Comments on: Newsweek Writer’s Story Claiming That Torture Might Work Contradicts His 2006 Article Saying That It Doesn’t

By: youtube

youtube — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:43:10 +0000

Their ultimate goal is not to convince anyone that torture should be legal, only that there’ssohbet doubt about whether or not it is.At every step when we’ve cetchosen to do the right thing over the voices of those who claim it’s too dangerous, we’ve never had cause to bbedava mp3 indire sorry.

By: EugeneDebs

EugeneDebs — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:35:38 +0000

glezzery Says:

So is your argument that we have joined the evil doers club but we arent as bad as some other evil doers? I expect more from my country. By that logic why do we prosecute murderers. I mean they arent as bad as John Wayne Gacy or the BTK killer. YOU are a MORON.

By: dbearton

dbearton — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:30:40 +0000

Newsweek, like Time, while not as diluted as Faux News, they are still, MSM, rightwing stooges.

By: gus smith

gus smith — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:29:29 +0000

Kristol, Mr. Israel -lite, are you allowed to eat lamb chops?

By: Wayne A. Schneider

Wayne A. Schneider — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:27:58 +0000

tbone Says:

This discussion has been raging for several years now, and in my opinion, MUST be settled to establish/reinforce our identity as a people/country.

tbone, I understand what you’re saying, but the fact is that the issue has been settled, for quite some time now. The only reason it is being discussed as a “possibly legal” method of interrogation is because the right-wing wants to use it.

This is typical of their tactics: They don’t like something (like torture being illegal), so they claim there’s a dispute over it when none existed before. (They lie regularly, so this isn’t difficult for them.) The more people talk about it, the more they say, “See? The issue isn’t ’settled’ after all,” when, in fact, it is. Their ultimate goal is not to convince anyone that torture should be legal, only that there’s doubt about whether or not it is. Because if they convince people there’s doubt about the legality of torture (specifically, waterboarding), then they can say they can’t be convicted of a crime when “there’s doubt that a crime has even been committed.”

We have to make sure they never achieve their goal. Waterboarding is torture, and no empathetic person (or a person who has undergone it) in the world would disagree. And torture is always illegal. We need to prosecute the people who authorized torture to be used (and it was), and stop giving them the benefit of the doubt because of the position they hold. Presidents and Vice Presidents are not above the law, and they are not the ones who say what the law is.

By: Terrier

Terrier — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:19:01 +0000

How about this? My father, who served this country for 37 years and dodged bullets for more than a few of those told me that we didn’t torture because of only one reason – it is wrong.

By: texasbob

texasbob — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:06:23 +0000

Someone called this “trickle-down.” That’s exactly right. It’s what you get when someone pees their pants and the warm yellow fluid trickles down their legs and makes a mess all over the floor. Isn’t that a perfectly fair and balanced description of our “news” media and the Bush regime?

By: tokin librul

tokin librul — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:42:21 +0000

Torture “works” if what you are trying to do is extract confessions.

Targeted against ‘thought crimes’ such as heresy, apostasy, blasphemy, sacrilege, etc, torture is effective in compelling admissions of lapses of orthodoxy.

Other than that, it’s nothing more than official sadism (well, it’s that in the previous case, too).

By: conniptionfit

conniptionfit — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:42:04 +0000

Thomas has been looking for years for the perfect sentence in which to use the word “Shibboleth”.

By: Marie

Marie — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:20:34 +0000

After reading that Newsweek article the other day, I came away very disheartened by the opinions of the two authors.
They make a case for continuing the illegal and unethical practices of Bush/Cheney, while dismissing the assault on the Constitution and international law as a necessary evil.
That’s the sort of twisted and perverted thought process still embraced by Bush/Cheney and Thomas and Taylor give it further validity – shame on them.
I have had my issues with Jon Meacham over the years, and he should have provided a counter point to the current article.
Too many people believe that the law is relative – the end justifies the means (Cheney’s false rationale) – in this case, that claim can’t even be made – the end did not provide anything except a reduction in our national integrity.

By: djames1982

djames1982 — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:07:08 +0000

Torture works ONLY IN SPECIFIC circumstances. Let me explain with 2 different scenarios.

Scenario 1) I have been cuffed and tied down against a metal pole.

