Hillary Clinton supports selective torture of terror suspects

[ECH1969]

Senator Hillary Clinton has said that she supports legalizing the torture of a captured terror suspect who knows abut "an imminent threat to millions of Americans".

This, she said was an exception to her opposition to torture.

"That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law," she added.

http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?action=fullnews&id=36550

[truebrit71]

1. ..and her husband didn't inhale....

...her opinion neglects the fact that information gained by torture is unreliable and in almost all cases completely bloody useless....

[GainesT1958]

2. I guess she's talking aout the most extreme of circumstances here...

Because she did vote against the Torture Bill.

B-)

[karynnj]

86. That also eliminated habeus corpus for the detainees

I don't remember Hillary's speech, but I think being against torture was a part of it.

[gatlingforme]

100. Yeah and I wonder why there is not any big stink about habeus corpus

being eliminated? THAT IS EFFING SCARY

[ThomCat]

3. I hope she accepts that this is an impossible situation.

It's a good way of molifying the far right, while accepting that torture is always wrong. I certainly hope that is her intent.

There is no way the torturers could ever know for sure in advance that this guy has crucial information, and there is any way the torturers could ever know for sure in advance that millions of lives are in danger from some specific threat.

[davekriss]

97. There is no need to mollify the far right, ThomCat....

...as Hillary is (undeserved) symbol for everything they fear. The "far right" wouldn't vote for Hillary in a million years. Tactically it would have been better to affirm the far left and deny use of state-sponsored torture under every imaginable circumstance.

I think rather than a tactic, Hillary is expressing her geniune position on the matter. She is saying that, if we were under the ticking time bomb scenario and thousands might die if the bomb isn't found in time, then torture of a highly probable suspect is justified. However, the ticking time bomb scenario has been thoroughly refuted by both logic and empirical observation.

Given that the tortured are likely to say whatever they think the torturer wants to here -- i.e., "2 + 2 = 5", anything to make the pain stop -- then valuable resources are just as likely, more likely, to go on wild goose chases that take them further from actually finding the bomb.

The brutal fact is state-sponsored torture has nothing to do with obtaining information, whether by the United States or the old Soviet Union, or by any number of client states of either nation. It has always been about instilling terror into the population from which the tortured is snatched and into which the broken body is tossed back. It is meant to break down the social glue of trust and security in the target population, thereby reducing the aggregate will to resist the agenda of the state conducting the torture.

[w4rma]

4. Triangulation. (nt)

[bertha katzenengel]

5. I wasn't going to vote for you anyway, Senator. This is just icing on the

cake.

[OKthatsIT]

80. She's whacked...she shouldnt even be in the Senate.

[No Exit]

180. She supports torture only if the parties are married?

Is that the "exception"? :)

[Phredicles]

6. I've about decided that the program "24" is a pernicious influence

because it legitimizes torture, presenting circumstances that are essentially impossible in real life and saying, "See, torture is the only way to save lives". But when in real life has torture ever proven beneficial for public safety? The next such case I hear of will be the first.

As for HRC, isn't she a lawyer? Surely she knows ow terms like "imminent" and "threat" can be manipulated to justify all sorts of things. One more reason why I consider her the greatest diappointment in contemporary politics, and will not vote for her in any primary.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jacobin]

27. Exactly so

These hypotheticals are absurd and lead us to think the idiotic and barbaric is okay to consider

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Webster Green]

52. Oh please!

If one criticizes an idiotic statement made by a dem, then they are no longer a real dem?

Why the hell did Gore invent the Internets if we can't spew on a message board?

[Oleladylib]

53. Case in Point

What Democrat in Political Life gets dissed by Democrats more than any other?

[Webster Green]

61. Lieberman

And he deserves it.

[Oleladylib]

66. Doesn't count..counts as an Independent..not democrat

[Webster Green]

74. OK....he's an independent. My second choice is Hillary...

I still don't get why we can't criticize politicians, even democratic politicians.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion, so don't criticize them if you don't want to, but don't expect that rule to be enforced here.

[karynnj]

88. On this board this week, if you tally the posts, it's Kerry!

For giving a very strong speech in NH to help rre-elect and elect Democrats, gave a strong interview on Fox, where he got out Democratic points, and had a fascinting interview wit6h Woodward. For which, there are at least 300+ posts negative posts spread over at least 5 threads.

Oh, his answer to the bill - "It allows torture" and as he said a month age "the US does not torture." Yet you complain that people are taking issue, not with Hillary, but her comment?

[ShortnFiery]

164. If Hillary TRULY wanted to make a stellar example of her

honor and integrity she would have looked the interviewer in the eye and said, "On those *very rare* occasions where interrogator(s) have justly determined a need to cross the line for National Security, I will do everything in my power to ensure they are not charged with any crime. It is CLEAR when our Interrogators put their honor on the line to breech these rules, and the entire Nation would be automatically grateful that their actions averted a disaster. However, those occasions are so rare that they barely warrant mention. In such extreme time sensitive circumstances, I have every confidence in the professional and patriotic men and women tasked with this mission." <enter music "Hail to the Chief" in background>

[Jacobin]

69. I don't like warmongers, whether they claim the "D" or "R" designation

Call me silly.
I lived through Vietnam

[progressivebydesign]

127. Look up the term "warmonger"

Nowhere does it say anything about voting for a resolution as "mongering". BUSH and the PNAC are warmongers. People who voted for a resolution NOT a declaration of war, are not. Big diff.

[VegasWolf]

85. Nah! Many of us call ourselves liberal, we will vote Democrat when a

liberal Democrat is running. Many of us have no use for right-wing pandering.

[billh58]

103. Hillary is NOT a Democrat

Hillary is a DLC, neoliberal "New Democrat," and panders to the neocon right while posing as a "centrist." She is no better than Joe Lieberman, and the rest of Al From's DLC "Third Way" DINOs.

[saigon68]

104. She should have used her Testicle Crushers on Monika's Boyfriend INSTEAD

LOL

They love it both ways

Ever notice how the DLC gets some interns to post their drivel shit here.



Next time, you will hear her say that Iraq-Nam is a Noble cause for Freedom. (Panders to Right)

[billh58]

106. Money Sources...

When Hillary supporters brag about her "leading in the polls," and the amount of money she has raised, they never seem to mention the fact that her support and money come from the same people and corporate interests that Rove and Dubya pander to.

The DLC's donor list is a duplicate of the RNC's list.

[saigon68]

107. Very good point

Those clowns on the DLC look at this site, as a romper room and playground for "naughty children"

I have been branded as one of the chief delinquents here. (And told to grow up) by a few intelligent low numbers posters who come and go with little notice or fanfare over the years.

It was really brutal 3 1/2 years ago when Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the DLC went to war to punish the Diaper-Heads

[primavera]

114. Second that

DLC sells its board memberships to the highest bidder, so their board consists of Exxon/Mobil, Dow Chemical, the pharmaceutical industry, insurance, all of the most abusive rackets in the country. Who is really naive enough to believe that this axis of corporate evil gives to the DLC out of the goodness of their hearts and expects nothing in return? The old axiom that, if you lay down with dogs, you'll get up with fleas is so obvious that there's pretty much no way that Hillary could not know the price she pays by hopping into bed with corporate America; it follows that she knows and accepts it, in other words, she's knowingly and willingly selling out. But then, she was the original Goldwater girl, and being married to a guy whose political convictions follow whichever way the prevailing wind happens to be blowing can't have helped either.

[IndianaGreen]

179. Hillary was an enabler of Bill's indiscretions

just as she is an enabler of Bush's rape of the Constitution.

[Phrogman]

110. Hit it on the head there Brother!

[progressivebydesign]

126. She's a fucking democrat, give me a break.

Karl must be a happy man this morning....

[progressivebydesign]

125. Oleladylib... you'll be trashed here at DU because your new.

But frankly, I agree with you. Funny how so many so-called Dems around here trash Hillary at the drop of a hat. They salivate over a story from some obscure site in India about Hillary's supposed quote. I can't decide if they're mostly plants, or just so self centered that they feel that it's okay to reserve the type of vitriol for Hillary, that a few months ago would have only been reserved for Karl Rove. Speaking of Rove, he's doing a FABULOUS JOB of destroying the Democratic Party from within.. sadly, some people can't see that.

Welcome, hope the DU attack-the-newbie crowd doesn't bruise you up to badly for speaking your mind. :hi:

[billh58]

143. Real DLC DINO Agenda

For those who are unfamiliar with Will Marshall’s Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the parent of Al From’s self-appointed Democratic “Leadership” Council (DLC), I direct your attention to this article.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3584

and here:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534

Hillary is a "Third Way" neoliberal, and is the poster child for the DLC. She is no better than Lying Joe Lieberman, and the rest of the DLC hawks who pander to the neocons.

[Jacobin]

152. You're too cute, noobie

Hillary's right wing is the one that needs checking...or rather clipping

[primavera]

113. 24 is a Karl Rove production

...literally. The producers of 24 work with the White House's Hollywood programming office and are given unprecedented access to film on real government installations and consult with real government anti-terrorism officials - provided they run their scripts by Karl for approval before filming. So what do you expect? Of course it's a neocon wet dream on film.

[saigon68]

183. love all the deleted posts

[Demit]

7. Ah, the uselessly hypothetical "ticking bomb" situation.

But I guess now she can feel pleased with herself, she has triangulated torture.

[rodeodance]

139. ----the "ticking time bomb" scenario represented a narrow exception------

......This, she said was an exception to her opposition to torture.

"If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law," the New York Daily News quoted Hillary as saying in a phone interview on Friday.

She said the "ticking time bomb" scenario represented a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

[Webster Green]

8. Dumbass watches too much 24!

What an idiot!

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

9. It's the "24" scenario

Someone has information that could save millions of lives, and they're not cooperating.

This is a grey area for me. Theoretically, I can't say I would oppose torture in this very narrowly defined scenario. The difficulty arises in determining whether the situation was imminent, and whether torture was really the only way to obtain the necessary information.

[wellst0nev0ter]

18. To Be Fair, They Did Torture Innocent People On That Show

However, they failed to show the consequences of such actions.

[Bucky]

101. The consequences were he got kidnapped by Chinese agents

Actually I don't watch the show, but maybe the consequences of 24's torture policies is to lure brainless Republicans into thinking torture is "totally kul"

[wellst0nev0ter]

175. I For One Can't Wait For The Season Premiere

Let's see how Jack Bauer likes it when the tables are turned.

[pokercat999]

10. I don't believe it (the qoute) she can't be that stupid...nt

[progressivebydesign]

128. You shouldn't believe it. It's from some obscure site in India.

Not exactly a reliable source.. unless you're looking to have your numbers done, or your astrological profile. Funny how pissy everyone on here gets without considering the source.

[SOS]

167. Source is NY Daily News

where the story originated:

http://www.nydailynews.com/05-01-2006/news/col/bensmith/story/462068p-388764c.html

[indepat]

11. Senator: W's minions would never torture except where there were an

"imminent threat": they would never deprive citizens of their constitutional rights except to stop an "imminent threat"; they would never spy on or wiretap except to thwart an "imminent threat." Sure, Hillary, with complete power for W and his minions, everything will be copacetic, abuse of authority will be unknown. Sure, Hillary, you....

[karynnj]

89. She did vote against it

[Coventina]

12. Torture is WRONG under ANY circumstances.

Jeez, once you start splitting hairs about "acceptable" circumstances where does it end?

[brentspeak]

63. Not if the fate of millions of lives hangs in the balance - "24"-style

But those scenarios only happen on the screen. Therefore, no one should be offended by Clinton's remarks.

[ShortnFiery]

173. No we should be VERY offended by fantasy situations

Just like every soldier in combat learns in basic training that you take cover and not shoot out in the open "John Wayne" style, every trained interrogator KNOWS that if you make ANY exception and revert to TORTURE, every damn interview in the future will REQUIRE TORTURE to get any information out of an detainee.

Why? Because once you cross that line, you can NOT ever go back and develop any viable relationship with the detainee. Not you (the torturer) no any other person on your staff. You have ruined a source.

The forgoing is precisely why Dear Leader wants to OK to "water board" and use the extracted - tortured confessions from the detainees at GITMO. Because the people in charge did not LISTEN to the true professionals in the Intelligence field and defaulted to torture as a 1st Step.

