This should be a non-starter:
The Bush administration has proposed exempting employees of the Central Intelligence Agency from a legislative measure endorsed earlier this month by 90 members of the Senate that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody.
The proposal, which two sources said Vice President Cheney handed last Thursday to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the company of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, states that the measure barring inhumane treatment shall not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by “an element of the United States government” other than the Defense Department.
Although most detainees in U.S. custody in the war on terrorism are held by the U.S. military, the CIA is said by former intelligence officials and others to be holding several dozen detainees of particular intelligence interest at locations overseas — including senior al Qaeda figures Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaida.
Cheney’s proposal is drafted in such a way that the exemption from the rule barring ill treatment could require a presidential finding that “such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack.” But the precise applicability of this section is not clear, and none of those involved in last week’s discussions would discuss it openly yesterday.
Because when governing, you just can’t have enough ‘fuzzy’ guidelines about inconsequential things like, say, TORTURE.
*** Update ***
I should probably point out that the one of the many reasons this is so clear-cut for me is that we do not want to be on record stating that it is A-Ok for the CIA to be engaging in this sort of behavior because I don’t want to hear Pervez Musharraf state the following:
“Of course my military does not torture. I abhor torture and those methods, and I would not allow them to engage in such activities. Now the ISI, on the other hand…”
Or any number of leaders/dictators who are far worse than Musharraf, who has turned out to be much more of an ally than I would have expected.
Shouldn’t they just say that stuff like “frat pranks” and “blowing off a little steam” isn’t illegal? Wouldn’t that take care of it?
Can anyone now seriously argue that this administration does not support torture?
Sullivan has a good say on this:
If the administration doesn’t and would never condone abuse or torture of detainees, why would it want to exempt the CIA from the ban on torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners? If we are not abusing detainees as a matter of policy, why would the White House be in any way resistant to the amendment? The compromise is that the military will no longer abuse detainees, as long as the CIA still gets to do it. In other words, prodded by the Bush administration, the U.S. would actually legislate the government’s permission to torture for the first time.
What KC said.
Actually, this reality would seem to be more of a Monty-Python skit if it weren’t so sick.
Well, it depends on what the definition of is is.
Since they do not accept that anything that has happened (even with 108 dead bodies laying around) is torture, then these rules need not ever be applicable.
And there will be loopholes. What happens when military intelligence units/contractors are tasked to support OGA’s? Which rules will they operate under? Who does the DIA work for now, now that they can operate domestically:
Hopefully one of the other reasons is because torture is wrong.
But Vladi, its not wrong! Its just a frat prank, those poor soldiers were just blowing off some steam! Don’t worry, their commanding officers knew nothing, so once we bust all those privates and sergents, well, the problem will just go away.
We’ve turned the corner on torture.
I was able to watch that Frontline episode about torture this weekend. It’s pretty damning.
Torture. Military tribunals instead of courts. Warrantless surveillance of US residents by the FBI. We’re becoming what we hate.
It seems to come as quite a shock to some people that intelligence services use torture. I fail to see why. Spies are criminals in every country but their own. No nation wants any other nation spying on them. Thus they pass laws against spying–knowing full well that this does nothing except give them an out when they kill one. And they do. We do.
Spies, therefore, inhabit a world on the murky edges of the law, doing what is expedient to complete their objectives–national legality be damned. Spies use torture–because it works(something I’ve stated here before) and they will continue to do so regardless of any law passed.
However, passing this particular law so publically will have an effect. First, it will serve as a massive CYA for officials who are aware of torture but don’t want to be sullied by it. It will serve as a sop to our enemies–they will know that they can throw a wrench into the works simply by alleging torture. And it will make our men and women on the line hesitate–and that is perhaps the worst. I don’t want those entrusted with protecting us to constantly second-guess themselves for fear of their own country.
Stop being such a pussy, John.
Do you really want to tie Jack Bauer’s hands?
To the contrary, I think most people here weren’t surprised by it.
Objectives that really have little or nothing to do with our real security. I know, I know, you could tell us, but then you’d have to torture us. We would all just melt if we knew the truth.
Win a battle, lose a war. Perhaps if those at Abu Ghraib had hesitated a little more, we wouldn’t have had that mess.
Yes, you are right that this is all CYA. Renditions and tortures are going on right now, unabated. That doesn’t mean any of it makes us safer.
Torture doesn’t “work.” Period.
