Nate and Company
They have a pretty good debate going on torture at this other new blog.
What's frustrating in this whole debate is the slippery definition of torture.
It's a jihaidist game to point out how evil America is - pointing to say, Hiroshima and then creating a moral equivalence with say, 9/11. The Palestinians pull the same shit with Israel and sadly, it resonates.
Anyhow, the torture debate is coming to that. Republicans are trying to define torture. "Liberals" want to be able to sit on their high horse and finger point - "That's torture"...."And....that's torture"....."And, you can't do that, that's torture...." and they want to define it by judging definitions....rather than actually articulating a definition themselves. Their definition of torture is "You can't do it." Gee, thanks.
1 comment:
There has been a general understanding of what torture is since 1949, the second revision of the Geneva Conventions concerning Prisoners of War.
What is going on today is nothing short of judicical activism, as conservatives try to rewrite their interpretation of the law while preserving the ability to say we don't torture. The whole world will look at us as two-faced liars who are going back on an agreement that everyone accepted. If liberals are saying "that's torture" it's because according to the fucking agreement IT IS TORTURE!
If conservatives want harsher interrogation methods, they should vote to scrap the Geneva Conventions. It's as simple as that. The fact that people such as yourself fall for the bullshit argument that all they want to do is more clearly define the definition of torture is profoundly depressing.
Post a Comment