Seems that the UN is so doing:
New York, Nov 19, 2007 (CNA).- The president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Cardinal Renato Martino, said this week the recent resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly calling for an international moratorium on the application of the death penalty is a “relevant step” in the defense of life, although it only has “symbolic value” since it is not “an agreement that binds countries.”
The resolution, which was supported by 99 countries, with 52 voting against and 33 abstaining, “is very important, and it is gratifying that so many Catholic organizations have worked for this and thus they have the right to be pleased.”
“I am very happy,” Cardinal Martino said. “I was the Holy See’s representative to the United Nations for more than 16 years and during that time I collaborated in two efforts during the 90’s to achieve this moratorium: we worked very hard and we were discouraged when the votes were tallied, the project had to be withdrawn because the numbers were just not there. This time the numbers are there and for this reason I am very pleased.”
Mario Marazzit, a spokesman for the Sant’Egidio Community, said, “The vote is historic, because it is very strong moral pressure and it points to a standard that has become important for all of the countries that do not use the death penalty yet.” He said he was hopeful the resolution would have an impact on the laws in individual countries.
One does question the actual motivations of the UN in lining up against the death penalty – but more importantly, it allows us to ask the basic question of the anti-death penalty forces worldwide: Why do you want the death penalty banned?
I know, it seems obvious – because killing people isn’t the answer. The problem is that most people who want to spare the lives of guilty criminals are also in favor of ending the life of innocent, unborn children. This is especially true of the UN, which has essentially taken the pro-abortion fanatic line on how available abortion should be – on demand. If killing is wrong, then abortion is wrong – but that seems to be something the anti-death penalty movement almost entirely misses.
As for me, it is easy – I’m opposed to abortion, and the death penalty. The reason I’m opposed to it is because one can never be 100% sure of what a person deserves to have happen to him. Certainly, the guilt of those on death row is not in doubt – the mental gymnastics some people go through to try and claim that an innocent man is on death row are rather bizarre, and pathetic. But even the guilty have a claim upon our mercy – a small claim, to be sure, but still very real. I don’t support an outright ban on the death penalty because there may always be that circumstance where it is the only thing we can do in the name of justice, but on the whole I would see these men and women sentenced to a life in prison – and really in prison. I’ve got a prison regimen ready for them which will make them wish they were dead…unless, of course, they start to think about it and understand the debt they owe; such people will come to love their regimen as the basis of their path to salvation…those who don’t get it will, then, get nothing but misery, and that is just.
I doubt that most anti-death penalty people can give a strong defense of their view – they can mostly shout slogans and appeal to emotion, but I’ve yet to see a carefully reasoned justification for ending the death penalty except by those opponents who are also of the Culture of Lfe, and thus also opposed to abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia. During the 2000 campaign you migth recall how the left tried to cook up a death penalty case to embarras then-governor Bush – Bush couldn’t actually commute the man’s sentence (per Texas law), but that didn’t matter…the “heartless Republican” narrative was too dear to the left to allow facts to get in the way. So, they raised up a death row inmate as an exemplar of what is wrong with the death penalty. The only trouble was that even if the man wasn’t guilty of the particular crime he was eventually executed for, he had done enough horrid things (rape, attempted murder, etc) to make one commentor coldly, but accurately, note that he could choke in hell on the irony of it all if he was, indeed, innocent of the murder.
In the unwillingness of most death penalty opponents to embrace the full Culture of Life is their fundamental weakness – but this weakness, in and of itself, would be surmountable if the anti-death penalty people would stop trying to generate sympathy for entirely unsympathetic people. If anyone really wants to seriously curtail and eventually end the application of the death penalty in the United States, the first step would be to reform our prisons to the point where life in prison really meant life in prison – and was under a rule of extraordinary strictness and austerity. The argument will always be lost as long as killers are portrayed as victims – portray them as they are, insist upon their punishment, and appeal to the sense of mercy of the American people – that would be the way to take a stand against the death penalty in the United States.
Blogs For Victory 
So, many want the death penalty banned, yet have no problem sentencing the unborn to death before they are even born?
It’s tragic that the UN wasn’t as concerned with death when thousands were dying in Rwanda and Iraq under previous regimes.
I’m against abortion (unless rape or incest) but for the death penalty. In Michigan, the Prisons are the largest expense on the State Budget. I think each inmate cost taxpayers $35,000 a year. What causes crime is unemployment,(that’s why I’m against outsourcing large numbers of jobs) hard drug use, no sense of hope, kids listening to ganster rap music that glamorizes crime and drive by shootings.
If someone is beyond a doubt guilty of a grizzly brutal crime, why not go back to the Old Testament. (Eye for an Eye) kind of thinking, It sets an example for the many people that don’t want to work and want to enter the prison system for meals and lodging. It says to people in this state, there is REAL penalties for crime.
I’m sure someone will have some stats saying their is no difference between. Death Penality states. I would think someone would second guess themselves before letting rage and anger push them over the edge. Knowing that the state is looking out for the taxpayers and eliminating scumbags caught raping 8yr old kids then slicing them up. Some people prove themselves unfit to be in our society. Some of these guy’s like Dahlmer or Ed Gein or any similar horrific, murderer. Don’t need a second chance. I hate looking at my paycheck thinking how hard I had to work for the money, Knowing that many people are loafing around on welfare, or sitting back in jail watching T.V. and I gotta pay for them. I do the work, I want to keep my money.
Although I have no moral qualms about the death penalty, I would probably not miss it if it were discontinued. If I remember correctly, the opinion of Pope John Paul II was that the death penalty could be inflicted in certain extreme cases. I generally find myself agreeing with that view.
The one misgiving I have is based on a practical matter. Juries are composed of fallible human beings, and are thus capable of being wrong, a possibility that has been decreased by modern forensic technology (such as DNA analysis), but is still present. While the wrongly incarcerated can be released and given some kind of compensation, someone wrongly executed (or aborted) cannot be brought back to life.
Thanks. It’s always good to expose hypocrites.
I’m anxiously awaiting your followup post describing the hypocricy of being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. If you’d like, you could even do a firsthand piece on being anti-abortion and pro-war.
Love,
The Decidenator
Bigfoot,
I hear ya, wrongfully accused, bias Juries, or railroaded to close a case is the big concern.
But there are those caught red handed with chopped up body parts in the back seat of the car or laying around the house.
It is probably about 20 degrees up here. I see people living under bridges. I just think it is so much more important that they could have jobs, than sending thousands of jobs overseas, but to make it even worse, flooding our country with illegal immigrants (that may even support Chavez’s vow to crush American Imperialism.)
Deicidinator,
Here we are, 2 guys that love kids and feel anti abortion but let’s say we are in Pearl Harbor when the Jap planes are unloading bombs killing the guys we worked with on the ships. We still love the kids but got a right to fight back. right. A baby’s life is innocent. A criminal or Invading Army is not innocent. After WW2 my Grandfather felt guilty about shooting very young soldiers(last reserves), so he went to the priest for consel, the priest said ” It my life or yours” in a war situation.
was the answer ok or weak?
Libs….
kill a baby,
But tax the hell out of everyone to keep a necrophilac, pedophile, cannibal alive for 40 years.
or
Lay down their weapons and surrender to avoid spilling blood. But keep the abortion clinics churning out hamburger???
Libs….
They don’t make any sense on many of the issues.
Decidenator,
Eric has already provided you with one scenario question, I’ll provide another one…
How would you feel if someone murdered one of your family members? Let’s say your Mom or Dad, Brother or Sister, or Cousin.
You know they were innocent…Did your family member deserve to be murdered??
Little babies are innocent too!!
Shouldn’t abortion doctors be held accountable for their actions? For Murdering innocent unborn children.
Shouldn’t the murderer who murdered your innocent family member be held accountable? Instead of living in a state of the art confinement with hot food, television, exercise room, etc,etc.
A gunman who shoots someone commits Murder!
A “doctor” who cuts an unborn child up into pieces, or in the case of partial birth punches a needle into a babies little head commits Murder!
They are Murderers!!!
If we give a Murderer the Death Penalty, we are not commiting murder!!
Since God instituted the Death Penalty in the beginning–Genesis 9:6–Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed
Why are we putting them into prison?
This country has their thinking all messed up…Why?
They think it’s “ok” to Murder innocent unborn children, and yet let a gunman who shoots somebody through the head go free…and by free, I mean put them into a confinement compound like I mentioned above, prison!
