Comments on: Frist waxes incoherent on torture bill, terrorism report

By: Weldon Berger

Weldon Berger — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:02:23 +0000

They’re in good company, though. Most of the Senate agree. Oh well …

By: Amy

Amy — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:19:16 +0000

I will quote another blogger (Jon Armstrong) and ask: “What America is this?”

Are commenters here actually defending the notion that the United States of America should condone and conduct TORTURE? Torture, people. You’re defending the notion of our government, in your name, torturing people.

There is a reason that TORTURE has been repugnant, outlawed, disallowed, debated…

Shame on anyone who would consider this an option in our arsenal.

Do I even need to point out that torture does not work? Does not lead to usable “intelligence”. Does nothing to further our cause or our security? Oh, and – it just makes us look HORRIBLE and grow more hated on the international stage.

If you can’t object to sanctioned torture on a moral basis (seriously, you can’t?) then at least realize that, politically, it hurts us more than it helps us.

By: OldSoul

OldSoul — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:37:12 +0000

I am not sure which I find more repugnant, this administration’s erosion of the liberties enjoyed by its citizens, or its wholesale ignorance of humanitarian justice for all. It would be my hope that every legislator who voted in favor of this act gets to experience the treatment they authorized first-hand.

By: Weldon Berger

Weldon Berger — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:52:27 +0000

P: that was one of his points; the other, apparently, was that if they knew how rotten we were they’d come and kill us. But even the first point is stupid. The problem isn’t that these methods of torture are secret. They aren’t; they’ve been in the news for years now. Any terrorist who wants to train to resist them has had plenty of warning. But even that isn’t really an issue; organizations with secrets assume their members will talk if captured. That’s why groups such as al Qaeda try to limit what and who their members know. The only good reason for not enumerating the techniques is to keep the rest of the world guessing as to exactly how barbarous we’ve become.

By: PubliusToo

PubliusToo — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:23:05 +0000

I think Senator Frist’s point is that if the federal government reveals the questionable interrogation techniques to allay concerns that they are tantamount to torture, then the terrorists will know what to expect and can adapt to the interrogation techniques so revealed. Although he has a valid point as far as it goes, he cannot reasonably expect the Congress to enact legislation to legalize those techniques without revealing the techniques themselves. (For that matter, why would they need legislative approval if they are not current illegal under the Geneva Conventions?) By granting the executive branch carte blanche to interrogate without regard to the strictures of existing treaty commitments, Congress would be abdicating its oversight responsibility and, worse, would give a green light for adversaries to ignore those same treaties protecting American servicemen in times of war. Sadly, the President of the United States continues to cede the moral high ground with these absurd requests.