Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by DavidsonBap, Dec 15, 2005.
The right thing to do.
Someone's lying to you ... The know it alls on this website have made it clear that Bush is for torture and against the torture ban.
Forget the news sources. Listen to the people on here.
It passed Senate, the Republican-majority Senate.
From the above link:
The news sources agree with the people, well, most the people, on here.
From a slightly later story, same site:
I believe this is the right thing to do.
Thumbs up to the President on this one, it was the right thing to do.
I believe it is a disaster, and the next GOP candidate for CIC, J. McCain is responsible.
I agree with hillclimber, a complete waste of time & money.
Unfortunately, political hacks will say if you are against this measure, then you are for torture. A no-win situaton. Pretty soon making someone sit behind bars will be considered torture.
You got that right.
Greetings from Buffalo, Bro. Curtis:
Hope all is well with you and your wonderful family.
The first sentence in the link provided in the initial post reads:
Who among us would claim that this is a bad thing? What would be the rationale for claiming that this is a bad thing?
BiR, My understanding is that we currently have plenty of laws and rules on the books keeping us behaving as the civilized nation we are. We have never condoned torture as a tool, and the enactment of this new law adds further restrictions on information gathering, that has absolutely no positive value.
The emphasis here is on the FACT that the USA does not torture prisoners, and the liberals using isolated instances to instigate these new impediments to our security are grossly troubling.
True, we outsource all our torture to Syria, Saudi Arabia and the like.
See "extraordinary rendition" (link) for details.
How many "isolated" incidents does it take to add up to a policy?
McCain is hardly a liberal.
The New Yorker has a pretty good article, including recent background, of this issue:
This is truly an issue of definitions.
Most if not all of what went on at Abu Ghraib is not "torture" by any reasonable definition. It may not have been smart or even ethical... but much worse things have been done to college pledges.
"Offending" a muslim by stepping on he Koran... is not torture. Isolating prisoners is not torture. Sleep deprivation is harsh but not "torture".
Of course, there are those who will argue these things are torture... thus no ban will ever be effective unless we stop trying to gather intelligence from prisoners altogether... since they don't just offer it up because you ask them nicely.
Daisy, Just what is your program for dealing with terrorism and those who hate us just because we are who we are and happen to now be the biggest kid on the block?
The government is doing the right thing and I'm glad they are going forward to stop torture. Many Christians hated what went on in Abu and Gitmo. Our prayers our answered. Those who want to play word games on what torture is or make excuses because they dislike Muslims...too bad and suck it up. Deal with it because the voice of reason has won.
Yeah. They completely stopped torture, with one swipe of the pen.
Bro.Curtis, don't worry. You don't have to like it. Either way, this is a step in the right direction and it helps to make people accountable.
I'm Lovin it
Not torture, surely.
International cooperation and police action for the most part. Limited military intervention when necessary.
Makes WHO accountable ? I look at it as another way to hate on military folks. And I sure wish you guys were as vocal about true crimes against humanity by the likes of Mugabe and Hussein, as you are about panties on the head in a chilly room. Maybe a scary dog in somebody's face. Or a koran that was mishandled.
How 'bout them U.N. rape squads ? Who holds them responsible ? Or is it only the U.S. who needs a torture bill ?
Human rights should be every Christians concern.
Torture is defined as causing excruciating physical or mental pain. What happened at Abu was certainly torture.
This agreement makes people more accountable in the future. It doesn't wipe it out. It just moves us closer to better human rights.
People can disagree all they want. But wisdom and compassion have prevailed.
It is sad Christians have to debate if this is news to celebrate. But we know some fundamentalists have a bad cause of Islamophobia so their views should be marginalized.
Our Church and many others have prayed for this, and it has come to pass.
[ December 16, 2005, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: DavidsonBap ]