story would get out, since this story did.

They are described as “clashes” and “incidents” and are excused because it is all part of the fight on “terrorism”. For example, in a Sept. 9, 2004 ABC News (AP) story “…soldiers opened fire from a tank-mounted machine gun, killing three Palestinians, including a 9-year-old boy…”. In this case it is excused because the group that was fired on included “gunmen, stone throwers and bystanders” which presents some logical problems of it’s own if one tries to imagine what the group that was fired on actually looked like.

* tanks aren’t very good at close range

Being shot at with a tank mounted machine gun at close range is hardly very safe.

* little boys are smart enough to move out when a tank comes to town (and everyone else who knew what was going on could encourage the kids to leave)

My previous comment was intended to draw attention to the choices that both the Israelis and Palestinians make.

although every Israeli man is required to serve in the military…they aren’t mindless robots, and they see Palestinians as people too).

Being part of an effort to set up a (Jewish) ethnic homeland for (primarily) immigrants from the United States and Europe in a place where Palestinians are very close to being a majority puts the Israeli soldiers in situations with inevitable tragic consequences.

When responding to nearly every IDF targetted killing, the Palestinians do have to admit that some of the dead were terrorists. This week, IDF killed four Palestinians, and even the locals identified one as a terrorist (but said the other three were kids), IDF says three of the four were armed. IDF does release the ages of victims when it can, even when they are fourteen or ten or whatever.

The most glaring counterexample to IDF’s respectful record is the recent case where IDF soldiers shot a rocket “near” a crowd of peaceful protestors, but ended up killing several, in that case IDF admitted fault the same day, and launched an investigation. If media were able to see Israelis baiting Palestinian children, before shooting, I’m sure the story would get out, since this story did.

My other logical problems with this are:

• tanks aren’t very good at close range
• little boys can’t through rocks so far that they would be anywhere near the effective range of a tank
• little boys are smart enough to move out when a tank comes to town (and “everyone” else who knew what was going on could encourage the kids to leave)
• it’s an expensive way to kill a few kids that have nothing to do with the conflict
• although every Israeli man is required to serve in the military at some time, they are free to take non-combat positions, and many do (they aren’t mindless robots, and they see Palestinians as people too).