READER COMMENTS ON
"VIDEOS - The GOP's Trouble with Torture"
(17 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 11/10/2005 @ 10:33 am PT...
Illegal wars, torture and the use of chemical weapons...
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 11/10/2005 @ 10:58 am PT...
It doesn't take a nimble mind to be against torture and also against outlawing it. It takes a hypocritical mind.
And it takes a hypocritical person. There might be a logician somewhere in the world who can walk through that kind of contradictory minefield and emerge unscathed...but Gibson sure isn't the guy.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 11/10/2005 @ 11:00 am PT...
Just to follow up on my Hometown singer's song...
If you stare at the lyrics long enough, it really is a good song for today.
Despite the headline on the Vancouver Sun on September 12, 2001 --- irony is NOT dead. In fact, Bushco. has given "irony" a whole new sick twisted meaning.
An old man turned ninety-eight
He won the lottery and died the next day(due to not getting proper health-care)
It's a black fly in your Chardonnay(pesky insurgents)
It's a death row pardon two minutes too late (Oopsie! Right, Texas George?!)
Isn't it ironic ... don't you think
It's like rain on your wedding day (or inauguration day)
It's a free ride when you've already paid
It's the good advice that you just didn't take (hmm)
Who would've thought ... it figures
Mr. Play It Safe was afraid to fly (like Georgie during the Vietnam war)
He packed his suitcase and kissed his kids (fellow guardsmen) good-bye
He waited his whole damn life to take that flight (remember "mission accomplished"?)
And as the plane crashed down he thought
'Well isn't this nice...'(wasn't exactly "mission accomplished", was it Georgie?)
And isn't it ironic ... don't you think
Well life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
When you think everything's okay and everything's going right (so W. thought in November, 2004)
And life has a funny way of helping you out (like a Presidential pardon, perhaps) when
You think everything's gone wrong and everything blows up
In your face
It's a traffic jam when you're already late (The Corporate Media, of course!)
It's a no-smoking sign on your cigarette break (Freedom - thanks to the Patriot Acts)
It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife (hurricane Katrina)
It's meeting the man of my dreams
And then meeting his beautiful wife (Jeff Gannon meets Karl)
And isn't it ironic... don't you think
A little too ironic... and yeah I really do think...
Life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
Life has a funny, funny way of helping you out (in the form of leaks & the Brad Blog)
Helping you out
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 11/10/2005 @ 11:13 am PT...
Helen Thomas is the sexiest man who ever lived.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 11/10/2005 @ 11:17 am PT...
I know one thing --- she's got "balls", and I find that extremely appealing in that particular room.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 11/10/2005 @ 1:01 pm PT...
With that same logic, can't we just say the Gays never get married but still not make it illegal for them to do so?
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 11/10/2005 @ 1:06 pm PT...
And maybe the same logic can be used in the issue of a free press. We can declare that all reporters tell the truth all the time, and not bother checking up on the stories. All men never murder, so we can drop the murder laws. Or maybe All presidents always do the right thing, and we can get rid of Congress and the Courts.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 11/10/2005 @ 2:26 pm PT...
Is it just me or is the public heater blowing just a little cooler this week in the direction of, oh I dunno--Karl Marx--I mean Rove? That must be nice. Good for you, Mr. Rove. I, for one, am glad that those mean pit bulls in the press corps and all the snotty nosed, know nothin, stupid citizens they sometimes speak for have finally given you a break. God knows you needed it. You should thank whatever "Senator" leaked classified information about the CIA to the press and take some of the heat off of you and the White House--finally give you a breather. I sure don't envy you, buddy. I mean, having to put up with all those questions and accusations...what were those assholes accusing you of, anyway? Ah yes, now I remember--leaking classified information about the CIA to the press to take the heat off of the White House. Where ever would they get an idea like that? That could comprimise national security--which you would clearly never do. That's why they're all up in arms now about this case--because some asshole has gone and comprimised national security with his information leaking. Ah well, who cares, right Karl? Just so long as the pressure's off of you...
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 11/10/2005 @ 4:44 pm PT...
Karl Rove is the least of Bush's worries now. Still, without Rove in the driver's seat all those other worries will become intractable problems. Hmmm.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 11/10/2005 @ 7:27 pm PT...
A Matter of Honor
_Wednesday, September 28, 2005; Page A21
The following letter was sent to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sept. 16:
Dear Senator McCain:
I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.
Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard.
That is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now. But, we can learn from our mistakes and ensure that this does not happen again. Take a major step in that direction; eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification provides clear evidence that confusion over standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation.
Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.
Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America."
Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.
With the Utmost Respect,
-- Capt. Ian Fishback
504th Parachute Infantry Regiment,
82nd Airborne Division,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
Citizen Michael John Keenan
said on 11/10/2005 @ 8:40 pm PT...
Subject: Where are the other secret torture chambers?
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
The Minds Limit Today
In Jean Amery's, The Minds Limit, his capture and
descent into torture by German Nazi's, starts by
pointing out that his torturers showed no "banality of
evil" in their faces. First there is the "laugh" and
then the "first blow." The prisoner then realizes that
they are "helpless". Lost is the "trust in the world."
Certainly there is no "mutual aid in nature." No. It
is time for the "business room." But before describing
his own torture the author makes "good on a promise I
gave." Not that they where not specialists in torture,
but more so his conviction that "torture was the
essence of Nationalist Socialism....more accurately
stated, why it was precisely in torture that the Third
Reich materialized in all the density of its being." I
ask you dear citizens should we also "codify" that the
detainees at Camp Xray can also be children as
recently reported in the news? Not only does that
sound slightly like the rule of anti-man but I do
believe anti-child included. And if that is so then
the rule practiced as such has "expressly established
it as a princple." So just what else in "essence" does
go on at Camp Xray? "Tricks"? Plead mercy, pray tell?
