Sunday, January 08, 2006


One post on torture

Almost by definition, we have tried to keep our posts to Ohio-related issues and stories. Nevertheless, allow us to stray (admittedly far afield) in to the should-we-or-shouldn't-we-torture thought games that wackjobs like Cheney wants to play.

Okay, everyone knows that Cheney has laid out this apocalyptic hypothetical situation:
He dramatized the point, conjuring up a scenario in which a captured Qaeda operative, another Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, refuses to give his interrogators details about an imminent attack. "We have to be able to do what is necessary," the vice president said, according to one of the senators who was present.
Here's the question we'd love to ask Cheney: "If it was necessary, would you also be willing to do 'what is necessary' (i.e., torture) to KSM's children or wife, assuming he has any?"

In otherwords, if you really believe Cheney's logic, you can't be in favor of just stopping with KSM, himself. "Whatever is necessary" means just that. No rules. No moral handcuffs. No hesitation. No drawn lines. No flinching.

This isn't an idle question, as everyone should know, because torturing a prisoner's family member has been frequently used, including recent reports of the Uzbeks using this hideous technique to try to establish links among their citizens to Bin Laden.

You know, let's just get it all out on the record. And, then we can ask Dobson and Parsley and the rest of the Christocrats about this, too.


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?