“Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

Waterboarding, imo, falls under this category..

We already know that they are guilty, thus there is nothing wrong with torturing them to obtain the confession necessary to convict.

If we know – we must have had proof to begin with; therefore, torture is unnecessary. Also, torture is wrong. We shouldn’t do it – even if it were helpful – because of that.

(I know you weren’t advocating…I was just rebutting the generic republican argument.)

However, we see the Republicans apply this kind of logic in all sorts of cases:

1. The person is a criminal. He does not deserve to have procedural rights at trial.

2. Those who object to searches or eavesdropping without warrant have done something wrong.

3. The poor are lazy and shiftless and thus do not deserve any assistance from the government.

Feingold entered the race too early, (’04), I sure wish I could vote for him in November.

Out of 100 Senators, is Feingold the only one willing to tell truth?

[...]And, of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.

But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. That would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.

Preserving our freedom is the reason that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people…

It seemed relevant here, forgive me if I am wrong.

Comment by Parrotlover77 — February 12, 2008 @ 12:36 pm

Nazi Neocon trash getting elected to power.

Who do we have in today’s world that cannot be bought off but will be brave enough to stand up to this crowd in office?

Comment by texaslady — February 12, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

*** Russ Feingold – votes correctly 100% of the time ***
– 96 to 1 (Feingold voted AGAINST the patriot act).

Comment by RUCerious

I wonder what day they would hold the execution if Giuliani had been the Republican nominee?