AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

but you are mistaken if you think our congress will make torture legal

Like the DHS report, you're painting with a broad brush. Really, can we stop with the ideologue profiling of conservatives?

I could also waste quite a bit of time here profiling the deficiencies of some progressives, but you wouldn't agree, so I'll refrain.

So you can point to documentation of permanent injuy among the three terrorists who were waterboarded? I'd like to see it.

A relative of mine was waterboarded as a member of the military; it was done as a way to resist questioning. Interestingly, he wasn't burned, starved, beat, or permanently injured during the training...

We really need to stop with the profiling, Deb.

You misconstrue the discussion about civilian casualties during a time of war as a "left vs. right" argument. Have you no empathy whatsoever for civilian casualties? Other than your desire to change the subject through the introduction of a straw man, we are not discussing the suffering of the civilian population. We are discussing the INTENTIONAL infliction of pain and suffering on government detainees.

I am simply pointing out the selective outrage of many on the left, as an illustration of why I believe many here who are calling for prosecution of 'torture' are simply political ideologues.

This is a left vs right issue because many progressives display selective outrage.

Are you a far left ideologue yourself, Deb?

Quote:

I've used no such argument that what we've done is worse. What I've said is that we prosecuted and executed Japanese solders for doing the same thing that we have done: Waterboarding.

Please show me where a Japanese soldier was hanged for only the offense of water boarding. I've been reading countless anti-waterboarding sites that are making this claim, but haven't been successful in locating this information.

American prisoners in WWII were also starved, beaten, burned, and killed outright. Might this be why Japanese soldiers were executed?

Quote:

Are you forgetting that prisoners in our facilities have died because of our "advanced methods?"

What about stripping prisoners naked and posing them in humiliating positions for troops amusement?

At what point do you acknowledge that we did not handle prisoners correctly?

Are you referring to Abu Ghraib or other prisons? I believe the soldiers from Abu Gharib were all prosecuted, as they should have been.

Quote:

No the rule of law must apply to everyone. My grandparents were in the camps and lost a lot because of it. Reparations for that executive order came 40 years too late and after many who sacrificed their lively hood and freedom had already passed away. The FDR administration should have had to answer to that. Absolutely. I care not that it was a democratic administration, nor that they did other good things. In some capacity, they should have been made an example of in their time as a message about what it means to take away innocent people's freedom.

Why is it too late for individuals to answer to this now? You say it's not a left/right issue, but I've heard little from FRD supporter’s condemning the camps.

FDR was a war criminal, in many legal scholars’ opinions. Do you agree?

(I use the 'legal scholar' term because another kept using it here to justify her point.)

Would you support prosecuting these people today, much as Germany does with Nazis from WWII?

Again, my point in this thread is twofold: not everyone agrees that waterboarding select terrorists in time of war is necessarly torture. And, when we have current admins prosecuting officials from prior admins -especially when the prior admin obtained approval for their actions through congress - we are setting a dangerous precedent.

Rest assured, every action of a prior admin will be scrutinized. Which I believe is a good thing, unless it is politically motivated. Which this seems to be...

A Lone Voice wrote:

Like the DHS report, you're painting with a broad brush. Really, can we stop with the ideologue profiling of conservatives?

Please note the title of this thread.

If you do not approve of the "profiling" of conservatives who promote the conservative movement/agenda, then why do you start all of your arguments with attacks against those whom you perceive as on the left or far left?

The mistreatment, abuse, and torture of detainees is not limited to the three prisoners whom the government has admitted to waterboarding. Many detainees died from their injuries or just plain disappeared while in the custody of our government. Your attempt to minimize outrageous government conduct, is . . . well, outrageous. Don't you have any empathy for these mistreated, abused, and tortured persons?

No one but the most physically fit are qualified for this training. The SERE training program was designed to assist our people to survive torture, i.e., ILLEGAL methods of interrogation. During the training, the trainee may signal when he has had enough and the training ends. No such safeguards are employed in real life (non-training) situations. A medical observer may be present, but his mission is to keep the torture victim alive so that the torture may continue.

Where's YOUR outrage? Where's your empathy? There are many people who are not identified as being on the left that want an investigation. Why aren't you among them?

Your argument that people on the left are selectively outraged does not answer the question: Why shouldn't allegations of illegal abuse and torture of prisoners be investigated?

I am definitely to the left of the right-wing extremists who now dominate the Republican party.

The video maintains all totalitarian govt is on one side of the political spectrum, while liberty is on the other.

