Moral Grandstanders
Amazing that so many liberals are more worried about the comfort of suspected terrorists than the safety of their fellow Americans.
But sadly, it's apparent that moral posturing is a bipartisan failing.
But sadly, it's apparent that moral posturing is a bipartisan failing.
posted by LadybugUSA at 6:34 PM
5 Comments:
I am sure you are referring to our senate. What are they thinking? If you aren't doing anything wrong the Patriot Act does not effect you, I guess the loonbats have something to hide, maybe their jihadist support campaign, ie. Codepink etal?
Come on Carol. McCain’s bill doesn’t ban making terrorists uncomfortable (sleep deprivation, etc.), it bans torture. It does so not out of concern for the terrorists, but concern for our own moral standing. I agree with McCain.
Having said that, I think there should be an exception: when there is reasonable suspicion of an imminent threat of mass causalities that could be prevented by torture, if approved by the president, secretary of defense or other high ranking official.
(Carol, please don’t tell anyone I agreed with the liberals).
Goat wrote, "If you aren't doing anything wrong the Patriot Act does not effect you, I guess the loonbats have something to hide, maybe their jihadist support campaign, ie. Codepink etal?"
Oh, absolutely. The US government and its agents would never ever ever step on the rights of ardinary ciizens. Heck, I'm sure the Pentagon is correct when they decided they needed to spy on Quakers. It's hard to argue there is any greater threat to our nation than those secretive Quakers.
Our national security demands the merciless torture of Quakers to determine terrorist intentions. At minimum, the Bush administration should forcibly relocate them to internment camps.
LQ, just a quick question for you (a serious question).
The torture methods used by the Bush administration (water-boarding, etc.) were developed in the former communist block countries as means to elicit false confessions from enemies of the state, not to extract information. As we found out just this week with the al-Libi case, our use of torture also appears to force false confessions. (In the al-Libi case, false statements that helped mislead us into war.)
Given this, why do you think there should be a 24 type exception? How would torturing a person into making a false claims help those in imminent danger?
Mr. Twister,
There's always a small chance it would lead to useful information. That's a chance worth taking to save lives.
Post a Comment
<< Home