It doesn’t “work” as a means of gathering intelligence. If I were tortured or threatened with torture, I would tell my interrogators whatever they wanted to hear. And if you think terrorists are more principled and more honest than I am, I’d like to hear you say that.
It doesn’t “work” as deterrence. If you think Bin Laden’s thugs are gonna think twice before detonating that car bomb because they’re afraid of what American GIs might do to them after they’re caught, think again.
It doesn’t even “work” as vengeance or punishment, because it blackens our own souls even as we try to avenge the pain and suffering of those we have lost.
The only think torture does is level the moral playing field between us and the terrorists.
We are talking about interrogations here, not some chaotic firefight where split-second decisions must be made and the benefit of the doubt must be given.
Frankly, if a soldier acting on behalf of my country wants to torture or kill an interrogation subject, I would want him to hesitate. I would want him to “second-guess” his instincts. For his sake and for my country’s.
So, has anyone here seen The Battle of Algiers? There’s a scene in the movie where the head French paratrooper, Col. Mathieu, is responding to elliptic questions from French journalists about the use of torture.
It may be that our problem is not the torture. It’s the mission.
Torture works well. People who say they would say anything are phoney. Your captors would vet the information you give and when they find you lied it would all start again. What would happen is you will tell the God’s honest truth with the hope that it is the only thing that will stop the cycle of veting and more torture.
We have had a “no torture” policy in every war we have ever fought. Our men have been tortured in every war we have fought. Saying we won’t use torture has never stopped the enemy from torturing our people.
If one of my children were kidnapped and I caught one of the scum who did it, I would know everything I needed in one hour.
All these panty wastes who say torture is so “barbaric” and “against what we stand for” are hypocrites. Partial birth abortion IS one of the worst tortures you can put a baby through. The difference is liberals are willing to torture the weak and the innocent, while I want to torture the scum of the earth. I’m sure liberals will be threatened by my last statement.
The problem is, the war on terror ultimately has to be won politically — i.e., by separating the Jihadists from the Muslim “silent majority” and helping the latter isolate and defeat the former.
And that is simply going to be impossible so long as the Muslim masses perceive America as a neo-imperial bully and as the creator of Abu Ghraib torture centers in the Muslim world.
I need to know the definition of torture you are going by. Offending the religous sensibilities of mass murderers and rapers of women does not cross the torture line to me. Physical torture, no. Gratuitous pyschological torture, no. But I do want a terrorist to think we may use torture, and we should not have a law stating we will never use it. I want him to think we may fry his balls off if we want, so he will blink first. Why tie our hands in the psych-out of farking terrorists?!
How this comes around to abortion is beyond me, but I am reassured that if the time should come we can call upon RA to identify the scum of the earth; apparently he can tell them on sight.
RA – How does McCain fit into your hypocrite liberal argument? He is the person leading this effort. And he’s about as close to a classic conservative as this country has.
You do realize that your argument divorces itself completely from morality. You are speaking solely about desparation and results. Which is the same rational that a terrorist would use.
Plus, you seem to be anti-abortion. Yet you argue with almost glee about using torture against someone who has not been tried or convicted. So tell me, where exactly is this moral line that you draw? I can’t find it.
Stormy wrote, “Why tie our hands in the psych-out of farking terrorists?!”
Because a US Senator who was tortured for 5 years while in the line of service to his country believes that it hurts our country more than it helps it to torture. Can you imagine how much McCain, the son of the man leading the US military effort in Vietnam, suffered at the hands of torturers during those 60 months?
One hasn’t been born yet, the other has.
Threatened? Hardly. As a matter of fact I find the “panty waste” part quite amusing. If you think I’d be afraid of anyone who would use that term you are sorely mistaken. You’d fit in quite well in West Hollywood though.
mmmm ... sultry
“If one of my children were kidnapped and I caught one of the scum who did it, I would know everything I needed in one hour.” RA
yeah … but … here’s the thing …
what if you caught a guy that you *thought* had something to do with your child’s kidnapping, but didn’t? what if you set fire to his nether parts, pulled out his nails, sodomized him with a light stick, suspended him in excrutiating positions …
… and he had nothing whatsoever to do with your child’s kidnapping. I don’t think a “sorry, dude” would cover it. I don’t think you would EVER make enough money to repay him for what you did.
… that was the case with most of the people who were tortured in Abu Ghraib who lived to tell the tale. They were later released after enduring god-knows-what.
… by turning a blind eye to torture (or, in the case of excluding the CIA from prohibitions), you are allowing our government to become that which we hate. and you’re doing nothing but sewing further hatred of the United States abroad.
There terrorists – do you think for a second that they would not torture an American. Look at what they did on 9-11. We have to defeat them any way we can – you can bet that they will. I agree with the comment above that torture can be pretty effective. We have to stronger than the enemy to make sure that we win. I know I don’t want to see any more planes flying into buildings – or worse.
If Cheney thinks that this is necessary – I trust that he knows what is needed to win the war
Apparently Stormy is absolutely certain that the person in captivity is a mass murder and/or a rapist. Funny, I thought I remembered a lot of “innocents” being released. Several told of being abused. I must not be the only one confused as to whether the President is lying when he says this country never tortures.
The stay on the court ordered production of the next and worse batch of photographs from Abu Ghraid, which allegedly include US troops watching while young boys are sodomized and murdered, will expire on October 26, 2005. Torture, you want to see some torture? Then Mike S can tell me how much he watns to torture people.
Mike has been hijacked as another Dougj clone, me thinks
Mike the “Republicans are stupid AND evil” troll?
The spooky thing is that most Americans probably agree with Mike (or his troll persona). Yes, I know there are polls to the contrary, but let *me* word the question, and I’ll get you a majority. My boss just an hour ago said he thinks it would be just fine to torture al-Qaeda operatives.
I like to tell this joke:
Torturing anyone establishes what kind of country we are; details about torturing who, how, when are just haggling.
If the information could be vetted some other way they wouldn’t have to torture anyone to get it, would they? RA might want to stick to topics he knows something about. Like which works better: Viagra or Cialias? I’m sure all that bravado is compensation for something.
Even if the law passes is their any doubt that torture would occur if the situation demanded it? That a President could pardon someone if it were truly necessary? This just ensures accountability and clarifies standards.
We have extracted information from various terrorist detainees that have lead to a series of false alarms regarding potential attacks in the United States. Apparently we assume that information from terrorists is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Either that, or we shake the terrorism tree to distract at strategic times. Nah, that would be dishonest.
American actions in the last 4 years has added our stamp of approval to torture, pre-emptive invasions of other countries, and ousting leaders we disagree with. I guess when China decides that we are a bad country (say when we default on our debt to them), invades the United States and eliminates our government, they will have a our moral and political standing to do so.
“Torture works well. People who say they would say anything are phoney. Your captors would vet the information you give and when they find you lied it would all start again. ”
Given what we know now, I don’t have a lot of faith in our ability to “vet” information.
Ever hear of Curveball RA?
hee hee. China invades the US? They could not even leave their port to get over here.
I disagree with mass murderers and I have no problem with our army taking them out. None at all. I wish we could grind Mugabe into powder for what he did to his country.
Stormy – Well, of course…nobody agrees with mass murderers. I think the point that people are trying to make here is that in civilized nations, we follow the rule of “innocent until proven guilty”. And if the person is proven guilty, they are then punished. However, right now there are people who have not been proven guilty, who have been detained on suspicion, finger-pointing, or just because they have the wrong last name. Those people are being put through agonizing physical torture. Let’s not kid ourselves…if it was just a case of yelling, or insults, or grabbing someone by the shoulders and shoving them against a wall, Sipowicz-style, this would not be causing the stink that it is. By all accounts, there was stuff going on there that would make the average person puke.
The point that I’m (badly) trying to make, is that there has GOT to be a line. Interrogating is one thing, but for every innocent person that is tortured, 10 more decide that they hate America. You guys really can’t afford that right now.
Krista – we are at war with the terrorists, and we are not putting them on trial in this country as common criminals. They are not criminals, but enemies in war. They are at war with the West, by their own declarations. They choose war, they get war. Abuse does not equal torture in my book. Define torture and define abuse, but do not equate these terms, please.
I don’t care how many hate me or America. I really don’t live my life to please anyone, like the British. My status as an unveiled woman causes unlimited hatred in the militant version of Islam, and they can kiss off and die as far as I am concerned. If I want to use a piggy bank, I will, no matter how many nutters are offended. This is America, where you can offend unlimited amounts of people with unlimited free speech. I would not want it any other way. The hatred of bigoted Muslims does not disturb me.
What more needs to be said.
I am so glad I am living in the U.S.A., this beacon of democracy and human rights…
Has Cheney totally lost it? Does the U.S. need even more bad publicity?
Torture does not work. I know that, were I ever tortured, I would probably admit to be Elvis beamed back from Mars, or Bin laden, or Hitler, whatever… Anything to make it stop.