Certainly, it is more accurate than the usual left = socialist and right = fascist argument...

I agree with your position on abuse and torture. I do not agree that waterboarding is torture.

Again, my point in this thread is twofold: not everyone agrees that waterboarding select terrorists in time of war is necessarly torture. And, when we have current admins prosecuting officials from prior admins -especially when the prior admin obtained approval for their actions through congress - we are setting a dangerous precedent.

A Lone Voice wrote:

Again, my point in this thread is twofold: not everyone agrees that waterboarding select terrorists in time of war is necessarly torture. And, when we have current admins prosecuting officials from prior admins -especially when the prior admin obtained approval for their actions through congress - we are setting a dangerous precedent.

Waterboarding is torture. A state of war does not authorize the government to redefine torture as an Orwellian means to justify it.

The Reagan administration set case precedent in 1983 when the Department of Justice prosecuted law enforcement officers for waterboarding a prisoner. Here's the Fifth Circuit case that affirmed the conviction of one of the participants in the torture:

United States v. Lee, 744 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1984)

Why wasn't this case cited in any of the government's memos?

Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley pointed out that the "numbnuts" who insist on blurring the line between unlawful torture and acceptable interrogation techniques are absurdly irrational. Their argument is the equivalent to the following: "Bank robbery is not a crime, it's a technique used to withdraw money from a bank."

Since the release of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) torture memos a few weeks ago, the public discussion about torture has been robust, to say the least. First of all, it’s important to keep in mind that empirical evidence suggests that torture is an ineffective tool in securing valid information. In other words, torture doesn’t work.

Despite this crucial fact, the torture conversation has gotten muddied with irrelevant tangents. The media has been touting public polls about what Americans think about torture.

Let’s be clear: These things don’t matter.

It doesn’t matter if torture works, because it’s illegal. (Heather at Crooks & Liars points to Salon’s Joan Walsh slamming this “does it work?” argument.)

And it doesn’t matter what the polls say, because it’s still illegal. The use of torture isn’t a popularity contest.

And while we’re at it, let’s call a spade a spade. As constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said on Rachel Maddow the other night:

Quote:

It’s obviously disturbing to hear torture still referred to by the president as a “technique.” That’s like saying bank robbery is a “technique” for withdrawing money from a bank. It’s not a “technique”, it’s a crime…

Despite the past eight years, the United States is governed by the rule of law. We don’t sign treaties only to disregard them, and we don’t allow those who break the law to go unpunished.

Let’s reconsider the torture argument in these terms: Do we want to be known to the rest of the world as a country that flagrantly ignores its own laws, not to mention the international human rights laws it agrees to? Does our government have a “do as we say, not as we do” approach to the law?

We do not. So let’s refocus here. Torture is illegal: There’s no two ways about it. It’s never acceptable. As Attorney General, Eric Holder is obligated to enforce and uphold the laws of this country. Remind him of this sacred duty by signing our petition calling for an independent prosecutor to investigate those who authorized the torture of detainees.

For many thousands of years, across every culture and continent, women have known traditional or "natural" breasts to be those that God -- or nature -- gave them. To think otherwise flies in the face of millennia of human history and spiritual doctrine. Prejean's Bible repeatedly reminds us we are made in God's perfect image while warning us against exchanging the "natural" use of our bodies for those deemed "unnatural." And, while one could argue the rights to privacy and personal freedom are inherent in our nation's founding democratic principles and that every American has a right to his/her own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, organizations like NOM -- for whom she's now a spokesperson -- Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council repeatedly admonish us that life in America would be better if theology and biblical doctrine were the primary determinant of civil law and personal liberties.

While someone else was footing the bill, Prejean made the choice to defy her God's perfect design and creation of her and to rebel against the intended and "natural" purpose of her mammaries: namely, the nursing of babies rather than the visual attraction sufficient enough to win a vanity contest. . . .

So, Carrie, you may find full civil equality for all Americans to be "unnatural" and not "Biblically correct," but, frankly, neither are your Jugs for Jesus and your Caps for Christ. "No Offense."

Yes. Conservatives accuse progressives of redefining "marriage." ...

Debra Law wrote:

Yes. Conservatives accuse progressives of redefining "marriage." ...

while they redefine... breasts??

If you are correct and the voters favor legalizing abortion, why hasn't it been allowed to go on any ballot anywhere?

Then thats what the voters of SD wanted.

Why not let it go on the ballot on all 50 states?

That way, everyone would know what the voters think and the courts would not have to pass laws.