Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Cheney and Bush on torture.

When a amendment gets more votes then a "We love puppies" resolution in the Senate and gets a White House threat of a veto I call B-S.

Well in due time the B-S comes out to smell.

Cheney's proposal is drafted in such a way that the exemption from the rule barring ill treatment could require a presidential finding that "such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack." But the precise applicability of this section is not clear, and none of those involved in last week's discussions would discuss it openly yesterday.

Ok. Here we have a problem which is so typical of the Bush administration

More executive power =better

ummmm NO guys.

Arlen Specter had it right on the money when the Gonzalez hearings came up.

Ticking time bomb, a terrorist attack is going to happen ( not a chatter is picking up situation a terrorist attack IS going to happen). A guy in custody keeping silent knows where the bomb is that will kill tens of thousands of people. You have less then 24 hours to find the bomb or people will die.

Or as Mr. Furious says on the Ballon Juice post about this (edited)

Stop being such a p#$$^, John.

Do you really want to tie Jack Bauer’s hands?

In a Jack Bauer situation and under the strict supervision of a Judge I'd have less issues with allowing the government that kind of liberty.

Yes we do lose a major propeganda point, but we've already been dumping people to torture friendly regimes that are friendly to us... So I'm not sure we'd be any worse off. If we had the process strictly monitored legally we'd be better off.

and If we clearly limit it with a connection of saving American lives from a serious strike we would at least return to some degree of honestly... the CIA has privately done this for many years in the past. And I'd not be surprised if they started up the old operations in 01

We need a Jack Bauer clause, but not a open liscense

No comments: