Balkinization  

Friday, June 01, 2007

Torture, Etc.: Would Things be Different in a Democratic Administration?

Marty Lederman

Well, one can never know for certain, right? But this certainly is encouraging:

Barack Obama (April 23d):
To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.


John Edwards (May 23d):
We must always seek to protect our national security by aggressively gathering intelligence in accordance with proven methods. Yet we cannot do so by abandoning human rights and the rule of law. As two former generals recently wrote in the Washington Post, "If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable ...we drive ... undecideds into the arms of the enemy." And we must avoid actions that will give terrorists or even other nations an excuse to abandon international law. As president, I will close Guantanamo Bay, restore habeas corpus, and ban torture. Measures like these will help America once again achieve its historic moral stature -- and lead the world toward democracy and peace.

Comments:

The real question is if they will commit to prosecuting the Bush administration for its war crimes and crimes against humanity.

We must restore the rule of law or everything else is just a scam.

Watergate, Iran Contra, and now the most disgraceful amd outrageous criminal conspiracy in the history of the nation. We must make an example of these criminals that will build on the precedents of Nuremberg and Tokyo.

And no presidential pardon by Mr. Bush should be allowed to stand in the way under any circumstance.
 

It would be interesting to get all the Dem candidates to answer the pointed series of questions about interrogation that Brit Hume put to the GOP candidates in their last debate. Of course, avoiding real world questions like that which would put them between the rock of their leftist base and the hard place of the rest of the American voters is probably a big reason why they avoid Fox.
 

Hillary Clinton is pro-torture; I found the following by googling "Hillary Clinton, torture." (She has also come out against torture, of course.)

*******

But at yesterday's Daily News editorial board meeting, it emerged that she's [Hillary] not actually against torture in all instances, and that her dispute with McCain and Bush is largely procedural.
She was asked about the "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which you've captured the terrorist and don't have time for a normal interrogation, and said that there is a place for what she called "severity," in a conversation that included mentioning waterboarding, hypothermia, and other techniques commonly described as torture.

"I have said that those are very rare but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that," she responded. "Again, I think the President has to take responsibilty. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting. I don't mind if it’s reporting in a top secret context. But that shouldn’t be the tail that wags the dog, that should be the exception to the rule."
 

"It would be interesting to get all the Dem candidates to answer the pointed series of questions about interrogation that Brit Hume put to the GOP candidates in their last debate. Of course, avoiding real world questions like that which would put them between the rock of their leftist base and the hard place of the rest of the American voters is probably a big reason why they avoid Fox.

"# posted by Bart DePalma : 2:49 PM"

The reason to avoid FOX is simple and clear, and need not be guessed at -- even by the consistently dishonest: FOX is not news, and it purpetrates a fraud every time it claims to be.

FOX is an extreme right-wing propaganda mill.

By contrast, the intellectually honest recognize that facts and opinions are not the same thing; that there is properly a line drawn between news, on one hand, and opinion/"punditry," on the other.

It is only a tiny minority who either doesn't know the difference between standards and BS, or lies that it doesn't.
 

JNagarya said...

The reason to avoid FOX is simple and clear, and need not be guessed at -- even by the consistently dishonest: FOX is not news, and it purpetrates a fraud every time it claims to be.

FOX is an extreme right-wing propaganda mill.

By contrast, the intellectually honest recognize that facts and opinions are not the same thing; that there is properly a line drawn between news, on one hand, and opinion/"punditry," on the other.


LMAO!

Yup, those professional objective reporters over at ratings challenged MSNBC asked such penetrating questions as:

1) "Seriously, would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?"

2) "'What do you dislike most about America?'"

3) Mayor Giuliani, how do we get back to Ronald Reagan’s “morning in America”?

Meanwhile those "extreme right wing propagandists" from the leading cable Fox news network actually dared to depart from Oprah-esque pablum and offer some bracing reality from both the liberal and conservative perspectives:

1) "Senator McCain, you say that you are willing to be the last man standing for U.S. involvement in Iraq. But the Iraqi government has failed to meet one political benchmark after another for political reform. Why should Americans continue to fight and die while Iraqi politicians continue to do so little?" (LIberal).

2) "Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured off the Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they are being questioned. U.S. intelligence believes that another larger attack is planned and could come at any time. First question to you, Senator McCain. How aggressively would you interrogate those being held at Guantanamo Bay for information about where the next attack might be?" (Conservative)

3) "Some researchers say the lines of embryonic stem cells that President Bush has approved federal funding for are inadequate. Tell me why they're wrong. And more importantly, tell me how you would convince them that they have -- these researchers have all the tools they need." (Liberal).

4) "Mayor Giuliani, I think you expect your stance on a woman's right to choose to attract a lot of attention in this setting, sir. You have said that you personally hate abortion but support a woman's right to choose. Governor Huckabee says that's like saying, "I hate slavery, but people can go ahead and practice it." Tell me why he's wrong." (Conservative).
 

"Bart" DePalma:


2) "Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured off the Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they are being questioned.....


You forgot, "... and Green Lantern has lost his ring, and Superman's been imprisoned in his Arctic fortress by a cage of kryptonite lattice that Lex Luthor sneaked in under the guise of installing new ABM radar for the gummint. So what do you do, superhero....???"

Cheers,
 

Post a Comment

Home