Torturer: “What’s your ATM password?, tell me or I am going to drench you in acid, your skin will peel off and you will die a slow painful death.”

Me: “My ATM password is (my real ATM password here)”

Scenario 2) I have been cuffed and tied down against a metal pole.

Torturer: “What did you give your mother for her birthday back in 1976? tell me or I am going to drench you in acid, your skin will peel off and you will die a slow painful death.”

Me: “I gave her…(a load of BS goes here)”

My main point, yes, torture works and sometimes it doesn’t.

By: CageyCretin

CageyCretin — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:42:57 +0000

When did the apologist argument for torture go from, “we DO NOT torture, and we DO NOT condone torture”, to, “Torture is useful and it is a complicated issue” ?

Gone from denial to excuses.

And, not new but prominent again, the great justification for morally deficient greedy self-centered types, “The end justifies the means.” It is this, and this alone, that their argument, “its a complicated issue”, is based upon.

The end can only justify the means if there is no moral justification sought, as this argument is ONLY ever brought up to defend morally reprehensible actions. One NEVER hears, “I donated a bunch of cash to this charity. I didn’t get a tax receipt, but that’s o.k. because it is a good charity doing good work. The end justifies the means.” You will ALWAYS see this argument used to justify BAD actions.

The end NEVER justifies the means. The means are ethical or unethical in their own merit, not based on results. That is to say – an action is judged by itself, not by consequences following the action.

By: RAM

RAM — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:30:15 +0000

I can hardly wait for next week’s Newsweek so I can see which felonies they will advocate committing next. Will it be rape? Bank robbery?

Boy, I bet Herman Goering and his Nuremberg buddies down in Hell are really pissed that they were all born a century too early. Just think, they could have had a Newsweek cover story advocating in their behalf. Who says the world hasn’t made moral progress since 1945?

By: JustJohn

JustJohn — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:10:30 +0000

If I were to say rob a bank and get caught would the issue be how successful my crime was or if the money I took was put to good use?
Please prosecute, next.

By: JustJohn

JustJohn — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:54:38 +0000

Here we go again….
The continuous talk of effectiveness of torture is of no consequence. And by design, it’s a diversion from the rule of law. Spin up the ‘all we got was lies’ or ‘we have really gotten some really useful information that made us safer’, it has no bearing, but is 90% of the discussion.
We are a nation of laws. Torture is against the law. Prosecute.
End of story.

By: Razor_Boy

Razor_Boy — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:57:53 +0000

#
kassandrasduplex Says:
….I sugest we torture George Bush and Dick Cheney to glean information about their roll in the California “Energy Crisis” about their foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, about their profiteering off of a war based upon lies, about their complicity in the murder of thousands of Americans and some 1 million innocent Iraqis, about their contacts and complicity with Osama….

Agreed.

By: Ape-Man

Ape-Man — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:55:56 +0000

Nobody in America would talk like this about torture unless they were trying to cover for someone’s major out in the open crimes.

By: kassandrasduplex

kassandrasduplex — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:07:23 +0000

A pathetic moment in American history that this discussion is being held at all.
However, should those who represent the Darkness prevail, and torture become official policy, I sugest we torture George Bush and Dick Cheney to glean information about their roll in the California “Energy Crisis” about their foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, about their profiteering off of a war based upon lies, about their complicity in the murder of thousands of Americans and some 1 million innocent Iraqis, about their contacts and complicity with Osama Been Forgotten.

By: joe cantwell

joe cantwell — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:46:54 +0000

i don’t subscribe

to newsweek.

By: Briseadh na Faire

Briseadh na Faire — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:10:38 +0000

Well, if torture works so well, why don’t we torture everyone connected with the Project for a New American Century to find out if they were the ones behind 9/11?

It shouldn’t take too long to put all the “conspiracy theories” to rest…or to confirm them….

Their “harsh interrogations” should be videotapped and posted on the internet for all to see. They can prove to the world how effective Bush’s “harsh interrogations” are for getting to the truth of the matter. If they truly have nothing to hide, they should not object to the proceedure they so wholeheartedly endorsed. Not only that, but their videotapped interrogations would prove to the world that Bush did not torture.

or vice-versa.