The only way that BushWorld can convict more than a few of these men, whether they be true terrorists or not, is to GLEAN these confessions through water-boarding. BTW Many of these GITMO detainees were just swept up in the net or sold by waring factions in Afghanistan. :(

Put yourself in a detainee's place who has been repetitively tortured. Would you ever forgive any of your captors? Could you ever trust them or have the least inspiration to even give the time of day. <thud> NO!

Again, Bush-Co screwed the pooch and initially tortured all the GIT-MO detainees. As a consequence they now MUST ALWAYS TORTURE them if they wish to extract additional information. :(

[Bonhomme Richard]

13. Once the trunk of the elephant gets in the tent.................

it's pretty damn hard to keep the rest of him out.

[dailykoff]

14. That's disgusting

but unsurprising. Hillary sold her soul to the PNAC crowd long ago.

[last1standing]

16. LOL! NewKerala.com. Main links include astrology and numerology.

I'd really have to see a better link than one from a site that focuses on Indian news and only provides brief context-less quotes to give this much credence. Even so, you managed to leave out this rather modifying statement from Clinton.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.

It's obvious, if this article is even true, that she was asked that asinine question about what she'd do if we somehow absolutely "knew" that the terrorist in question "knew" the details of a massive US attack. The confines of that question not only make it rhetorical, but impossible to really answer.

Are we really that desperate to eat our own?

[ECH1969]

21. McCain team mocks Hil torture loophole

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she supports legalizing the torture of a captured terror suspect who knows about "an imminent threat to millions of Americans" - making an exception to her opposition to torture and marking a key difference from her possible rival for the White House, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

McCain's chief political aide, John Weaver, mocked Clinton's willingness to make an exception.

"I'm shocked Sen. Clinton would try to have it both ways," Weaver said in an e-mail.

A Human Rights Watch official, Tom Malinowski, said he was disappointed by her exception.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/462237p-388764c.html

[last1standing]

25. NY Daily News isn't a whole lot better.

But you haven't addressed my real point which was that the question posed was obviously an impossibility that had no good answer. She could either say "Yes, torture is okay if its done on someone who absolutely knows about an imminent plot to kills millions of Americans", or she could say "No, torture is not okay even when it would definitely save millions of Americans".

The best answer she could have given would have been to tell the questioner that she doesn't answer impossibilities, but instead she fell into a trap. It happens. I'm not going to pounce on her for something as small as this when there are 12 so called "Democrats" who voted for bush's* torture bill.

But again I'll ask this question. Why are we so desperate to eat our own?

[WePurrsevere]

41. The question is a "catch-22" one so she's damned no matter what she says.

n/t

[IndianaGreen]

46. She could have said she opposes torture just as Pope John Paul II did

but then, she is a woman without moral compass or core values.

[Stephanie]

132. Here's the full quote

http://www.nydailynews.com/05-01-2006/news/col/bensmith/story/462068p-388764c.html

McCain team mocks Hil torture loophole

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she supports legalizing the torture of a captured terror suspect who knows about "an imminent threat to millions of Americans" - making an exception to her opposition to torture and marking a key difference from her possible rival for the White House, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

"If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law," Clinton said in a phone interview Friday, expanding on comments to the Daily News Editorial Board.

She said the "ticking time bomb" scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.

"That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law." Clinton's stance comes days after a complex bill on the treatment of terror suspects became law, a compromise between McCain and President Bush.

McCain and some human rights groups said the bill bans cruelty to detainees. Clinton and other advocates said it gives the President the power to mistreat prisoners.

McCain's chief political aide, John Weaver, mocked Clinton's willingness to make an exception.

"I'm shocked Sen. Clinton would try to have it both ways," Weaver said in an e-mail.

A Human Rights Watch official, Tom Malinowski, said he was disappointed by her exception.

"Once you open the door to this sort of thing, you legitimize the practice," he said.

[Demeter]

31. If We Already Knew, Then Why Need Torture?

Sheesh

[last1standing]

38. That's the beauty of the question.

We only know that they know, we don't know what they know. Therefore we have to torture them in order to get the details. Of course it's silly and impractical question that could never happen in any situation outside of a two dimensional TV show, but obviously it still works to entrap naive or over-tired politicians. I suppose it really does have a purpose. :crazy:

[bling bling]

91. If Hillary is ever quoted fairly and WITHIN context I'll probably faint.

And yes, we are so desperate to eat our own we too play the cut and paste and quoting out of context games to make Hillary look like she's pandering to the RW. I see it all the time.

We enjoy eating Hillary with a side dish of Obama and a Kerry pie for dessert.

And most don't even seem to care how foolish they look because most of the time, they're in the majority of fools so they all feel justified in their character assassinations, even if they're completely off the mark.

And usually if you call them on it they accuse YOU of being the freeper troll and laud themselves as the real Democrats. :eyes:

[progressivebydesign]

129. Yes, apparently eating our own is the soup du jour.

I agree with you on the link, it's very questionable. And frankly, the quote itself does not say that she supports torture, anyhow. Sounds like all she's doing is laying the blame or responsiblity onto the desk of the president.

Honestly, too many people here (whether real dems or poseurs) are too quick to trash Hillary. It's almost as if.. as if.. they were instructed to do that. Know what I mean?

[primavera]

140. Interesting choice of theories

"It's almost as if.. as if.. they were instructed to do that."

Your apparent implication is that not everyone here is a real Dem, but may be some Rovian agent covertly seeking to undermine Democratic unity. I consider this a fascinating theory as it's the exact same concern many Dems have with so-called Dems such as Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton, people who purport to be Dems, yet, in practice, seem to have more in common with Republicans and whose efforts seem to be more about sowing discord, promoting wedge issues, and dividing the Democratic Party instead of unifying it. Why... it's almost as if... as if... they were instructed to do that. Know what I mean?

[Finder]

17. lol, uh oh...she is about to get Sam Harrised...n/t

[wellst0nev0ter]

20. Uh, I Don't Get It

are you talking about the blowhard who says religion is the root of all evil, yet supports torturing Muslims?

[Finder]

48. not Muslims, terrorists. n/t

[wellst0nev0ter]

176. No, He Means Muslims

Since he singles them out as the current base for suicidal terrorism. He justifies it by saying Muslims are less than human because they don't love their women.

But even if he means terrorists, so what? The people who are tortured aren't convicted of anything and torturing people who are terrorists produce bad information anyways. The false information extracted from the torture of Ibn Al Shayk Al-Libbi (Saddam provided Al qaeda with weaponsofmassdestruction, oh my!) led to the Eye-Rack war. I hope that jackhole Sam Harris is happy.

[Pastiche423]

19. And some people would vote for her

for president in '08???

Un-f'n-believable!

[leftchick]

22. the war senator wants the war pretzeldent to have extra-war powers

what a shock! :puke:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

23. So do I. nt

nt

[bullimiami]

24. well that sucks but she did vote against the bill.

[lumpy]

29. I just hope to hell she doesn't get the nomination

The chances of a woman winning the presidential seat are still not so good. Face it, there are people, both men and women, who just don't trust the ability of a woman to handle the job. In the long run, Wes Clark, Al Gore, John Kerry, or a host of others have had more experience in public affairs than Hilary Clinton. Personally, I don't trust her judgment and her lack of real experience. Campaigning for her husband and role as first lady doesn't count.

[Malva Zebrina]

26. She is beoming disgusting in her attempts to play to the middle

She is becoming disgusting. I am convinced that she is at best a "task oriented" person, who works very hard at tasking and for that she should stay as a Senator from New York, working hard and all of that But is confounded when it comes to politics. She is becoming not only a person to avoid voting for as a president, but she is now becoming just plain disgusting.

When will she ever address her vote to give a stupid man control over the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the resultant loss of hundreds of thousands of lives? Ever? Perhaps she agreed with Bush. It looks that way to me, since she is silent on the issue, except at one point to advocate sending in MORE TROOPS, to die for a lie.

Indeed she must have agreed with Bush, and that is the logical assumption since she has not said a word against his and her promotion of this war, and is as much a proponent of this horrific invasion as Bush. Next, she will get in line to be kissed by Bush.

[brentspeak]

58. I don't understand. If in the remote event a terrorist holds our fate

in his hands, we shouldn't try to get the necessary information out of him? It's an impossible, imaginary scenario that H.Clinton's referring to, but her comment is perfectly valid.

[VegasWolf]

82. Spoken like a true DLC spokesman. No wonder liberals are abandoning

the DLC. Hillary is proposing a slippery slope because all that she seems able to do is pander.

[IndianaGreen]

28. Let's torture her and Chelsea to see if Hillary will run for President!

How reliable is the news source used in the OP?

If Hillary said what she was quoted as saying, she would have embraced the Bush torture doctrine hook, line, and sinker!

Sorry, Hillary, but there is no compromise on torture! It is just wrong and your position in support of it (which is the same position taken by Stalin) shows your lack of moral values.

It also shows why you never be President of the United States!

[stepnw1f]

30. Then She Will Lose my Vote if She Runs! (nt)

[Thickasabrick]

34. Me too - this seals it.

[LostinVA]

32. HRC did vote against the torture bill n/t

[Malva Zebrina]

33. So she was against torture before she was for it?

[IndianaGreen]

39. I see now what a fiasco would be to nominate Hillary for President

Her public records will be her own worst enemy. As a nominee, she will put us through several of those "I was against it before I was for it" moments.

[razors edge]

35. Not Presidential Material.

Following this logic I can torture and kill my neighbor if I am afraid they may do something to one of my kids or anyone I am responsible for.

If you can not uphold the law then you can not enforce the law. Not Presidential Material.

[Emillereid]

36. Sick! Sick! Sick!

Why does this woman always talk within the repukes' frame! She just doesn't get it!

Torture is not only wrong -- it doesn't work! I mean how many times is the person tortured going to have knowledge of an imminent threat to millions. Without judicial review and habeas corpus, a terror suspect is anyone 'they' say is. There are many non-torture techniques that could extract any real information from someone. This is the kind of loophole that the repuke nazis will drive their concentration camps through.

[bluestateguy]

37. I could justify torturing Osama, but that's about it

The thing is I don't trust Bush and Cheney to decide what an "an imminent threat to millions of Americans" means. Their definition would mean "we think someday he might do something. Or not."

[dipsydoodle]

40. The woman

is deranged.

[Harper_is_Bush]

42. Hmmm. That might be some damn smart politics there.

She draws in the semi-hawk types for their votes, and can then make torture almost impossible to commit based upon a strict definition.

[Le Taz Hot]

51. And she loses the progressives in the process.

Typical DLC tactics

[Harper_is_Bush]

54. Not the smart ones.

"Progressive" denotes an interest in progress. Hillary would provide opportunities for progress above and beyond any Republican candidate, surely.

It's unfortunate America is a two-party system, but my view is that's inescapable. Canada is headed that way also. It's just the atmosphere of the world these days...polar.

[IndianaGreen]

56. Bush gave us "compassionate" torture, while Hillary...

will give us "progressive" torture. Torture by any other name is still torture.

How can Hillary go to church and pray to Jesus after endorsing torture? What a hypocrite!

[Harper_is_Bush]

57. Hillary might give you no torture. And save the fucking planet

at the same time!

[IndianaGreen]

62. Gore will save the planet

and Kerry will safe our self-respect as a nation. Hillary will do neither!

[Harper_is_Bush]

68. Gore isn't running. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

71. Neither is Hillary

according to her supporters, all Hillary cares about is getting reelected to the Senate.

[Harper_is_Bush]

77. Running for the Senate = running.

[saigon68]

105. They sleep soundly in heated Water-Beds

Answer to question:


"How can they sleep at Night"?

[Le Taz Hot]

59. Well, then I guess that makes me

and millions of other progressives stupid as well. (Nice debate technique by the way.)

You call making exceptions to torture people progress???? I don't know, I call it going back to the 13th century but then again, I suppose that's my stupidity talking.

Now, 'scuse me while I put the hayseed back in my mouth. :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

64. I guess water boarding is an improvement over drawn and quarter

I never thought our great country would be reduced to a debate on torture techniques.

Down with the Empire! Long Live the Republic!

[Oleladylib]

67. You KNOW Hillary ...Good..Progressive hope for the future

[Harper_is_Bush]

81. Please attempt to make a point if you're posting on DU.

Looking at all of your posts in this topic, you seem to have an issue with expressing yourself fully.

Regardless of your success in fixing that, at least try to indicate in the subject if your posts will contain no text. Do so by typing "n/t" at the end of your subject line.

[Oleladylib]

111. Thank you for your attention to all of my posts. Declarative statement ...

Hillary is definitely one of the hopes for the Progressive future..I don't see that as a particularly enigmatic post ..perhaps it's the beholder with the lack of ability to assimilate that fact...Hillary bashers seems to find avenues that usually belong in freeperland. There seems to be quite a latitude in the definition of Progressive..It would seem that the same characteristics of males are more acceptible..females somehow get scrutinized differently.

[billh58]

182. Hillary is a DLC "New Democrat"

She is NOT a traditional Democrat, and takes her marching orders from Al From and his "Third Way" DLC. In turn, Al From takes his direction from Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute (founded by the Third Way Foundation).

The DLC's AND Hillary's money comes from the same corporate sources as the PNAC neocons. Hillary, Lieberman, Bayh, Salazar, Landrieu, Kerry, the Nelsons, and the rest of the "neoliberal" DLC crowd are nothing but DINO neocons posing as Democrats.

[libhill]

43. She lost my support -

torture is unacceptable. Period.

[brentspeak]

60. She's talking about an imaginary scenario

which is almost certain not to ever occur. But if it does occur -- well then, beat the living tar out of the guy who's about to wipe out a million of our people, women and children included. No hesitation in that situation.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[daleo]

44. Pinochet probably would say the same thing

I am sure he justified torture in his own mind as preventing "an imminent threat to millions of Chileans".

[IndianaGreen]

45. As would Kim Jong Il, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein

Anastasio Somoza, Fulgencio Batista, Trujillo, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Attorney General Gonzales, Lavrenti Beria, and other human rights violators.

Wow! Hillary and Beria!

[journalist3072]

47. Hillary, torture is INEFFECTIVE as an intelligence gathering tool

Ok Hillary, so you justify torture when a captured terror suspect has information about the next planned attack on Americans.

Sounds reasonable enough. After all, who in their right mind wouldn't want to save the lives of innocent Americans; keep them from being killed at the hands of barbaric terrorists?

There's just one problem Hillary; a major one. Torture is INEFFECTIVE as an intelligence/information-gathering tool.

More than likely, the person being tortured is just going to tell you what they think you want to hear; anything to make the pain stop. Take for example, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. He was waterboarded. And the CIA has said it was the waterboarding, that made Mohammed start talking.

The problem is, not all the information he provided was reliable.

[OzarkDem]

120. Torture doesn't work

that's why the military opposes its use.

[Solly Mack]

50. Torture for Dummies: Exploding the "ticking bomb" argument.

http://www.slate.com/id/2132195/

"In law school, they call this second point, "salami-slicing." You start with a seemingly solid principle, then start slicing: If you would torture to save a million lives, would you do it for half a million? A thousand? Two dozen? What if there's only a two-out-of-three chance that person you're torturing has the crucial information? A 50-50 chance? One chance in 10? At what point does your moral calculus change, and why? Slice the salami too far, and the formerly solid principle disappears.



The strength of an absolute ban on torture—or an absolute rule of any sort—is its relative immunity from salami-slicing, both in theory and in practice. It is hard to explain why you would torture a teenager abducted into a terrorist gang if this would save a dozen lives, but would not torture a uniformed military officer in order to save a thousand. It is not hard to explain why you would not torture anybody at all. The argument may be wrong, but at least it is clear. The policy—just don't do it—is hard to misunderstand, making it easier to teach and enforce. And the principle can be consciously abandoned but it can't easily erode."

[KansDem]

116. Intriguing concept...

It is hard to explain why you would torture a teenager abducted into a terrorist gang if this would save a dozen lives, but would not torture a uniformed military officer in order to save a thousand.

I suspect torture would run parallel with due process: the wealthy and connected would be more apt to avoid prison (and torture), while the poor and disenfranchised would be subject to the "fullest extent of the law." Now we have two things we'll never see millionaires on: death row and waterboards.

I don't know where this is all going, but for this nation to be debating torture in the highest bastions of "democracy" that prides itself on a dedication to human rights and dignity, we're definitely not going in the right direction. Indeed, will we see torture applied to the "ruling class?" Will the next US president order torture for GW Bush and his minions so we can really find out what happened on 9/11? I doubt it...

One thing for certain, this will spiral out of control and create an atmosphere where everyone is suspected and no one is trusted.

[Solly Mack]

117. Precisely the point of the article

:(

[Beetwasher]

55. Torture Doesn't Work

But who are we more likely to be able to hold accountable for their position on torture? Chimpy or Hillary? Look, once we get the Dems in power we WILL hold them accountable for atrocious policy positions. I don't support this position of Hillary's, but I support Hillary.

[primavera]

141. Even if it did, would that justify it?

How clearly we demonstrate our commitment to our founding values and principles when we're ready to chuck them if we think it might buy us some additional measure of safety. Personally, I don't believe that torture is an effective tool in combatting terrorism, but, even if it were, I still would reject its employment on the grounds that resorting to it undermines everything patriots in this country have been fighting and dying to protect since its birth. Or have I missed one of the shrub's revisionist history lessons in which is was explained that, in fact, the Minutemen were really fighting the British to protect our right to kidnap, detain without trial, torture, and murder people? Somehow, that just doesn't sound like the history I read...

[Beetwasher]

144. Never Said It Would Ever Be Justified

Like I said, I don't support this position, but we would certainly be able to hold Hillary to account for atrocious positions a lot better than we would the current regime.

[primavera]

149. No, no, you didn't

Sorry, I was using your post as a spring board to a general observation; I didn't mean to attribute to you the neocon belief that the ends justify the means.

[Flabbergasted]

65. Terror Suspects support "selective torture" of Hillary Clinton

[sakabatou]

70. :: head desk ::

[entanglement]

72. With 'liberals' like these, who needs conservatives?

n/t

[ckramer]

73. Then Ms Hillary, who shoud be the selector of torturees?

Duh!

How can I vote for you?????

[OKthatsIT]

75. OH GOOD GOD, HILLARY...where's your jockstrap?

Try using over your mouth!

[VegasWolf]

83. Miss Panderer doesn't need a jockstrap, those are for people with balls. n

[davekriss]

78. She just permanently lost my vote (eom)

[Tellurian]

79. Hillary's vote for torture under special circumstances..

is as it should be.

I would say if she were voting her personal preference,
she would unequivocally VOTE a resounding NO!

But she is not voting her personal preferences, is she?

She needed to cast her vote in a way that covered every
imaginable circumstance. She voted wisely.

Sorry, if most of you don't see it that way.
It took courage for her to vote this way because she knew
it would be misunderstood by the masses. She told the Truth.

Something none of us are used to hearing these days, are we-

[karynnj]

90. She VOTED against torture

not for it - this is about a comment where she said there were limited situations where she would ok it. (I strongly disagree)

[Tellurian]

96. Nothing is absolute,nor should it be.

There are always extenuating circumstances and if her comment
contained a caveat with an exception...I agree with her.

W

[ShortnFiery]

172. Yes, just a spoonful of torture makes the convictions unsound.

The Convictions Unsound! :puke:

That bullshit of the ticking time bomb scenario rarely to never presents itself in real world operations. If/when it ever did occur, nobody would prosecute and these interrogators would be lauded. That's CLEAR and no further discussion is needed for Career Professionals.

These evil bastards ruling our government have been framing their novice opinions on freak-shows like "24" and NOT through "real life" training that I experienced in the Intelligence Field. :grr: :nuke:

It's our adherence to The Geneva Conventions that has made our country envied by the world community.

NOW thanks to BushWorld thuggery, we are both feared and loathed by the world.

Mission Accomplished you TRAITORS! I'm thankful that my father's dead so he can't see what you have done to his beloved Country. A country he treasured and served in The Army during WWII in Europe with the Combat Engineers. :grr:

[onehandle]

84. Wow! What a long, well reasoned article. "--- ANI" knows his stuff.

I got a Lot out of the permanent Astrology, Numerology, and Chinese Astrology sections of that site.

And the Recipes KICK ASS!

[fujiyama]

87. If she gets the nomination

the Dems deserve to lose. She strikes me as having no core principals whatsoever.

What a pathetic, pandering, calculating, person. I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination, but I'll have to hold my nose so tightly, close to the point where I pass out.

[yojon]

92. Its an absurd question

You dont know what the torturee knows before you torture him. You dont know afterward either since info obtained under torture is useless.

She will say anything to get elected. We have no idea what she really believes in.

Smells stinky to me...

[leesa]

93. More BS from Hillary. This woman has got to go. She is worthless.

So she likes a little torture here and there to appease this group of voters.

[Zhade]

94. If true, FUCK HER.

NEVER voting for this woman.

[nealmhughes]

95. Why shouldn't she? She loves cluster bombs, too:

http://screechingrats.wordpress.com/2006/09/09/suffer-the-little-children-cluster-bombs-and-the-us-senate/

Man that was some fine writing, I wonder who writes Screeching Rats!

[arikara]

98. What a dumb answer

Why didn't she just call it a stupid question and refuse to answer it. That would have been refreshing.

[patrick t. cakes]

99. nothings more progressive

than resorting to a medieval mind set.:eyes:
shes rightwing lite like most dems in congress.

a rubber stamper.

whens someone going to step up in this country
and be a leader?
i aint holding my breath.

sorry, cant support torture. ever.

[brentspeak]

115. "Sorry, cant support torture.ever" So says the Che Guevera fan

Guevera, who had countless thousands machine-gunned in Communist Cuba's post-revolution political prison.

[patrick t. cakes]

163. ummm.. not quite

che-good looking, like the picture

torture-bad, hate the idea. thanks.:)

[Andyf1]

102. WHY DO DEMS LET HER GET AWAY WITH THIS

She's called for tortute,banning flag burning,national Id cards,a fence on the border if any Democrat had called for that stuff in 1996 he or she would've been an outcast in the party she does all of the above and is still the front runner in '08 Why?What has changed with the Democratic party?

[magellan]

108. She just lost my vote forever.

[progressivebydesign]

124. Did you really look at the source??

It's some obscure site in India... that features numerology and astrology. I'd suggest you not base your entire vote on one link that someone posted here, from a questionabl site. Karl Rove would be quite proud of his work here on DU in trashing Hillary. It's working.

[magellan]

147. Oh gee, sorry -- How about the NY Daily News?

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/462237p-388764c.html

I stand by what I said, and it wasn't a snap decision. Defend the DLC to someone else.

[JNelson6563]

109. Now I'll work even harder against her

should she run in the primary. And if she were to win said primary it would be all I could do to vote for her but it could be the first time I skipped over that race on my ballot.

Julie

[wicket]

112. FUHC!!!!

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[jwirr]

118. Just one more reason not to support her in 08.

[ecstatic]

119. Some of you are too idealistic

We live in the real world people! Where people drive SUVs, eat meat, and yes, in some cases, there may be a need for very light torture. Give H. Clinton a break and stop tearing down one of our own. Sheesh..........

[OzarkDem]

121. Torture is ineffective

We should expect our Dem leaders to be knowledgeable on these issues, instead of falling for GOP red-meat issues that appeal to their base.

Surely a woman as smart as HRC can point out these facts to voters.

[ecstatic]

137. sometimes its best to choose our battles

we live in a media driven society. What will people believe? A 'boring' explanation of why torture is ineffective (offered by a politician) or an episode of 24 that scares people? I didn't see the episode (nor do I watch 24), but sometimes you just have to roll with the popular outlook rather than try to fight it. Work around it.

[ShortnFiery]

154. Yeah, when one of your loved ones sends money to what he/she

believes is a valid charity but turns out to be a (Domestic List?) TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. Or better yet, if one of these ASSUMED TERRORISTS mis-dials and your number is fixed on his cell phone.

WHEN THEY HAUL YOU OR YOUR LOVED ONE AWAY FOR "LIGHT TORTURE" WILL YOU BE SO ACCOMMODATING?

After all it only concerns suspected Terrorists. Who EXACTLY defines what constitutes "A Terrorist" either foreign or domestic. I guarantee you and I will not be able to make that decision.

Do you trust our leaders to decide for us?

[VegasWolf]

131. Thanks, but I think I will keep my idealism when it comes to TORTURE! nt

[nam78_two]

135. Amen/nt

[ShortnFiery]

153. Very Light Torture a.k.a. Coercion, is like being A Little Bit Pregnant

If you cross that line you will have to continue to *torture* the suspect every damn time you question him. Why? Well, let's just say that you have DESTROYED any good will that could have been developed over, say even, a short period of time.

