Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:33:25 -0400, HK wrote:


We should not be differentiating among "enemy combatants," "enemy
soldiers," and "terrorists." What is needed is one consistant standard
of treatment for all. The Bush Administration's fudging with language
and standards was a great disservice to this country.

None of that was ever the issue with torture. Such arguments were
used regarding detention, and due process.
The argument for torture has always been "the ticking time bomb."
Preventing mass casualties. National security.
As in "we know this guy has info."
Bull****. You "know" squat. Only Dirty Harry is omniscient.
Because that what the script says.
Maybe Keith Olbermann tells Obama that Rush has gone off his meds and
is a threat to national security.
Janeane Garofalo verifies this, and just to be certain Michael Moore
is interviewed and he provides the critical third verification.
Sometimes you only need 2 pieces. Depends on how the gov "authority"
feels that day.
It's all top secret, so nobody knows what's up anyway.
So Rush gets the waterboard, kicks off due to heart failure, and they
later find out he knew nothing. It was the liberals setting him up.
Or Hannity.
YOU DON'T GIVE THE GOV THE RIGHT TO TORTURE.
We are a country of law.
I don't trust a gov working outside the law.
Why the hell the right-wingers want to give Obama clearance for
torture is beyond me.

--Vic





Agreed, but there are still those, some right here in this newsgroup,
who think torture is ok.