Do you have evidence that there is a set of people, large or small, who say such things? “Anyone who opposes torture is a traitor.� I Googled that and got “did not match any documents.�

If only those exact words will do, then you probably won’t find them outside of blog comments. If the spirit of the thing is what you’re after, then you may want to try these on for size.

Bill O’Reilly
Freepers
Talk Radio
Jawa Report
The liberal msm

Oh, and there were a couple of times when Karl Rove flat out stated that anyone who disagreed with the Administration’s handling of various Iraq policies were anti-American lefties who wanted to give Osama Bin Laden and his friends a big hug. (That’s aid and comfort to the enemy, aka treason, for those of you who aren’t keeping up.)

You know, I just spent a serious chunk of time looking for the type of example that Cal is seeking, and which I, myself, was sure had taken place (though, AGAIN, I never thought it was widespread). By saying “type of example,” I don’t mean the literal words in his last comment, nor the original one. I mean various combinations of words and phrases using the obvious words (for example, traitor, treason, torture, oppose, against, left, aid and comfort, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) that could reasonably be expected to bring up some examples, or allusions to such examples that could then be followed up on via chasing links. I also specifically googled the names of a number of people whom I had the impression had said something in the neighborhood of of what’s being charged.

You know what? Sonuvabitch. I’ve yet to find a single instance. Not one. And the reason I’m not including the “names” of the number of people to whom I allude above is because, as it turns out so far, I would be unjust to do so.

I’m not saying I’m the best googler or researcher in the world, or that there’s not something buried. But I’m not a rank amateur or without some real talent in this area–and if it’s there, it’s at least not so obvious, and certainly not widespread, as to indicate a huge problem. It’s a rare, rare day when I don’t pretty darn quickly hit upon something real close to what I’m seeking, if not the thing itself. I’ve been at it, now, for at least 1-1/2 hours.

Now, I did find instances of complaints of being ACCUSED of being a traitor/treasonous, at least tangentially, in this area–but there was no specific cite, of quote or person. I even found links (which I didn’t follow) that suggested people were complaining of being ACCUSED of ACCUSING someone of being a traitor/treasonous.

But neither of these things are the same. They’re just not.

Now, in the process of doing this, I’m beginning to develop an insight of WHY I was positive there were such instances, enough so to use the word “absolutely,” which, it is now clear to me, I had no business doing. (Because the specific things/people of whom I was thinking–the articles–proved NOT to be what I remembered. I was flat-out wrong, and thank goodness I didn’t whip out names in my previous comment, so I don’t have to feel outright ashamed of myself–yet. Chastened and humbled are something else again.) I’m not going to go into that insight yet, because, as I said, it’s developing and–in any case–this is a heck of along comment as it is.

Also, the evidence may very well exist. The people that I was thinking of may even very well turn out to have said what I thought I remember–but in a different place or forum, and I just haven’t stumbled upon it yet.

But the plain fact is that I CAN’T document the basis (what I thought was a valid basis) for what I wrote above. Or an alternate one that’s direct, as opposed to conflation, or personal extrapolation, or assumption. At least not so far. That’s a problem, at least for me.

Note: I’m going to cross-post this comment back at DWM, because I first read a version of Cal’s “thought they’d do better” response over there. I chose to respond here first, because here is where I used that word–that WORD–absolutely.

Does anyone honestly believe that calling a man names while he has panties on his head is going to save innocent lives? I agree that degradation and humiliation are not the same as torture, but why in the hell would we specifically ask that our military be able to make fun of the prisoners? And please don’t say that if you put panties on a man’s head for enough days in a row, he will eventually talk.

That’s a good point I’d love to see someone try to answer. Just because we’re following the letter of the rules doesn’t mean we’re being true to who we wish to be.

I bet I could find it if I looked hard enough. But I wanted to see if it could be found by the people who whine that this is a widespread and important reaction on the “right.” And who base their political stances on this perceived counter-attack. I want to know if they really have grounds for that reaction or they’re just playing with boogeymen.

So Robot Boy takes a swing at it. Good for him. But the first thing he gets is some comment out of a thread which sarcastically imagines a “leftian” paradise for terror suspects. Except it doesn’t say anything about the poster’s attitude toward the conditions they endure now, and the word “treason” never appears in it.

He steps up to the plate again and finds right wing extremists crying “treason” against the media. Now he’s got “treason.” But the topic is not torture, but media printing of leaked information on “secret government or military operation[s],” including the existence of secret prisons. It’s the publication, not the opposition, that these people are describing as treason.

Pooh is pissed at me for something I can’t understand, some vaguely alluded-to transgression and seems to be laboring under the mistaken impression that just because I ask a question I’m ignorant of the answer. He sounds like my ex-wife and seems to want to say I want to say opposition to treason is torture. Asking for proof of an assertion now is cast as “argument from ignorance.”

Justin insists, “There have been all sorts of ‘treason’ accusations from the right concerning torture, secret prisons, etc.” But still won’t present any. He caps it with the astonishing statement:

Coulter even has a book entitled ‘Treason.’ I don’t think it mentions torture, but I’d hazard a guess that she thinks those who expose our tactics would be considered a traitor.

So because he thinks she doesn’t say it, he finds that evidence she does mean it.

Like I said, if it’s so prevalent, where are the examples?

I honestly figured someone would be able to find one. I am sure they exist, too. Buried in some comments thread from what may or may not be a spoof, perhaps in some of the more excitable right-side bloggers on a bad day. Perhaps even in the transcripts of one of those wingnut radio hosts whose names I don’t know.