However, Americans are so damn scared STUPID, that they'll allow cruel and unusual punishment to be subjected to their neighbors if they are promised just a little more security. :puke:

Wake the hell up AMERICANS and see where this is leading us!!! Hint: A Police State.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

160. Never thought I'd live to see the day being against any torture

would be derided as "too idealistic."

What's next, cannibalism?

[progressivebydesign]

122. Ummm.. quite a source. What exactly IS "newkerala"??? n/t

[progressivebydesign]

123. Oh.. for god's sake.. you're linking to some obscure Indian site??

Some people are SOOO desperate to trash Hillary. Trolls.. not just for your garden anymore.

[Nite Owl]

130. Allowing a little torture here

and there for whatever reason is like saying you can be a little bit pregnant. It's wrong, it's illegal in most of the developed world and it doesn't work.

[0007]

133. Your not far enough to the left for me Ms Clinton.

Now you can go soak it!!

[nam78_two]

134. What is that site though?

Its an Indian news site I know but have no idea how legit. that quote is.
I don't particularly care for Hilary or the DLC but she did vote NO on the torture bill and I would want to know that she actually said that before bashing her :shrug:.

I only see that quote being tossed around on the moranic right wing sites-it could just be something Drudge put out...

[Andromeda]

181. Stop making sense!

Don't you know that most of the "progressives" posting on DU aren't even Democrats? They wouldn't vote for HRC anyway so I find their vicious comments about her to be redundant and just as boring this time around.

Being "progressive" is something new as the term was created after the 2000 election. Before that, nobody had heard the word progressive but liberals wanted to have a new moniker.

I just call myself a Democrat. This word has been around longer than progressive has and I prefer to identify with my party name. Some leftists like to identify themselves as being progressive because they never officially joined the Democratic party and seem to have a disdain for it. To me, the term progressive is undefinable because it's still so new and will undoubtedly go through many changes.

It's amazing how similar some (and I just mean "some") progressive ideals and agendas are unintentionally close to the cabal of the right-wing. IMO, both sides have a more extreme view when articulating their positions on certain issues and there is no middle ground.

Simply put, HRC's enemies consist of both the right and left and it wouldn't matter what Hillary says or does she will still be irrationally despised by certain people.

[6000eliot]

136. Another reason NOT to vote for Hill.

[napi21]

138. WHAT IF: Someone was captured with remnants of bomb

paraphanalia indicating he/she had recently planted one or more explosives somewhere, and when questioned, said "HA, yes I did, but YOU aren't going to know where until it's too late!" You have an arrogant killer who is enjoying seeing you squirm. They were captured within the limits of a large US City, and the death toll could be HIGH.

WHAT would YOU consider interrogation beyond the law?

[Finder]

142. Whatever it takes!

is the only answer that makes sense from a rational perspective.IMO

Of course that is using the scenario you stated. I do not think torture should be legal though.

[napi21]

145. Do you understand my point though? No politiciancan take the air

time to pose scenarios as I did. Ibelieve that's the kind of thing Hillary meant. The frightening part is that we can't trust Shrub to say withing the confines of imminent danger!

[Finder]

148. I do understand and agree...

that is what she meant.

I also think that the law need not reflect the extreme case which is why Hillary and others voted against it. Bush needed the legislation to cover the asses of those who used torture when the circumstances were not extreme.

[primavera]

155. You certainly do step out confidently...

... onto a very slippery slope. In essence, you've just said that the ends justifies the means, that the appropriate response to a situation varies with how high the stakes happen to be. What makes you think that? If coersion is inherently ineffective and unreliable, how do increased stakes make something ineffective and unreliable suddenly attractive? Or if you believe that it is an effective way of achieving ones goals, then why not condone its application in all contexts? If you consider it effective but don't endorse it, what other explanation is there than that you perceive something morally repugnant about torture? So what you're ultimately saying is that you're prepared to engage in behavior you consider morally wrong if the stakes are high enough. What does it say about the strength of your belief system that you're ready to chuck it when it becomes inconvenient?

[Megahurtz]

146. She's looking more and more like

"One Of Them" everyday.

[ShortnFiery]

150. Until we MAKE our Representatives deep six this PHONY

*War on Terror* the populace will agree to hand over their liberties to the power brokers.

It's time to stop the damn bullshit fear mongering.

TORTURE a.k.a. coerced interrogation is NOT why my father, my brother and I served in the Active Duty Army.

TORTURE IS NOT AN AMERICAN VALUE!

That's it! I don't care if my husband talks seemingly forever, I will NOT vote for ANYONE who rationalized TORTURE is OK when it's done by *our side.*

Wake up Americans and TELL your Democratic Representative that we are sick and tired of living in fear. We will not lose our humanity because our leaders are whipping up the war and fear mongering rhetoric.

Dammit Hillary, is there anything you would not do to get elected? Wait! Don't answer that, I don't want to know. :grr:

[rinsd]

151. Hillary Clinton supports torture in a never gonna happen circumstance

Its the Bernhard Gold question to Dukakis.

And DUers who hate Hillary are gonna run with it.

[ShortnFiery]

156. We have a right ... Two Words: Shameless Pandering :( n/t

[rinsd]

157. Of course you have right. But at least acknowledge the context

Here's the question to Candidate X (same as the one for Hillary)

Would you consider torture if you knew millions of Americans lives are at stake?

What I assume is your preferred answer: No, not under any circumstances. Torture is unAmerican.

Frame: Candidate X would let millions of Americans die.

Result: Election lost. Candidate Y wins and he/she is actually in favor of torture without the hypothetical never gonna happen doomsday scenario.

What Gold did to Dukakis was shitty but his answer likely cost him the election.

On edit: I wanted to add one more thing. I do not believe this country will elect a woman President unless she is hawkish. It is a sad commentary on our society of course but a reality that we should not ignore.

[VegasWolf]

158. Your rationale simply assumes that the republicans can out-frame

the democrats, that the democrats can't defend themselves with concepts like torture has never been proven effective. Maybe so. Many liberals here see a weak, yellow, quavering DLC DINO leadership from the democrats.

[rinsd]

161. Its a trap question that is designed for no winners.

"Many liberals here see a weak, yellow, quavering DLC DINO leadership from the democrats."