And now comes Abu Graib. Refuse Himmlers offer for a
Certificate of Maturity in History and stop those jet
flights I would suggest, Mr. Cheney. Nay, to forsake
the Constitution and be depraved of our humanity would
be more painful in the end. Slavery to torture is all
you will get. Go tell that to the Marines. Why Mr.
Cheney haven't you already tendered your resignation?
At least Hitler was restrained from jettisoning the
Geneva Conventions even with his back against the wall
in February of 1945. I smell now the chief prosecutor
Jackson's closing arguments at the Nuremberg trials.
I am Citizen Michael John Keenan :angry:
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 11/10/2005 @ 8:44 pm PT...
And a Congressional Medal for MR Fishback!
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 11/10/2005 @ 9:12 pm PT...
saw this somewhere on the 'net yesterday (sorry I don't remember where):
WHO WOULD JESUS TORTURE?
I find it odd, from a Machiavellian standpoint, for Cheney --- and therefore the Bush Admin --- to be so publicly against an official ban on torture.
Logically, it would follow that Dick must want the CIA to have the option to torture... without such activities being against the law. (as if that ever stopped the CIA before...)
Seems to me that a ban would protect Bush and Dick against prosecution in the event they ever get put on trial for War Crimes. They can still put their torture-minded NOC's into action --- non-officical cover CIA agents who would do their dirty deeds, whose existence would be disavowed by the government if they ever came to light. And they could all pretend that Dick and Bush had nothing to do with it. ("See! We have a BAN against that --- those were just a few bad apples!)
Without it, it would seem that Bushie and Dickie are not availing themselves of all the "protections" available to them.
By promoting the torture ban, they win the public relations battle, retain some small illusion of moral high ground, and still get to torture --- it'll just be N.O.T. --- Non-Official Torture.
Of course, they could ban torture because it is wrong, it is proven to be worhtless in extracting useful information (let's ask John McCain!), is a moral blot on the soul of our country, and a crime against humanity...
(Whaddya think about that, Pat Robertson? Will God smile on us as a nation in natural disasters? oops, guess that question's already been answered)
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 11/11/2005 @ 2:10 am PT...
Gibson says on TV, "I'm against torture, but I don't want some terrorist knowing what I'm not going to do to him." I'm sure that sounds good to the wingnuts who watch Fox Network, but it really makes no sense at all, even to a conservative.
The terrorist already knows what torture is. He already knows it's disallowed under the Geneva Convention. He knows the United States, by law and tradition, doesn't torture people. So what Gibson is really saying is: "I don't want a terrorist thinking we'll obey the law and follow the Geneva Convention."
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 11/11/2005 @ 5:06 am PT...
Torture is the poster boy of the "politics" of hatred.
Torture is actually, until this admin, a crime.
So, the beat goes on. The neoCons confuse the word "politics" with the word "crime".
They can't seem to muster up the integrity, character, and morality to distinguish the two in a way americans can recognize.
They are out of phase and out of sync.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 11/11/2005 @ 7:50 am PT...
Below is an excerpt from the following article
Who would Jesus torture?
by David Batstone
ůAdmittedly, Christians of good faith part paths when political conflict leads us to consider what constitutes a just and righteous war - or if any war can be just. Though we may not consent on the means, we do consent on the need to confront the spread of evil in the world. Yet we can all affirm scripture when it says, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:17, 21). When we confront evil with its own means, those means mark our own character.
In that regard, the practice of torture so fully embraces evil it dehumanizes both the torturer and its victim. No just cause can be won if it relies on torture to succeed. Democracy and freedom cannot result from a war fueled by torture, which is why so many Americans were shocked and angered by the disturbing incidents that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
All the more so, Christians must oppose torture under any circumstances. Consider this: Who would Jesus torture? I cannot imagine Jesus finding a single "exemption" that would justify such an abuse of any individual made in God's image.
Though I bristle whenever I hear someone refer to the United States as a Christian nation - it is such a loaded phrase - many in the Muslim world see us as such. How tragic it would be for Muslims to identify the message and mission of Jesus with torture and terror. We must not allow that to happen.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 11/11/2005 @ 12:53 pm PT...
I'm against the death penalty. And I'm also against outlawing the death penalty.
Hmmmm, but if we're going to try to get the attention of the "bad guys," we are going to have to put some people to death.
But I'm firmly against the death penalty...'ya hear?
It seems clear as mud to me.
Actually, it is clear. The rhetoric and actions of the Bush administration don't match. Which explains why Scottie has a hard time explaining anything at his pseudo-press conferences. Which is why the Bush administration is moving mountains (of B.S.) in trying to hide their actual actions.
And more and more U.S. citizens are beginning to realize that things just don't add up. Bush says one thing but actually means or is doing the exact opposite. The disconnect between reality and the Bush administration rhetoric is finally beginning to sink into the American consciousness.
And the Bush administration and their puppets in Congress are desperately trying to quash any full-scale investigations into the obvious discrepancies between what they keep saying publicly and what they are actually doing...in secret.
We live in a democracy. The TRUTH will come out in the end. No matter how much stonewalling the Bush administration and their Congressional lackeys do.
In other words, they are toast.