The Washington Post has a grossly disingenuous editorial today, titled "A Defining Moment for America" The subhead: "The president goes to Capitol Hill to lobby for torture."
PRESIDENT BUSH rarely visits Congress. So it was a measure of his painfully skewed priorities that Mr. Bush made the unaccustomed trip yesterday to seek legislative permission for the CIA to make people disappear into secret prisons and have information extracted from them by means he dare not describe publicly.
Of course, Mr. Bush didn't come out and say he's lobbying for torture...
Of course he didn't, because then he would be lying just like the Washington Post editorial board is.
The delicate flowers on the Post editorial board may believe that forcing terrorists to listen to The Red Hot Chili Peppers or putting them in a cold room are "torture", but that is their opinion, not a matter of fact or definition. The president does not believe those types of things are torture. Many people do not believe those types of things are torture. The Post's editors are being disingenuous about what the president is advocating. Their readers deserve a serious analysis of this very important issue, not hysterics and hyperbole.
The president is not lobbying for torture. There are some interrogation techniques that equate to torture, there are other interrogation methods that, while perhaps more aggressive than the editors of the Post would like, do not equate to torture. The president is asking congress to define what is legal under Article III of the Geneva Conventions, which is imprecise about what is and is not allowed.
And how it is a "painfully skewed priority" for the president to work with congress to define the acceptable methods to extract vital information from people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a mystery. They may vehemently disagree with President Bush's conclusions on the issue, but to suggest the issue isn't of great importance, that it shouldn't be a high priority, makes no sense at all.
President Bush has wheeled out a straw man: a terrorist that has knowledge that if forced from him will save millions of lives.
So be it, and I propose that Congress enact a law authorizing the president to sanction the use of any means, torture included, to secure information that will save these millions.
Further, to ensure that torture is only used in such a situation, after such methods have been used it would be the responsibility of the president to demonstrate---beyond a shadow of a doubt---that such lives have been saved via his authorization. If the president is unable to provide such proof, he will be subjected to the exact same methods that he has sanctioned.
Thus, by his acceptance of the consequences, underlings would be protected from prosecution for actually performing the procedures. This is what George W. Bush is most concerned about, isn’t it?
Comment by Sam Osborne — September 16, 2006 @ 6:37 am September 16, 2006
Sam,
You have misrepresented the president's stated position in practically every detail. Whether this is due more to dishonesty or ignorance only you can know.
Thank you for visiting and commenting.
Comment by The Editors — September 16, 2006 @ 8:03 am September 16, 2006
Most people will say anything under torture even if it's not true. They will agree to anything they think you want to hear. So it isn't the best way of going about getting real information. Locking someone up in a prison in Guantanamo Cuba, not allowing them access to a lawyer, or phone calls to the outside might seem like torture to you if it was done to you.
Say you had to sit there month after month while somewhere outside your business has fallen apart, your family is in despair and there is no one you can talk to. I think if you were in that position you would feel tortured. You wouldn't have access to a typewriter to write the torturing political articles you write. That would be bad but the world might be better off.
Daniel Springhill
Comment by Daniel Springhill — September 16, 2006 @ 10:55 pm September 16, 2006
Right, the prisoners at Gitmo are just honest, hard-working business owners before they were captured.
And this constitutes torture:
Daniel and those who share that twisted thinking live in a fantasy world.
Comment by The Editors — September 17, 2006 @ 7:40 am September 17, 2006
I happen to get my news from several good services on the Web. This story is from API and several other sources in Bagdad. You read your news from Rumsfeld, mine is much more reliable.
If I happen to believe what I’ve read from several good sources; How does that make me have twisted thinking? Because I repeat the news to people, that somehow upsets you enough to slander me and sources of that news.
Take a look at this, it’s a story that is this very moment on several web sites.
Yahoo news, CBS news and Netscape news to name just a few.
This is Sunday at 9am that I am reading it. The title is US War Prisons legal vacuum for 14,000. It starts with this.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - In the few short years since the first shackled Afghan shuffled off to Guantanamo, the U.S. military has created a global network of overseas prisons, its islands of high security keeping 14,000 detainees beyond the reach of established law.
I won’t relate the whole story as it appears, let the reader go to any of the sites I mentioned and read for yourself. But before I close here’s another excerpt from the story.
Captured on battlefields, pulled from beds at midnight, grabbed off streets as suspected insurgents, tens of thousands now have passed through U.S. detention, the vast majority in Iraq.
Many say they were caught up in U.S. military sweeps, often interrogated around the clock, then released months or years later without apology, compensation or any word on why they were taken. Seventy to 90 percent of the Iraq detentions in 2003 were ``mistakes,'' U.S. officers once told the international Red Cross.
Maybe Yahoo, CBS, Netscape, API and a dozen other news services are in a conspiracy to twist our thinking as you say. Maybe you should report them to Homeland Security. You really should read the story though, it gets worse, and it creates enemies for our country. People like you are what brought the Trade Towers down to begin with. You and Rumsfeld have the same mentality as Osama, it’s called being self-righteous, and self-justified therefor above the laws of personal accountability.
All of you should seek help.
Daniel Springhill
Comment by Daniel Springhill — September 17, 2006 @ 10:46 pm September 17, 2006
In the middle of a war, people were captured, interrogated, then released??? Why, that's just like Osama!!!
Thank you again for illustrating the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the left today, Daniel.
Comment by The Editors — September 18, 2006 @ 7:46 am September 18, 2006
There is a huge difference between being captured,interrogated and released than being captured, interrogated for months or years, without access to a lawyer, right to confront your accusers,
and being denied contact with your family or the outside world. But apparently, I'm twisted to think that this is somehow wrong?
Daniel Springhill
Comment by Daniel Springhill — September 18, 2006 @ 2:04 pm September 18, 2006
no Daniel,
Your twisted to disparage our leaders for abandoning our fundamental belief in the rights that should be afforded to prisoners. You should not expect us to hold ourselves to a higher standard. You shoud be afraid... so afraid you will thank our leaders without questioning the morality of their methods. You should disregard the reports from the canadians, Brittons and Austrailians who's governments have found them not guilty after being released from Guantonamo.You should also not worry that any of these horrible people are innocent because our beloved leaders do not make mistakes.
And you should not worry in the least that these methods will be used against you some day.
Comment by winterbear — September 26, 2006 @ 1:44 am September 26, 2006
THE WAR TO START (not end)ALL WARS?
Poor leaders will claim that great purpose has been achieved even through a most egregious blunder. They will also try to deflect leftover blame onto anyone but their most sycophantic followers.
Aside from possibly thinking he could one-up his father by deposing Saddam Hussein, with little forethought George W. Bush launched his "pre-emptive" war into Iraq . Now, in words of justification befitting a juvenile delinquent, he passes off this mistaken venture by claiming that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.
If a tsunami had swept up the Tigress and Euphrates and gotten Saddam, but in the bargain taken thousands of lives and cost our nation dearly, we might expect Bush to also find great good in the wall of water and take credit for its course.
This man can only lead sheep. To his dwindling flock of followers, have a nice bah, bah, bah.
Comment by Sam Osborne — September 28, 2006 @ 9:30 am September 28, 2006
With great “conviction,” poor leaders will claim that great purpose has been achieved even through a most egregious blunder. They will also try to deflect leftover blame onto anyone but their most sycophantic followers.
Aside from possibly thinking he could one-up his father by deposing Saddam Hussein, with little forethought George W. Bush launched his "pre-emptive" war into Iraq . Now, in words of justification befitting a juvenile delinquent, he passes off this mistaken venture by claiming that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.
If a tsunami had swept up the Tigress and Euphrates and gotten Saddam, but in the bargain taken thousands of lives and cost our nation dearly, we might expect Bush to also find great good in the wall of water and take credit for its course.
This man can only lead sheep. To his dwindling flock of followers, have a nice bah, bah, bah.
Comment by Sam Osborne — October 3, 2006 @ 9:14 am October 3, 2006