Skip to content

Torture is Torture is Torture is Torture! End of argument!

September 22, 2006

Is torture wrong? Your damn right it is. Almost everybody in
America knows that. Our parents told us that torture is wrong when we were little kids. We teach our children that torturing is wrong. We teach that it is wrong to even torture pets and that it is wrong to torture insects by pulling off their wings. So why can’t supposedly respected officials get it thru their thick skulls that torture is wrong? Why is this even a debate for the US Senate?
We will not accetp torture!

 

Anybody that has been following the news is aware of the four Republican Senators that were resisting the approval of Bush’s “clarification” of the Geneva Conventions article three. However it seems that McCain and company finally caved in and let the school yard bullies in the White House have their way.

 

The facts are that these illegal programs have been going on for over four years, and really no real terrorists have been captured. This makes Mr. Conservatard wonder why the Bushtards are trying to make torture “legal” after doing the deed. Are they concerned that US intelligent forces will have the tools of torture they “need” to fight terrorism in the future? This is not likely, since several experts in extracting information from suspects say that torture, aside from the obvious moral issues, often leads to poor or misleading information.

 

Some editorials at the Washington Post with a piece called Bush Gets His Way and at the New York Times with an piece called A Bad Bargain start poking holes into this whole compromise between the Bushtards and the rebel Republican Senators that dared to question the king.

Here is a way to measure how seriously President Bush was willing to compromise on the military tribunals bill: Less than an hour after an agreement was announced yesterday with three leading Republican senators, the White House was already laying a path to wiggle out of its one real concession.

About the only thing that Senators John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham had to show for their defiance was Mr. Bush’s agreement to drop his insistence on allowing prosecutors of suspected terrorists to introduce classified evidence kept secret from the defendant. The White House agreed to abide by the rules of courts-martial, which bar secret evidence. (Although the administration’s supporters continually claim this means giving classified information to terrorists, the rules actually provide for reviewing, editing and summarizing classified material. Evidence that cannot be safely declassified cannot be introduced.)

A Bad BargainNew York Times Editorial Staff.Published: September 22, 2006

Here’s a question reporters should be asking: If, as Suskind has alleged, the administration is aware that those harsh CIA interrogation tactics don’t really work — and no one is currently in CIA detention anyway — then why is this such an important issue for the White House? One possible answer: That this has nothing to do with the future; that it’s about giving them cover for their actions in the past.

Here’s another question reporters should be asking: Have the senators been assured that Vice President Cheney won’t get Bush to attach a “signing statement” to this bill, asserting his inherent powers, as he did the last time he signed torture legislation?Finally, as the White House gears up to use detainee policy as a political issue, it is incumbent on the press to remind the public that there are not only two choices: Doing it Bush’s way and letting terrorists go free. Even if the Democrats aren’t coherent about other alternatives, the press should be.

By Dan Froomkin

Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, September 22, 2006

A writer from the L.A. Times named Rosa Brooks suggests that the Bushtards have an alternative goal to why they are pushing for a “clarification” of the Geneva Convention and how they are using this “debate” as a way to cover their chicken butts. In her editorial called “Our Torturer-in-Chief: Until Bush took office, the U.S. had no problem defining what is cruel and inhuman Ms. Brooks poses the following ideals.

 

 

According to Bush, the problem is that Common Article 3, which prohibits “cruel,” “humiliating” and “degrading treatment” and “outrages upon personal dignity,” is vague. He claims it doesn’t give “clear” guidance about what is permitted and what is prohibited during interrogations.

That’s not what Bush is actually worried about, though. His real problem is precisely the opposite — Common Article 3 and the War Crimes Act aren’t nearly vague enough. If called on to determine whether several of the administration’s “alternative” techniques violate Common Article 3 — and thus the War Crimes Act — virtually any court in the land would agree that they do.Our Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” That’s vague too, but our courts have always managed to define it. As the Supreme Court put it in the 2002 case Hope vs. Pelzer, the argument that a standard is vague and provides insufficient notice of what’s prohibited just doesn’t cut it sometimes. Some practices are just plain “antithetical to human dignity” and characterized by “obvious” and “inherent” cruelty.

…. If in doubt, take any of the “alternative” methods that Bush wants to use on
U.S. detainees and imagine someone using those methods on your son or daughter. If the bad guys captured your son and tossed him, naked, into a cell kept at a temperature just slightly higher than an average refrigerator, then repeatedly doused him with ice water to induce hypothermia, would that be OK? What if they shackled him to a wall for days so he couldn’t sit or lie down without hanging his whole body weight on his arms? What if they threatened to rape and kill his wife, or pretended they were burying him alive? What if they did all these things by turns? Would you have any problem deciding that these methods are cruel?

… Back in 2002, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales warned Bush that some of his policies raised “the threat of domestic criminal prosecution.” But the extremists who have captured the White House ignored half a century of American law and the advice of the nation’s top military brass. Instead, Bush went ahead and authorized practices that even Gonzales predicted might be seen by “future prosecutors” as violations of the War Crimes Act.Today, the chickens are coming home to roost. But though the word “accountability” isn’t in the White House dictionary, there’s a long entry under “CYA — covering your ass.”

Rosa Brooks:
Los Angeles Times

September 22, 2006

 

To recap we all know that torture is wrong both morally and legally. We are a nation that believes in treating all people fairly. Many people including the white bread eating conservatards ancestors came to this country to escape torture.

 

We as a culture reject torture in all shapes and forms. Most mainstream religions of the world reject torture. So why should we condone it from our “elected” leaders? Leaders that are suppose to represent “We the People”. The fact is we shouldn’t. We should be ashamed of our leaders actions and condemn it openly and publicly. Those that practice torture should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, no matter who they are and what powers they hold.

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: