Average Americans To Liberals: Existential Angst Over Torture? It’s All You.

The Stiletto Blog ^ | September 2, 2009 | The Stiletto

[theothercheek]

Is torture un-American?

Boston Globe columnist Derrick Jackson lays it on the line: “The more Dick Cheney defends torture, the more we Americans must end our tortured ambivalence. Either we are above using the same interrogation practices that police states use, or we are are not” [sic]. ...

Americans have made their feelings on the issue quite clear, but Jackson just can’t handle the truth. He insists that “as Cheney continues to defend the dark side - even without conclusive proof that waterboarding coughed up critical intelligence - he is daring Americans to come out of the shadows to demand a bright light on interrogation and prisoner-treatment practices that render us hypocrites on human rights."

No, he is not. Cheney is speaking for the majority of reasonable Americans who think of waterboarding the way liberals think of abortion: That it should be rare and legal (it’s obviously safe, since Khalid Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times and he’s still alive and kicking).

[NOTE: It is a copyright violation to copy and past the entire post here, so I just posted the opening paragraphs.]

[kcvl]

Derrick Jackson

If Bush listens to the people, he will have a chance to soften his legacy. If he does not, he will cement his legacy as the divider, not a unifier.

…there is more pressure on Bush than there was three years ago to pick someone who will not conduct the feared Sherman's march through abortion rights, affirmative action, and federal protections for ordinary citizens.

[cardinal4]

…there is more pressure on Bush than there was three years ago to pick someone who will not conduct the feared Sherman's march through abortion rights, affirmative action, and federal protections for ordinary citizens.

That is actually funny..

[staytrue]

Either we are above using the same interrogation practices that police states use, or we are are not

Sorry, it will always depend.

If we have to torture someone to stop a nuke going off in NYC, we will all say "torture away". If we have to torture someone to stop a bank robbery, the answer is no.

In the case of Islamic terrorism, I say anything goes. One of the main reasons to not torture is if the other side agrees not to do the same to your soldiers. For Islamic terrorists, there will never be any rules as 9-11 shows. No rules for them, means no rules for us.

I actually think we should torture them more. We stop when they stop (which is likely to be never).

Let's face it. If someone (russia, china, whoever) nukes us, it is implied that we will nuke them. And this is what keeps the peace.

[theothercheek]

Well put. Why don’t liberals get this?

[Retch_Sweeney]

it would be interesting to look back and get their take on what the branch davidians experienced in ‘92? ‘93? barry manilow played at high volume, disco lights, and liberal reporters. like i say, it’d be interesting to compare and contrast, maybe suggest it as a theme for the english comp students at u-cal berkley. there was coverage 24/7 of that event. the timidness of the response to that torture, (remember all those children) surely encouraged the use of battlefield tanks. if the analogy is then applied to the case at hand...