Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, the United States. What do they all have in common? They all used the same intelligence compound to interrogate prisoners in Poland. Is this what we want our country’s name associated with?

First, check your own reading comprehension skills. I can’t recall any administration openly asserting that techniques previously identified as torture, such as waterboarding, are now part of our official interogation techniques. Can you name any administration that has so elevated torture to the level of policy?

Second, if interogators have tortured suspects in the past, can you tell me definitely that the administration they were working under approved and authorized the treatment?

Third, if interogators have torture people in the past, even the recent past, it was still immoral and condemnable.

Given your defense of Bush Administration torture policy, it’s a point you have to address because the Bush Administration hasn’t been exactly diligent in making sure they have actual terrorists.

Right. And if you believe it didn’t happen prior to January 21, 2001 I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.

What’s so sad about statements like this is that up until the Bush administration one did not have to go around arguing against torture. It was a given that America does not torture people as a matter of policy. The Bush administration has made it a matter of policy and a bunch of morons watching 24 applauded it. Sheesh.

1) It is not efficient or effective as torture victims are more likely to tell investigators anything they want to hear than the actual truth.
2) It corrupts the justice system (inadmissable evidence) and delays investigations (false leads)
3) It is patently immoral.

Jay has no response to any of this.

“you’re saying Oliver’s pro-torture viewpoint is negated by who he voted for”

No I’m not. I said that to the extent Oliver defends torture (which is far from clear) it is wrong. People should be morally responsible for the choices they make, and voting for torturers is one of them.

“while others were willing to cast aspersions on me or any other conservative that frequents this blog as morally corrupt, I notice those same people are eerily silent about Oliver’s view.”

This is not an abstract issue, regardless of whether it suits you to make it one. If you support Bush’s detainee policy, then you’re morally corrupt or willingly ignorant. Is that clear enough? I’m not sure what debates you’ve had here (I’ve participated in some) but they’re all taking place in the context of what our president is doing in his secret prison network. To remove that context plays into Bush’s strategy of framing everything he does as justified by a ticking timebomb scenario, which is pure demogoguery and plainly false.

“if support for torture AT ANY LEVEL is so sub-human and so morally indefensible on every level, then spread your message around.”

Okay, deal. I think I’ll call it a “bill of rights.” That has a nice ring to it. Though I doubt we could get it past a GOP filibuster or presidential veto.

Now your reading comprehension needs work. I didn’t question your sincerity. I said the issue was over the moral viewpoint on the issue of torture, not President Bush. Let’s go through this again so maybe this time you’ll understand it:

A. Oliver throws out a comment about torture. I remind him that he supports torture which conflicts with some other things he has written.

B. I also point out that it seems while others were willing to cast aspersions on me or any other conservative that frequents this blog as morally corrupt, I notice those same people are eerily silent about Oliver’s view. Shit, go do a Google search on the word ‘torture’ for this blog and you’ll see self-righteousness meter going through the roof.

C. I make the claim and stand by the claim that if support for torture AT ANY LEVEL is so sub-human and so morally indefensible on every level, then spread your message around. Don’t just reserve for those who don’t share the rest of your political viewpoints.

It’s quite simple: if you are against torturers, you should not vote for them.

Fine, but that’s not your line of reasoning. You’re saying Oliver’s pro-torture viewpoint is negated by who he voted for and that makes no sense.

And stop with with the whiny victimhood crap. Nobody’s attacking you.

And again: how do you defend those CIA techniques being used on innocent people?

“[Anatole] voted against torturers and [Jay] voted for them.”

“And here [Anatole goes] again with this bogus line of reasoning.”

At least it has the virtue of being evidence, and being true. Your analogies make no sense, either. If you have a real response, you have yet to supply it.

It’s quite simple: if you are against torturers, you should not vote for them. Either it’s your honest conviction or it isn’t. I still have no idea what your honest conviction is, besides carrying water for the Bush administration’s torture regime and attacking the liberals who are against it. Do you have any beliefs, Jay?

See Cueball.

Oh please. Why don’t you just say, “This is what the administration told me to say.” Do a little more research Midderpidge.

On torture: Bush refuses to confirm that we waterboard.

Well that’s different from specifically denying it which is what you claimed.

Jay and Dugger, do you guys really think we’re faking our anger for partisan purposes?

When your ‘anger’ only extends to those who are your political opposites, it sure seems that way.

This man really is doing something horrible to America, and your only question is whether our feelings on the matter are sincere?

Once again, we’re not talking about President Bush. Stop trying to change the fucking subject.

I voted against torturers and you voted for them.

And here you go again with this bogus line of reasoning. So Oliver can support torture, but so long as he voted for the right candidate, it doesn’t matter. That’s like saying what Mark Foley did was no big deal because he did after all, get legislation passed that was tough on child predators.

That line of reasoning Doc is extremely piss poor. Stop using it.

Gee Dugger, maybe you have some brush to clear or some fishing to do instead of giving some serious thought to what could damage your country.

On your questions: “I ask where was the moral outrage when it was being performed by the Clinton administration?”

Maybe there should have been. The issue is that it wasn’t part of a larger detainee program. That’s what’s really provided the fuel for the outrage – a network of secret prisons with no oversight in which torture takes place, sometimes of U.S. citizens. If Clinton had had 9/11 happen on his watch, (say, in 1998) and responded the way Bush has, the left would’ve abandoned him too. Plenty of liberals were pissed about his centrism as it was. If he’d added widespread human rights abuses, the Nader vote would have been through the roof. Now answer Midderpidge’s and my multiple outstanding questions about Bush’s torture record, please.

On torture: Bush refuses to confirm that we waterboard. The transcript below shows how he refuses to defend it specifically. Not only that, but he justifies his tortures by appealing, once again, to a ticking timebomb scenario. He explicitly says that even though he refuse to defend his torture techniques, we simply have to trust him because the timebomb is ticking, always ticking. I don’t know what you call that if not demogoguery.

Jay and Dugger, do you guys really think we’re faking our anger for partisan purposes? This man really is doing something horrible to America, and your only question is whether our feelings on the matter are sincere? To call us “moral scolds”? That’s your response? Incredible. I guess I had more faith in the basic goodness of my fellow citizens than was ever really justified.

“Disagree on the issues all you want. But quit the humble pie, “I’m such a great person and you’re not” act because it’s bogus.”

I voted against torturers and you voted for them. If you’re feeling sensitive about that, I suggest you think harder about who you vote for next time.

“Why is it that I am obligated to denounce what [Coulter] says?”

You’re not. I believe you when you say you think Coulter’s an ass. The issue is the broader conservative movement, which thrives upon violent, hateful rhetoric towards liberals. See Phyllis Schlafly or the Dixiecrats, or the John Birch movement, for example. Maybe because I’m a Southern liberal I’m more sensitive to the violent, hateful, pro-lynching (excuse me, states’ rights) side of conservatism than you are. (How many conservative Southern Democrats in Birmingham laughed when that east coast liberal JFK was shot? How many conservative Southern Democrats decided that Reagan was alright after all after they saw him launch his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississppi?) The difference between Coulter and Malkin is exceptionally small, yet even on these boards, conservatives treat one as respectable and one not. It proves my point that this is bigger than you or Coulter. It’s simply hardwired into the Conservative politics of resentment.

************
October 20, 2006

O’Reilly: “Is waterboarding torture?”

Bush: “I don’t want to talk about techniques. But I do assure the American people that we were within the law and we don’t torture. I have said all along to the American people we won’t torture. But we need to be in a position where we can interrogate these people.”

O’Reilly: “But if the public doesn’t know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush Administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?”

Bush: “Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we are not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum, no matter how hard you try, because I don’t want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield. But what the American people need to know is we have a program in place that is able to get intelligence from these people and we have used it to stop attacks. The intelligence community believes strongly that the information we got from the detainee questioning program yielded information that made America safer, that we stopped attacks.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221975,00.html

Bush sends them to be tortured for information, punished or to disappear.

And again Jay, how do you defend those CIA techniques being used on innocent people?

I was going to give you a thoughtful response but I see after this, it would be wasted:

“The warnings that were given in advance that the Bush folks ignored are damning. A cynic might think that they didn’t want to stop the events of that day.”

Lets just say I feel better supporting rare, extraordinary-circumstance torture when my opponent believes Bush had 9-11 pre-knowledge.

Live on in your fairy tale world with evil Bush conspiracies.

What evidence do you have that he has denied it?

Where are you getting this list from, Jay? The president denies that we waterboard, for one thing.

Where? It’s common knowledge that water-boarding was used to get information from Mohammed.

As for rendition, I ask where was the moral outrage when it was being performed by the Clinton administration? There wasn’t. Not even retroactively. This is the problem I have with those who once again, mount their moral high horses and claim to represent the angels. All we ever hear from Clinton apologists is what great things they did to combat terrorism and from what I’ve heard cheered at Al ‘Go Grab His Ass’ Gore flippantly dismissing international law in favor of rendition.

Here’s the thing folks: Disagree on the issues all you want. But quit the humble pie, “I’m such a great person and you’re not” act because it’s bogus.

As for Ann Coulter I have a serious question:

Why is it that I (using myself as an example) am obligated to denounce what she says? She doesn’t speak for me, so what gives?

I’ll give you the death penalty but not torture. Torture is immoral. If you support it you support an immoral policy. It’s simple as that.