That’s why unborn children continue to be murdered, and gunmen, kinfemen, get to continue the rampage in this country!
The long arm of the law isn’t so long or strong anymore!!
Wake Up!!
Jeremiah
As usual, Jeremiah selectively quotes the Bible to serve his own political purposes. The fact is, the only Pro-Death Penalty passages are from the Old Testament. Jesus himself spoke out AGAINST the death penalty on at least 2 occasions. In contrast, He never spoke about homosexuality nor did He ever speak about abortion (both of these WERE around during His time). Moreover, Jesus spoke of divorce and remarriage as an ‘abomination’ and as adultery. Strange how Republican Christians seem to ‘forget’ this fact with their nominees (most of the front-runners being divorced, while most Dem contenders have never divorced). Strange also that GOP pro-choice (or recently Pro-Choice) candidates are being given a pass, while Dems who are Pro-Choice are branded ‘baby killers’
Speaking of abortion as murder, Jeremiah. . . What should be the penalty for the mother who chooses to abort her child? If she is guilty of murder, as you allege, what SHOULD be the penalty for murder? I gather that, unlike Christ, you DO support the death penalty. . . so you are prepared to sentence young women who seek out illegal abortions to DEATH?
Furthermore, if abortion is outlawed we will be headed for the BIGGEST government we’ve ever had! Drinking alcohol or smoking during pregnancy will be subject to criminal charges (providing controlled substances to a minor), as will driving without a seatbelt (child endangerment). If a woman miscarries, it will be investigated as a possible murder, etc, etc. . .
It SHOULD be surprising how poorly some people think through their beliefs, but I’m used to it where hypocritical Republicans are concerned!
I love this web site, I wanted to share something That I just read about the U.N. on a post by one of the members of our House of Reps.
We may disagree on abortion or gay marriage, but I hope the whole country can come together on this issue.
The Liberty Alliance:
Championing Liberty and Dignity in our Human Community
U.S. Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter,
Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee
New York City, November 18, 2007
(Given at the Hudson Institute, American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, and the Touro Law Institute Conference on The United Nations: “Hijacking Human Rights)
In the immediate aftermath of World War II, President Harry Truman confronted two momentous challenges – the commencement of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the struggle to create a Jewish state in Palestine. In his blunt, son of the middle border manner, Truman enunciated the eponymous doctrine he would apply to these and all international challenges during his March 12, 1947, address to a joint session of Congress:
“I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures… I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way… I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes.
“One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression. The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio fixed elections, and the suppression of personal freedoms…
“The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died. We must keep that hope alive.
“The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms. If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world – and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation.”
Regarding the Soviet Union, in the face of “experts’” arguments Stalin’s imperialist dictatorship should be psychologically “understood” and indulged to purchase an illusory peace, Truman morally comprehended this evil empire’s threat to the United States and the Free World. Through the United Nations, multi-lateral and bi-lateral treaties, his strategy to contain and defeat inhuman communism called for the United States to champion the cause of human liberty and dignity.
Regarding Israel, again despite “experts’” opinions to the contrary, Truman applied his principled strategy to the cause of Israel. At midnight on May 14, 1948, the Jewish state proclaimed its existence; eleven minutes later, the United States announced its de facto recognition of Israel. Then, on January 25, 1949, the Jewish state held its first democratic election; four days later, the United States announced its de jure recognition of the a democratic Israel.
Lagging America, on May 11, 1949 the UN admitted Israel. Over time, this act has proven akin to a boa constrictor’s asking a mouse to dance:
For decades the UN denied Israel admission into a regional group; only in 2000 was Israel conditionally accepted into the Western European and Others Group.
From 1967 to 1989, the UN General Assembly passed 429 anti-Israeli resolutions; condemned Israel 321 times; and, of 131 UN Security Council resolutions adopted regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, 88 criticized, opposed the actions of, or found against Israel’s interests.
In 1975, the UN General Assembly approved Resolution 3379 and branded Zionism as racism. It took 15 years for the General Assembly to repeal this abominable slander.
During the 61st session from 2006-2007, the UN General Assembly passed 22 resolutions against Israel; and the UN Human Rights Council passed 10 resolutions condemning Israel.
