Dick Cheney and other members of the Bush administration are claiming that the reason that U.S. forces were able to kill Bin Laden was due to leads developed at Guantanamo because of torture (aka “enhanced interrogation”). The New York Times today has a front page analysis debunking this claim, pointing out that some of the prisoners who were tortured the most continued to give misleading information.
One question is, if torture worked so well, why wasn’t Bin Laden killed in 2003?
Here is the bottom line. Even if torture did produce leads, it is morally wrong, it is a crime, it is unAmerican, it is a travesty against everything this country stands for, and it cannot ever be justified. Just because something works does not justify its use. What kind of rationale is that? We do it because it works? If we knew that torturing someone’s child would get the parent to confess, would we do that? Maybe Cheney would, but I find that sort or reasoning disgusting. Cheney should be tried as a war criminal. I mean that.
Rally
I received an email from Doyle Heffley about a big rally for 2nd Amendment rights on Tuesday, May 10, at the Capitol in Harrisburg. Sure, a rally for the 2nd Amendment is fine, but what about the 3rd Amendment? Doesn’t anybody care that the federal government may be planning to quarter troops, not only Marines, but even Navy and Army personnel, in our own homes? I will be organizing a rally at the Lehighton Park on May 10 in support of the 3rd Amendment. Details to follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment