Comments on: “We Do Not Torture,” No Way, No How, No Ma’am

By: E in mD

E in mD — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:52:06 +0000

I don’t need to walk in someone’s shoes to know that torture is wrong and should never be allowed. We didn’t accept ‘we were just following orders’ when we were putting Nazis in prison or executing Japanese soldiers who did it to our personnel. The fact that you’re willing to compromise on this issue only illustrates that YOU need to walk a mile in someone’s shoes.

By: oowawa

oowawa — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:20:46 +0000

I agree with you, Ferd.

We have to draw the line somewhere. Most people can clearly see that breaking on the wheel, the iron maiden, and other torture implements are hideous. Waterboarding is a little less obviously torture, but torture nonetheless. Mankind has got to rise above these practices, and we must lead the way. No more.

By: Ferd Berfle

Ferd Berfle — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:03:33 +0000

Retired: I advocate the indictment of anyone who advocates torture. That being said, the cleaning of one’s street begins on the side lived on. McCain was right–the issue of torture is about US. We are not barbarians even if our adversaries are. We do ourselves no favor by stooping to the level of our enemies by taking on their very attributes we despise.

Is that succint enough for you?

By: Ferd Berfle

Ferd Berfle — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:46:54 +0000

Bullshit. When we torture, we lose the moral high ground as well as put our troops in harm’s way, dim-bulb. Ratified treaties have the force of the Constitution.

If you are so ~~scared~~ lily-livered that you fear for your life over this, presnt yourself to the nearest Constabulary for a nice little cell where you can be safe from all the bogeymen out there to get YOU.

As for me, I only fear morons like you who will sacrifice our freedom and our moral standards for a “feeling” of safety. You are a coward.

By: Retired

Retired — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:40:29 +0000

I’ve seen some advocacy on these pages for prosecution of Americans (Bush, Cheney, et. al.) for torture. Oddly, though, what I cannot recall seeing is any advocacy for prosecution of anyone on the “other side” (i.e., members of opposing terrorist organizations or their sponsors) for torture. Is it the position of those who advocate prosecution of people serving in the Bush administration for torture that all those who torture should be prosecuted, or just the Bush people?

In the eyes of some, it isn’t really hypocritical for terrorists to torture captives. Some terrorists actually believe in the use of torture on almost a quasi-religious basis. If a non-state terrorist organization is not a signatory to the Geneval Convention, and its members believe in the use of torture as a moral instrument of God’s wrath, on what basis would they be prosecuted?

Just asking a theoretical question, not advocating any particular position myself. Actually, the question is based on a recent conversation with an Iranian who said that in some quarters in his native country, torture is considered to be a moral neccesity by certain co-religionists in the case of infidels who are believed to be in opposition to Islam.

By: Owllwoman

Owllwoman — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:46:16 +0000

If that were the case every member of Congress that were told of the procedure should be charged along with them. Holder left a very large hole in his testimony regarding torture and that may have been the reason why. You cannot go after Bush and the rest of the gang without grabbing up a few Dems. along with them.

By: trixta

trixta — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:33:01 +0000

A member of my family has given his life for this country in another war — and I don’t think torture as a national policy and legacy elevates his sacrifice in any way.

Look at it this way, torture as a policy has chipped away at our moral integrity as a nation. (Not to mention that it endangers our captives or POWs!) That’s what torture does — it affects negatively the torturer by rotting his soul. A torturer will lose the moral battle every time.

By: trixta

trixta — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:22:35 +0000

[inherently]

By: trixta

trixta — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:20:25 +0000

“…by using and adopting models which are inherently flawed, how can we win this war, survive as a nation?”

Exactly!

By: trixta

trixta — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:19:53 +0000

“…by using and adopting models which are inherintly flawed, how can we win this war, survive as a nation?”

Exactly!

By: trixta

trixta — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:12:27 +0000

Since the founding of this country torture has NOT been part of our strategy for dealing with enemies. Indeed, we have thrived as a nation without it. Because of this sadistic policy, we have lost our moral high ground and standing as a nation, thanks to GWB. Torture has no place in this country — not then (after 911), not now, not ever!

Unfortunately, on torture, FISA, and Habeas Corpus, etc. Obama is turning out to be the sequel to GWB.

By: trixta

trixta — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:02:52 +0000

“…ambiguous indications…we need clarity…so, yes but no? …inconclusive tea leaves…among all these mixed messages….”

LOL!

To Rachel: You supported, voted and shilled for Obama, now you must live with the consequences. Did you actually believe He had “clarity” on any issue before? Did He suddenly become “ambiguous” to you? Or have you been lying to yourself and us about Him all along?

By: rightagain

rightagain — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:43:14 +0000

I am beginning to feel like a librarian, but here goes… If you read “The Dark Side” by Jane Mayer, you will learn what Article 4 or the Geneva Convention refers to. In other words, it is illegal to bring innocent civilians into the path of war and to target civilians. That is why the situation in Gaza is all wrong. And Dick Cheney is using the Israeli model of warfare. Its wrong, too. Torture is against the Geneva Conventions. Its the law. Simply put. If a country wages war and breaks international law which it is a signtature too, then consequences are a logical conclusion. Thank god that Hillary Clinton is going to be involved from now on in the decisions made by this next administration.

By: I'm a Linda too

I'm a Linda too — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:45:42 +0000

WOW, this clearly shows Rachel sucks at tv. Her repetitiveness is stressful to hear and her face making is very offputting. Rachel clearly needs to stick with Free Tibet activism and radio.

That was torture.

And if Rachel wanted to be honest about foreseeing the future conduct of a Obama administration, she should have admitted his actions in this regard. You know, campaigned for being “against the injustices of the Patriot Act”, but voted for the reauthorization of the pariot act and then voted to give immunity for illegal wire tapping, after claiming he would filibuster to block immunity.

How about dealing with the real facts Rachel?

By: HARP

HARP — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:31:14 +0000

The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.