We don’t do that kind of thing.” Which, first, everybody but the tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy crowd already knew

Someone should have told our allies who kept asking Secretary of State Rice whether or not we were engaged in torture or flying detainees to countries to be tortured.

I have to say though, it is rather unpersuasive to hear you and the right wing claim we should torture yet then deny accusations of torture.

You might understand how this might cause the tinfoil hats to come out of storage.

Left by Preston on December 16th, 2005 at 10:14 am

When I, as an individual, say that I support torturing the hell out of terrorists who would behead me, you, and our families, or those who would fly our airplanes into our buildings to kill thousands of innocent people — that is not the same thing as our govn’t endorsing nor acting on my opinions.

Just because I say I wish we would torture them, does not mean that our govn’t does torture them…

Just because the left thinks that sleep deprivation, pissing on one of their books (which is only an allegation, anyways), letting women interrogate them, and scaring them with loud dogs barking at them is torture, does not make it so.

You want them coddled, I want them beat to death with baseball bats. Our govn’t happens to use methods of interrogation that are somewhere in between those two extremes.

Left by Robbie on December 16th, 2005 at 11:06 am

I’m disgusted with McCain. I hope he isn’t the Republican nominee. I’ll have some real soul searching to do.

Left by dianne on December 16th, 2005 at 1:53 pm

Interesting. I wouldn’t have suspected that you noted a distinction between what we might want to do with captives and what is good for our country to do with captives.

I’ll just ask you to consider the same distinction in the case of death row inmates.

On that topic- have you ever seen ‘Mr. Death’? I just saw it last night- a bizarre movie on the man (actually a movie on the bizarre man) who designed many electric chairs and lethal injection machines throughout the country. Kind of a strange twist in the middle.

Left by Preston on December 16th, 2005 at 1:55 pm

Why do you blame McCain? It is Bush who eventually signed the order.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16detain.html

Left by Preston on December 16th, 2005 at 1:59 pm

I’m not happy with Bush on this either. I don’t like everything he does, believe it or not..lol…you’ve even got a few good men in your party (very few).

I kinda like Romney for 08, but wonder if he really has a good shot.

Left by dianne on December 16th, 2005 at 3:22 pm

But, honestly, I don’t understand the opposition to a bill that simply seems to be an affirmation of basic American values.

There never seemed to be such an opposition to a ’statement of principle’ on other issues- for instance, affirmations that it is illegal for gays to marry.

Left by Preston on December 17th, 2005 at 3:34 pm

gonna have to ask you to define “torture” there Preston.

the “torture” we were using at Club Gitmo was approximately as dangerous as being a college freshman, lapdance included.

Left by MacStansbury on December 17th, 2005 at 8:19 pm

Preston, basic American values? How about late term abortion…ahhh excuse me…I think that’s torture, but legal in this country. Do not tell me that baby doesn’t feel it either…you’re more intelligent than that.

Our values are all upside down in this country. I just don’t get it.

Left by dianne on December 18th, 2005 at 7:52 pm

Actually, Mac, I’m not making any allegations of torture. I’m simply calling for a simple affirmation of American opposition to the practice. What’s the big deal, really? It isn’t effective, it makes our mission in Iraq more difficult, and it stands in opposition to our values.

Dianne- Roe v. Wade recognizes the state’s role in the protection of the fetus by the third trimester. I’m inclined to think there are very, very few late-term abortions of viable fetuses in cases that do not risk the life of the mother.

(Of course, if you want to reduce late-term abortions don’t legislate mandatory waiting periods or parental or spousal consent laws. If you want to reduce abortions altogether have more wide spread sex education and birth control. Women, by definition, do not hope to have unwanted pregnancies.)

Left by Preston on December 19th, 2005 at 2:01 pm

Preston…are very very few cases of torture acceptable when it comes to terrorists? I don’t have the stats in case of late term abortions, but I’m sure it far exceeds any torture of terrorists..certainly we don’t tear them limb from limb. I won’t debate the entire abortion debate here as it’s not the point of this post. My point was your point…American values. We really need to think about what we’re doing, what we’re legislating, what we’re voting for, who it hurts, why it hurts. I fear we too often forget where we came from and the consequences of our tunnel vision actions.

Left by dianne on December 19th, 2005 at 6:27 pm

My point was simply that late-term abortions are surely not a preference for anyone but are the result of the denial of an earlier abortion. (Except, of course, in cases when women find that they are carrying an unviable fetus late into pregnancy)

I’m all for reducing late-term abortions (and unwanted pregnancies) by the methods I mentioned earlier and others. It’s an unfortunate unintended consequence of the shuttering of clinics across the country that women are forced to carry those fetuses longer- leading to more late term abortions.

We have the means to reduce these procedures- the lack of action by a Republican Congress causes me to doubt their sincerity to the issue. I have to believe that Congress is more concerned with the prevalence of extra-marital sex than the welfare of fetuses because they resist any measure to reduce the latter that acknowledges the existence of the former.

Left by Preston on December 20th, 2005 at 11:39 am