Posted on 12/07/2005 5:48:52 AM PST by .cnI redruM
WASHINGTON - Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling.
The United States has drawn criticism from human rights groups and many governments, especially in Europe, for its treatment of terror suspects. President Bush and other top officials have said the U.S. does not torture, but some suspects in American custody have alleged they were victims of severe mistreatment.
The polling, in the United States and eight of its closest allies, found that in Canada, Mexico and Germany people are divided on whether torture is ever justified. Most people opposed torture under any circumstances in Spain and Italy.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
"Does torture mean
- rape and dismemberment, or
- panties on the head and the comfy chair?"
Good point or might torture be....
having to listen to bad music and be pointed at?
So the Constitution really is a suicide pact? You remind me of the inhabitants of a city in ancient Israel who would not fight on the Sabbath. Guess when their enemies attacked and destroyed them? To borrow a Napoleon quote (that was a favorite of George S. Patton): "Do not take counsel of your fears".
And who do you think developed the strategy that those other generals implemented. Grant, of course.
Seems to me the pro-torture/pro-war crowd cannot help but take counsel of their fears. (Isn't that why we're in Iraq in the first place?) But those are "post-9/11" fears, so it's justified.
I suppose one could make that argument, if one buys into the "WMDs were the only reason we invaded Iraq" rationale. Since I have taken the time to read the use of force resolution that authorized Mr. Bush to move against Iraq, I know that there were other reasons. Had I been in Clinton's shoes (a terrifying prospect, I know) I would have asked Congress for a declaration of war after the bungled assassination attempt on George H. Bush. This one have given Clinton the "wartime President legacy" he so desperately craved, and it would still have been the right thing to do.
Terrorists are NOT SUBJECT to the Geneva Convention. They do not wear uniforms and attacks civilian targets. Get whatever info you can from them, then shoot them.
Actually I'm not sure that's correct. Maybe the right to an abortion but not the act of abortion.
I agree. It is the "Powell Doctrine", which I am in favor of with modification. Instead of overwhelming force as the mainstay I believe the force should be a crushing, obliterating, no barriers hell storm of fire and destruction. No distinction should be made between civilian and military structures. This type of response will infuriate the world, to be sure, but it would also serve to make the savages tread very lightly in our presence, knowing that even as much as a single and relatively inconsequential act of terror would bring the very heavens down upon them.
I know, I know!!! America?
The price for earning the "civilized" PC label was "only" a few dozen American deaths. It could have been close to zero.
The world seems able to be infuriated with our without cause. Hardly a reason to allow that to determine how many lives we sacrifice against a truly evil enemy. I prefer the ancient simplistic approach. As many of them and as few of ours.
I believe we are each saying the same thing.
On the contrary, those post war actions by Sherman in an already devestated south continued the animosities for a century. They did, however, reduce the southern industrial capacity to a shambles and ushered in a century of Northern union building.
If one followed the utilitarian concept of punishment, it appears the end justifying the means employed by the Yankees in the War of Northern Aggression resulted in calamity for the entire nation.
The commitment of a nation to total warfare for 4-5 years did more to erode hostile proclivities than did escalatory violence, however the continued use of force resulted in unequivocal determination of the victor.
It means any national level politician that thinks it's a good idea to invest their political capital into this issue will probably be disappointed with their return on the investment.
Most shallow thinkers agreed with McPain on CFR.
It's hilarious that Hagel has even toyed with the idea. McCain and Hagel are in a competition for the media's attention. So far, McCain is winning which will probably just make Hagel get more radical in an attempt to get the media to notice him more.
It's funny how I knew this already but, NOBODY ASKED ME!
Nicely put. I had this retarded debate over dinner the other day. People are still delusional about the nature of evil and they, not Al Qaeda, is our biggest danger.
Half the things that go on in typical Marine boot camp would be outlawed.
What a joke we have become.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.