|
|
||
Torture? It's simply indefensible Date published: 9/30/2009
Torture? It's simply indefensible
Detainee abuse by the CIA came up recently, and Leon Panetta defended his agency by saying that his people did what the American people asked them to do. Really? I don't recall the American people telling his agency to go forth and torture. Although the Bush-Cheney administration made torture routine policy, they certainly didn't want the dirty little secret to get out. Curiously, detainee torture has been given tacit approval by the media and public alike, as evidenced by the deafening silence on this subject. Where is the outcry? The only question asked was, "Did they get any results?" Cheney and others replied by saying, "We got very good intelligence." But what else could they say? They have to rationalize such morally reprehensible behavior. Detainees at Abu Ghraib were humiliated unmercifully, and the evidence shows that the torturers seemed to enjoy doing it. Can you imagine someone torturing detainees by day and then going home at night to his wife and children? When you torture someone, you become a little less human. It is not something you can do without consequence. The Red Cross found that half of the detainees at Guantanamo were innocent. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when a roundup occurred. To torture an innocent person is evil. If we as a society allow torture, then we cannot call ourselves a Christian nation. We have failed when we find this acceptable behavior. This country needs a moral transfusion. Eric Morgan Stafford
Torture is because of 911 which wasn't really about lack of intel (thus method is irrelevant) - it was about assimilating that intel via the agencies that gather it. Bush was visibly absent in his first 9 months of office and by his own Natl. Sec. Adv.'s admission he didn't read key intel reports denoting 911's threat.This makes Bush/Cheney doubly loathsome - not only did they fail us on 911, but they respond with a second loathsome response - Torture. Dick Cheney is its last champion - he is insane.
No doubt in the "fog of war" under duress some are driven to use torture and it may sometimes actually produce its intended result. Never has this nation witnessed torture (described with that lovely euphemism "enhanced interogation") sanctioned by the presidency (or the VP). Cheney and Rumsfeld gave vague approval with little guidelines and we wind up with Abu Griab. Most shameful of all - they let NCOs take the rap. That is not leadership. Of course what would expect from a man of had 6 deferments.
Torture just cannot be sanctioned by the state as WAS
done by the Bushies. Cheney and Rumsfeld and many
others have confessed to sanctioning the unsanctionable.
They guilty should pay for their crimes. And YES,
sometimes in war and these times with threats of terrorism,
someone may find useful a bit of torture, but in the end he
has to fall on his sword and take one for the team. The
laws, treaties and Constitution must be protected from
enemies foreign and domestic.
Do a simple google search and type in Glen Beck, Patriot and 1787 and see just how many hits you get. This is funny as heck! I swear, all of you out there on the far right, this is who you have representing you!!!!!!
Why attack someone who simply disagrees? Although far from a proponent of torture, it is understandable, and is certainly not the sole property of the United States. Didn't the British torture those they captured in Kenya? Wasn't one of those vicitms named Obama? Could that be the reason it is such a sore spot for the current administration, under the guise of morality? Are we to believe that no one in the current administration would ever condone "enhanced interrogation" were national security at risk?
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