But if you’re going to take that as the entire point of this debate, if you’d rather talk about “them” than about policy and interrogation and terrorism, then you’re just climbing into one fortress and chunking rocks at the fortress on the extreme of the other side. Then you’re pretty much no different from Atrios or DKos or take your pick. And we already have a bazillion of those. And they don’t really help anything.

“Remember, eating a prisoner’s peanut butter right in front of him, or poking his brow with an inflated doctor’s glove, or shouting nasty things at him while he wears panties over his face is morally equivalent to hanging a prisoner upside-down and beating him with electric cables, or hooking a car battery up to his scrotum.”

Does anyone honestly believe that calling a man names while he has panties on his head is going to save innocent lives? I agree that degradation and humiliation are not the same as torture, but why in the hell would we specifically ask that our military be able to make fun of the prisoners? And please don’t say that if you put panties on a man’s head for enough days in a row, he will eventually talk.

Part of the problem in general–indeed, including with Geneva–is the phrase “humiliating and degrading.” I sure wish we could get that pinned down quite a bit more.

There are humiliating things that are not torture, and even degrading things (the panties example above might fall into the latter, for example). Yet, I think there’s good reason to be concerned if something like “waterboarding” gets pushed into the H&D category, and, in fact, there have been those who argue that’s where that belongs. I disagree.

I do fully understand the differences between state actors, non-state actors, combatants and non-combatants, and so forth. I also see the different nature of the threat we’re battling.

Personally, those things do not outweigh the wrongness of actual torture, in my book.

While I do not think there is a large group of people who equate “opposing” the use of torture by either our military and/or other government agents (or the outsourcing of that) with treason/being a traitor, which some of the hyperbole out there suggests or implies, I also disagree with Cal in that I think there absolutely have been instances of that. It’s not an empty charge (though, again, it’s been overstated, in my opinion). I think It’s not about googling a specific phrase, or a specific phrase.

I’m not very interested in the debate over traitor/treason charges; I think that whole thing has been overhyped on both sides. From my point of view, it’s a distraction from the bigger issues–unless and until someone actually gets brought up on formal charges of treason. Until then, it’s just name-calling and, however offense, no real threat to anything or anyone.

But I will say this: If, indeed, opposing torture WERE to be a benchmark for being a traitor or treasonous, then please put me at the front of the line. In that case, I am obliged to accept the label and will accept the consequences.

And now you’re adding the argument from ignorance – “nobody actually says that” you say. Somehow that logic doesn’t seem to convince you when you are making a point about Leftists and Chomskyites.

No name calling here. One more time and you’re banned.

Noted, and apologies. Your board, your rules – I’ll comply.
I guess I’m accustomed to John Cole’s’s blog, where name-calling is the norm.

If you want to know what the CIA is up to, just read the New York Times. They’ll be only to happy to tell you – and America’s enemies – whatever top secret information they can get their hands on, even if disclosing it has disastrous effects on America’s national security.
Using their network of CIA and other leftist government blabbermouths, the Times and its colleagues at other such rabidly anti-administration members of the media as the Washington Post, the Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times can’t wait to reveal the full details of any secret government or military operation they can uncover, and damn the consequences to the United States of America.
…
It is treason, unadorned, and let’s dare to call it that.

Jeff Gannon:

More CIA treason abetted by ABC
The Old Media continues its complicity in undermining the war on terror. One or more leakers at the CIA have further damaged this country’s ability to extract information from terrorists who would kill MILLIONS of Americans if given the chance.

Do such creatures exist? Or are they a kind of boogeymen meant to stoke the fires of indignation on one side and make any other voices shut up by intimidation?

Do you have evidence that there is a set of people, large or small, who say such things? “Anyone who opposes torture is a traitor.� I Googled that and got “did not match any documents.�

You Googled a specific phrase and didn’t come back with anything? Well, I guess I’m wrong then…

Come on Cal, you’re just playing semantic games now, but I’ll play along. There have been all sorts of “treason” accusations from the right concerning torture, secret prisons, etc. If somebody is being accused of treason, they are also being accused of being a traitor. At least in my world that’s how it works.

And I don’t know…how about Ann Coulter? Michael Savage? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? I’m sure you could find some “traitor” remarks in some of their radio show transcripts. Coulter even has a book entitled ‘Treason.’ I don’t think it mentions torture, but I’d hazard a guess that she thinks those who expose our tactics would be considered a traitor.

By the way, Gold Star for Robot Boy…what’s your problem? No name calling here. One more time and you’re banned.

Do you have evidence that there is a set of people, large or small, who say such things?

Yes, I have evidence:

As best as I can make out from the leftians, the solution is a nice hotel, an extra-fluffy prayer rug, and as speedy a release back to their terrorist training camps as we can manage. That’s the only way to get information out of these fanatical murderers!

Then, when the next terrorist attack hits, run the following campaign on how the Republicans can’t stop terrorism!

I think you hit on the winning solution�no more prisoners, lots more dead Al Qaeda on the battlefields. If that’s what the sensitive left wants, who are we to argue with their moral superiority?

Cal, defend that statement, please.

“They� are people who would call those who oppose torture traitors.

Do such creatures exist? Or are they a kind of boogeymen meant to stoke the fires of indignation on one side and make any other voices shut up by intimidation?

Do you have evidence that there is a set of people, large or small, who say such things? “Anyone who opposes torture is a traitor.” I Googled that and got “did not match any documents.”

Are they larger or more important than other groups of people you could be noticing or addressing, e.g. the U.S. military, the U.S. government, mainstream Republicans, independent voters, concerned citizens, etc.?