Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Torture as Party Platform



Outrageously, we are now a country where potential candidates for President of the United States can raise their hands at primary debates and aver their unabashed support for torture without suffering any backlash. Listen to the audience roar their approval to see three of five hands held aloft. Waterboarding has always been considered a form of torture. The definition doesn't change just because America sanctioned it during the Bush regime. Torture is torture. It is illegal, a moral transgression of the highest order, and a permanent stain on the integrity of this country. And apparently it has now become a litmus test for Republican party purity.....Unbelievable.

7 comments:

Aaron said...

If would wager your views on torturing TERRORISTS with intent and means to do harm to innocent people contrast with your views on torturing innocent human babies in a womb. Being a Liberal is the easiest most cowardly way to live.
...Dare you to post this!
Aaron

Kellie said...

Aaron,
Explain to me how JESUS said "do unto others" yet torture is ok? If it's ok to do to the "terrorists" then it's ok to do to our soldiers.

Buckeye Surgeon said...

Aaron- I've never published my views on abortion. So you can put that straw man argument to rest. I know it's easier to slot everyone into neat little ideological right/left paradigms (a la Limbaugh) instead of dealing with the nuances and complexities of real life but you really need to bust out of your dittohead shackles. It's ok to think for yourself! In fact I dare you.

Additional clarification: The US did not just torture terrorists. We tortured men who were merely suspected of being sorta, kinda affiliated with terroristic activities.

Wayne Conrad said...

It's curious that we punished, as war crimes, waterboarding done by the Japanese in WW2.

We ourselves used waterboarding ("the water cure") during our adventures in the Philippines. At the time, there was public outcry enough that the president put a stop to it (or, at least, decried it publically). This time, there's little public outcry that I know of.

In their zeal to approve of torture, I think many equate "accused" to "convicted." I think these people assume that the government is infallible in its accusations; they also assume that such power will never be used on them or their loved ones.

Anonymous said...

But didn't you compromise your own moral integrity when you voted for McCain / Palin in 2010.

From NY Times 2/17/2008

"Senator John McCain’s vote last week against a bill to curtail the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of harsh interrogation tactics disappointed human rights advocates who consider him an ally and led Democrats to charge that he was trying to please Republicans as he seeks to rally them around his presidential bid"

Certainly Palin supported torture as well. I find it amusing that you proclaim to be morally offended by torture, but when it came to putting your money where your mouth was, you voted Republican (undoubtedly for financial reasons). A little hypocritical, don't you think?

Buckeye Surgeon said...

Anon-
I voted Obama in 2008. Read my thoughts leading up to the election here.

http://ohiosurgery.blogspot.com/2008/10/choice.html

Buckeye Surgeon said...

Also anon- I assumed that a candidate (McCain) who had undergone actual torture himself and forced to say things he did not believe by his North Vietnamese captors would naturally aim to end the Bush torture regime. His various flip flops on the issue since the election are irrelevant. He was the first Republican prior to the 2008 election who had the balls to denounce "enhanced interrogation" for what it was, i.e. torture.