That's fine. Though I think they would see that regardless of what Hillary answered.

I'm not quite sold on Hillary as my primary person to back(I like Edwards even with the lack of legislative experience) but I have no issue voting for her in the general.

[VegasWolf]

170. Yes, but the essence of good articulation is the ability to win speaking

debates. The reason that few liberals support Hillary is due to her continued support of the war. We cannot, in good conscience, support a pro-war candidate like a Hillary or a Lieberman. We see people dying everyday, both our children and innocent Iraqis for Bush's Oil wars. Hence, the very deep, very real, animosity toward Hillary. We would like to see her stopped before she can sweep the tables with her money and win the democratic nomination. It would be nice to be able to vote democratic rather than stay home.

[ShortnFiery]

162. Respectfully ...

Three words that the Democratic *Insiders* who THINK they rule our party need to both memorize and internalize: Hillary Can't Win

Even for the love of my husband of 25 years, I'll burn in hell before I will vote for a "shameless panderer" for Dog Catcher much less for President of The United States.

Yes, Bill Clinton was "as hungry" but he could at least feign a common American's appeal.

In brief, Hillary Clinton has No Elvis. <--- Sad but true.

[rinsd]

165. Also respectfulyl, I understand your position. (nt)

[ShortnFiery]

166. You are very thoughtful.

And rest assured that my husband will vote for Hillary - no doubt. :-)

It's been a pleasure to enjoy a truly respectful exchange. :hi: :yourock:

[robertpaulsen]

159. I always love the taste of I Can't Believe It's Not Torture!

Thanks for sharing Hillary! Nice knowing there's always an exception to the rule, "rule" of course meaning that outdated Geneva Convention.

Just one quibble, how do we know that terror suspect knows about an imminent threat?

Ever see Reservoir Dogs?

"If you fucking beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it fucking so!"

[StraightDope]

168. Yet another validation...

Of my intense dislike for her.

Karma, God, call it what you will, it catches up with EVERYBODY eventually.

:mad:

[IndianaGreen]

169. Torture is Immoral - ALWAYS

Torture is Immoral - ALWAYS

http://www.reclaimingthepropheticvoice.org/

Torture Is A Moral Issue

A Statement of the
National Religious Campaign against Torture

Please join the over 8900 people who
have already endorsed this statement.

Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions hold dear. It degrades everyone involved --policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished ideals. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.

Torture and inhumane treatment have long been banned by U.S. treaty obligations, and are punishable by criminal statute. Recent developments, however, have created new uncertainties. By reaffirming the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as well as torture, the McCain amendment, now signed into law, is a step in the right direction. Yet its implementation remains unclear.

The President's signing statement, which he issued when he signed the McCain Amendment into law, implies that the President does not believe he is bound by the amendment in his role as commander in chief. The possibility remains open that inhumane methods of interrogation will continue.

Furthermore, in a troubling development, for the first time in our nation's history, legislation has now been signed into law that effectively permits evidence obtained by torture to be used in a court of law. The military tribunals that are trying some terrorist suspects are now expressly permitted to consider information obtained under coercive interrogation techniques, including degrading and inhumane techniques and torture.

http://www.nrcat.org/statement.aspx

[VegasWolf]

171. I guess some people feel that politics are more important than morals. nt

[Canuckistanian]

174. This closes the door completely for me.

This is unforgiveable.

You don't agree, even partially, even incrementally with a murderous, regressive barbaric practice that should have been left in the Dark Ages.

And as a lawyer, does habeus corpus mean nothing to her?

She's dead to me.

[wellst0nev0ter]

177. Me, I Wanna Shake Her Hands

Before, I would have grudgingly lent my support to Hillary if she was the Democratic nominee. Now she has made everything all clear for me. If the choice is between her or the Republican, I'll just do some knitting that election day.

[JackDragna]

178. I hate these caveats the pro-torture people throw up..

...this whole "what if the person knew something that could save millions of lives?" crapola. The likelihood we'll ever find someone who we know fits into such a category is so remote as to be utterly laughable. The pro-torture people simply drag out this canard to justify the use of torture on everyone. There's also no mention of the generally low opinion of psychologists on the effectiveness of torture to get useful information. If someone really did know a secret that was so important it could save millions of lives, don't you think the person would simply lie or endure electroshock to the genitals long enough for the plan to succeed? If something a terrorist group was doing could have that much impact, surely the people behind it would be zealous enough to endure whatever we could dish out to let the plan go forward.

No torture. Ever.

[ckramer]

184. Hillary "Torture" Clinton

The wife tortures the husband('s reputation).

Let's call her that from now on.

[ItNerd4life]

185. Americans are already selectively tortured, Bush is president

It's physical and emotional torture! ;)

[requiem99]

186. Hillary Clinton should have known better than to talk about this.

No President we have ever had or will ever have will refuse to use torture on a suspected terrorist if he thinks doing so will save millions of American lives. I wouldn't vote for any President who would refuse, and I would worry if one was elected. We don't live in an absolute world.

Is torturing someone wrong? Certainly.
Is torturing someone to gain information that would help American national interests wrong? Absolutely.
Is torturing a suspected terrorist to gain intelligence that might be used to save American lives wrong? YES, and this is the one that Congress has just authorized. I think they thought they were authorizing this one:

Is torturing a suspected terrorist wrong if you are reasonably certain he holds information that, if extracted, will save millions of American lives, lives that otherwise are almost certainly forfeit? OF COURSE NOT. 1 man's pain, no matter how great, is not equal to 1 million lives or even 10 lives. NEVER. EVER.

The problem is legislating torture into law. America has tortured prisoners and combatants for centuries -- we're no better than any government on earth in that respect. The difference between then and now is that, before, it was black and we BY DESIGN would only do it when we absolutely had to, with the decision makers knowing full well that if it ever went public they would face serious disapproval, but would be able to justify their actions.

Now torture is just another word, something we do to gather information for the Fatherland , and it can be done with the flimsiest of pretense, the torturers protected by law and by the 900 pound gorilla that is our Federal government. It's the road to a police state, and we're crusing on down.

[Spearman87]

188. You must be related to Thomas Paine!

Because finally someone posted "Common Sense" on this issue :)

Good work.

[Tyo]

187. I don't want Republican Lite

I want Republican Gone. No Hillary for me.