Seriously now, condoning torture puts our troops and our spies at greater risk than they already are. McCain knows a thing or two about torture. He was tortured. Cheney never went to war. He had “other priorities”, as he so tactfully put it. Perhaps it is time to listen to someone who actually experienced combat, was taken prisoner, and was tortured?
Finally, are we not supposed to be morally superior to the people that we are fighting?
the one eyed man
I agree with everything Evil Progressive says, with one possible exception. Let’s suppose that a terrorist had a bomb planted in New York City and the only way to find out where it is and defuse the bomb is to use torture. In that circumstance, would the greater good of saving thousands of lives justify the use of torture?
Worse yet, it helped get the Bush administration elected in 2004. The ultimate crime. I say torture the bastards who lied under torture.
I love how you become rightously indignant without addressing the issue of torturing the wrong person.
“I don’t care if 10 more muslims hate me”… even though they hate you because you -or your government, to be precise- tortured their innocent grandfather.
People want definitions on torture, maybe we also need a definition on terrorist. Someone who hates America isn’t necessarily a terrorist. Someone who is neutral to America isn’t necessarily a terrorist. And someone who loved America until his neighbor ratted him out as a terrorist when all he did was annoy the man, and is tortured, is *not* a terrorist.
Stormy doesn’t give a shit.
Not only does torture of the wrong person terribly punish, without cause, the person being tortured, it’s a dumb thing to do.
Lets take the case the the kidnapped kid above. While you’re wasting your time torturing the wrong guy, the REAL bad guy is doing horrible things to your child.
Ah, real effective that!
Even without these two obvious problems, our founding fathers made the claim …
So, do we believe that or not? Are all men created equal? If so, then torturing your Grandma, or kids or spouse should be just as valid as “evil Muslims.”
Frankly, I’d hate to see my child or spouse or family tortured. For that benefit, I think the framers really meant what they said. If the government is prevented from torturing your kids, it’s not lawful for them to torture even the most “evil” Muslims or anyone else.
When everyone who’s ready to advocate torture is willing to send their own children to the torturers then perhaps I’ll consider it. Nah, I’m sorry. Torture is just plain morally, legally and by any other measure wrong, along with being ineffective.
Oh, come on you lily-livered bunch of wimps. Don’t you all remember how we beat the Nazis by torturing captured Germans? Remember all those WWII movies where the GIs win the hearts of (possibly collaborationist) Frenchmen by rounding up random groups of older men and pulling out their fingernails?
Remember the scenes where James Stewart tugs on the ropes attached to the civilian’s genitals, and says, “well, ah, if ya don’t tell us where all that Nazi gold is, we’re, ah, gonna have to keep this up all day.”
No? You don’t remember those scenes? Is it because being “somewhat less bestial than our enemies” wasn’t our modus operandi during the Second World War?
Hmmm. Must be because that war effort was led by liberal Democrats. Those woosies.
Would any of you like to see how fascism sprouts in the hearts of the citizenry? Look:
We are “at war,” even though our Congress hasn’t declared a war. We are “fighting” an amorphous mass of different “enemies” scattered all across the globe, and the architects of our fight refuse on principle to give us any clue when that fight might end or where it should be focused. We sure as hell aren’t treating the captured as prisoners of war, since they’re essentially being thrown into black holes unless some limp-wristed lawyer tries to intervene. And even then there’s no guarantee. Thousands have been rounded up in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere; hundreds have been released without so much as a hearing. But I’m sure our plucky leaders know what they’re doing.
Remember, no matter what you think of him, Jose Padilla is still an American citizen. He’s the “enemy,” as our Administration has put it. He’s been denied most of the important rights our Constitution is supposed to guarantee all us citizens. Y’all okay with that?
Then I’m sure you won’t object when it’s your turn.
Look, it’s really very simple. If the United States has any meaning as a nation, it is that it stands for something – “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” essentially. We are the only nation in history to come into being not as a people unified by essentially tribal reasons (as opposed to, say, Spain, or China, or Thailand, or France – with their own languages, epic heoes, folklore, etc.) but for an ideal. Torture betrays the ideals that the founders had in mind for this nation; it’s why the 6th and 8th Amendments exist. To do otherwise is to violate the soul of this nation.
I have not joined up with terrorists who believe that blowing up the infidel will let them get it on with virgins in paradise. But, please excuse all terrorists because you hate Bush, and run on that platform in 2006. I find it interesting that bigoted Christians get more outrage from some of you, then anti-semitic, bigoted Muslims. I mean one group is against gay marriage, and one group wants to topple walls onto homosexuals, but lets bash only the Christian bigots. All Mulims get a pass, especially if they are jailed for terrorism. Then they are innocent, and deserve to be treated better than you would treat our own citizens.
This is potentially a complex subject, but I think it has an easy answer. We should not torture, because it is savage and vile. When we do such things, we surrender whatever moral high ground we have. Yes, this limits our options. That’s how a modern civilization works. We limit the power of those in authority so it will not be abused. Expediency isn’t the only consideration for people, even in serious situations. After all, there are many “serious situations” that government deals with; if it applied the logic of torture to all of them, we’d be ruled by a King.
Moreover, some of the pro-torture people are missing a big part of the picture. What about torturing innocent people? It happens all the time. Had the guys in Abu Ghraib been investigated and convicted? Or were they picked up on tips from informers and translators, or because they were too close to a suspicious incident? I’m sure there were guilty among them, but it is a great disservice to our reputation when an innocently tortured man goes home to tell his family about what we did to him.
Whatever advantage is gained by torture is lost by cheapening our civilization and ruining our reputation. We aren’t going to beat terrorists with guns alone. The “war” is really a long term struggle of ideas. I’m willing to bet you the fallout from Abu Ghraib did far more damage than any information gained from the interrogations, especially since I’m willing to bet that many of the prisoners were innocent.
mmmm ... sultry
“But, please excuse all terrorists because you hate Bush, and run on that platform in 2006” Stormy
I don’t know if this little detail has eluded you thusfar, but NO ONE is talking about excusing terrorists. There’s a difference between finding terrorists and bringing them to justice and rounding up random people, throwing them in prison and torturing them for information which they may not have, treating them as “guilty until proven innocent.”
This latter situation has been going on for the last 4 years and it makes us little better than the “Muslim bigots” you so detest – in fact, it makes us worse. This Administration has been telling the world they are *against* such practices but now want to give the CIA free reign to practice them. (They also say they are against ghost prisoners and “outsourcing” torture, but they freely practice that, as well).
Anyone can have principles regarding human rights when the going is easy – it’s when we, as a country, are challenged to maintain those principles when the going is a little rougher and scarier that we show our true colors.
I’ve been following the torture debates here and elsewhere for quite some time now and (although I rarely leave a comment) I’ve noticed over time a significant shift in those on the (far, far) right.
They are now blatantly arguing quite explicitly in favor of torture as good and proper behavior.
Go back and read the comments from Stormy and others above and you will see what I mean: They are no longer arguing “a few bad apples” or “not-systemic” or “fraternity pranks” – they are arguing that torture is a good thing. Quite revealing.
Stormy70, why do you want America to fail? People like you look at the war on terror in an overly simplistic fashion. “There are a set number of terrorists, and once we kill those, we win.” But that’s stupid. There is not a set number of terrorists. In order to win the war on terror, you have to kill the terrorists faster than you make new ones. Now, who do you think becomes anti-American terrorists–people who love America (or even are America-neutral), or people who hate America? So every time we do something to make more people hate us (including torture, bombing/shooting innocents, destroying infrastructure, etc.), we are increasing the rate at which new terrorists are created, causing us to lose ground in the war on terror. We haven’t had too much trouble with killing terrorists; our trouble has been that more keep popping up too fast for us to kill them all.
Under the current regime, that doesn’t matter. See, they can lock you up incommunicado and throw away the key, torturing you any way they see fit, and blow it all off as you being an “enemy combatant.” And if they don’t want to torture you, they can send you off to somebody who will. No rights, no questions asked, no appeal. And that doesn’t bother you at all?
Next time I hear you bitching about how judges don’t stick to the Constitution, I think I’m gonna throw up in my mouth a little.
Pity Stormy wasn’t born in Germany 90 years ago. She really missed her calling in life…
Neither had the vast majority of people who were jailed in Abu Graib – you know the ones who were tortured while under US custody.
But I guess the good news is Stormy is finally beginning to admit that torture did in fact happen. Maybe in another 20 years she’ll concede that innocent people were tortured and that was a bad thing.
Shorter Stormy70–You can’t make an omlette without slowly torturing some eggs.
a guy called larry
All In the Family’s theme song, Those Were the Days:
“Mister, we could use a man like Torquemada again…”
I was very proud that a bipatisan group of 90 senators voted for the anti-torture provision. And I found it incredible that the President, who has never vetoed any bill, threatened a veto on this one.
The only time I could imagine that torture is a necessity is for a “ticking time bomb” scenario. And torture is unlikely to work for that, as the torturee just has to give false information or hold out until the “bomb” goes off.
yet another jeff
But, what if the only way to stop a terrorist from blowing up a bomb placed in a strawman in a crowded city was to beat him with a crowbar until his legs shattered?
Stereotypical neo-con view–We’d shatter his legs with a crowbar. But we can’t know which potential terrorist has that bomb planted, so we have to systematically take every potential terrorist and shatter his legs with a crowbar until we stop that bomb that may or may not exist. It’s the only way to keep America safe. Oh yeah–9/11, freedom, stay the course. Almost forgot.
WHY WOULD A TERRORIST ADMIT THINGS UNDER TORTURE?
I’ve been reading this debate back and forth for some time now and one thing I have not seen mentioned. The TRUE terrorists, the ones we are trying to stop, are willing to BLOW themselves up!!! Why would torture change their minds about admitting information?
In all likelihood, wouldn’t torturing be some sort of a religious badge of honor? For them to be persecuted for their “beliefs?”
It seems like the ones who would be more likely to crack under torture would NOT be jihadists, and therefore, would be innocent.
I am completely against us torturing anyone under any circumstance. But I still needed to say that because the logic for the other side of the argument (pro-torture) is completely counter-intuitive.
I don’t think it’s realistic to expect “logic” from anyone advocating torture while claiming to be a good christian soul…
There are literally dozens of reasons *against* torture, but the flimsy arguments for it materialize into nothing more than us selling our souls for no good reason.
One thing must be considered when decrying ‘what muslims might think’–Islamic nations use torture. So did the Nazis, so did the Soviets, So do the Red Chinese, and the Vietcong did it as did the Khmer Rouge…as did/does the British Empire, France, Italy, the US….you won’t find a nation that has not used torture in some form. No one is ‘blameless’.
Is it noble to not torture? If, by not torturing, you fail to discover the plot that takes out a city or town or even allows a killer to engage in it’s foul plans, then no. You stood by and did nothing while innocents died–just to hold a moral high ground that you don’t and never have held.
It is an awful means to an end, but when all else fails, the awful means start to seem less awful. Survival is more important.
What do you do if you get the wrong guy? You kill him, dispose of the body and try another course of action. You kill everyone you torture. Why? Because it is less cruel than letting them live.
Understand, I find the idea of torture horrible. It is a terrible thing for events to get to that point. But sometimes it does. And you must do what needs to be done to survive.
Does it work? We’re still here. After years of being in an undeclared war with Islam, we’re still here. People look at the ‘false alarms’ as failures–did an attack occur? Why do you assume you know everything that’s going on in the war on terror? Consider that there are Vietnam vets who are still under an oath of secrecy–along with Gulf war vets, Navy seals, everyone in the intelligence community–just look at the ruckus over the Plame thing. Do you really think that these big widely publicised warnings are all that there is to it?
“We’re still here” is your justification for touture?! Great logic. To borrow from Lisa Simpson: I have this rock that keeps away tigers. See any tigers around? No? It must work.
And with the current administration so incredibly incompetent, yes, I do think these widely publicised warnings are all there is to it. All the competent people have either been surpressed or forced out.
“If Cheney thinks that this is necessary – I trust that he knows what is needed to win the war”
That is the problem with you credents. You think because some nihilist is in a position of power that he knows better than you do. Who annointed these people with wisdom that you can not figure out? God!, your little minds must be firing like crazy trying to deal with the cognitive dissonance going on in your psyche. You people are filled with hate and ignorance, period.
You all need to calm down, take a breathe, read a book and quit listening to people who incite the worst part of you. Try hard to understand the world around you and try to gain some perspective. It’s not easy and it may challenge you and everything you believe, but the price is too great if you don’t. If you have not done this or never will, you lose.
“What do you do if you get the wrong guy? You kill him, dispose of the body and try another course of action. ”
Yeah… you got to break a few eggs, right?
If our argument is that terrorists and Nazis torture, so we should too, then that’s no argument I want to be part of. (I hate ending sentences with prepositions!)
I could also point out, that with the possible exception of western Europe, all the examples pointed out are either gone or have no real power…
Torture is a means of desperation, and I’m sorry, I don’t think we’re that desperate yet. Pray we never will be…