By April of 2007, the new, unimproved UN Human Rights Council had specifically condemned only one country – Israel – while other countries with severe, UN documented human rights abuses, like Sudan, were merely advised of the body’s “deep concern.” And the Council will entertain more resolutions against Israeli.
Evidently, in the UN’s “diplomatic dance,” the boa constrictor is determined to lead. Let us then, suggest a tune: Bob Dylan’s ironically titled song about Israel, “Neighborhood Bully,” which decries the UN’s bias against and double-standard toward the democratic Jewish state:
Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he’ll live by the rules that the world makes for him
’Cause there’s a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
On this note, it is revealing how the UN Human Rights Council’s bathetic descent into moral perversity has mirrored the United Nations’ squalid devolution into venality.
For global altruists afflicted with cognitive dissonance, in a likely futile effort, let us remind them of the UN’s recent, execrable acts against the human liberty and dignity it was founded to defend.
The UN “humanitarian” aid program, “Oil-for-Food,” provided little bread for Iraqis but large bribes for Hussein, his regime, UN cronies and, likely, terrorists. Estimates are Saddam’s dictatorship siphoned $10 billion from the program through oil smuggling and systematic thievery, and illegal payments and kickbacks from international contractors – all beneath the non-judgmental gaze of UN bureaucrats, who were nevertheless judged culpable for gross incompetence, mismanagement, and, potentially, complicity with Saddam in perpetrating the biggest corruption scandal in human history.
Secondly, widespread instances and allegations of the sexual exploitation and abuse of Congolese women, girls, and boys were leveled against the UN personnel sent to protect them. The particulars of this barbaric sexual abuse are unfit for this forum.
Thirdly, the UN’s waste, fraud and malfeasance has turned tawdry graft into a global art, an epic debacle of avarice less worthy of journalist than a satirist. As one UN peace-keeping staffer informed the Inter Press Service News Agency: “Corruption and kickbacks were taken for granted in most overseas operations.” Though not in New York Federal Court, where on June 7th the former top U.N. procurement official, Sanjaya Bahel, was convicted of steering $100 million worth of UN peace-keeping contracts to the family of a personal friend. UN officials refuse to explain how Bahel was twice exonerated by its internal investigations, while a New York jury convicted him of fraud and corruption in half a day.
These are not the acts of the UN envisioned by President Franklin Roosevelt in his March 1, 1945, Address before Congress on the Yalta Conference:
“(A common ground for peace) ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed. We propose to substitute for all these a universal organization in which all peace-loving nations will finally have a chance to join.”
Weighed against Roosevelt’s words, the UN is deemed wanting, and the reason is revealed: a “universal organization” will include “peace-loving nations” and tyrannical regimes. Consequently, all of the “exclusive alliances,” “spheres of influence,” “balances of power” and “all other expedients” which occurred and failed “for centuries” outside of a “universal organization” have now occurred and failed this century inside the UN.
Unlike Roosevelt, Truman viewed the UN as a future hope not an immediate panacea. Though personally honest, Truman was versed in Boss Tom Pendergast’s political machine, and so understood the UN’s membership’s math boded ill for free people. Today, according to Freedom House, of 192 UN member states, 89 are “fully free” and 103 are not. Thus, a solid majority (54%) of member states know liberty directly threatens their survival, which requires the suppression of their own peoples and, through their UN membership, the entire human community.
While it is said words cannot hurt, the majority ruled General Assembly’s resolutions and speeches can and do hurt free peoples, as Claudia Rosett poignantly observers:
“What may appear to an American audience as irrelevant and even tedious theater is anything but harmless. The speeches on that U.N. stage are not, as a rule, meant for Americans, nor even for the multilateral audience in the chamber. Especially among repressive regimes, they are beamed to home countries and regional neighbors as evidence of the dignity and respect enjoyed by these governments at the world’s leading conclave of nations. They feature as one more blow to the courageous Burmese monks, the hungry North Koreans, the desperate opposition in Zimbabwe, and the democrats who risk prison when they raise their voices in places such as Syria and Iran.”
This holds true at the UN’s Security Council and its Human Rights Councils, from which a few bitter vignettes paint an abhorrent portrait.
The UN’s Permanent Security Council includes a nuclear armed communist China and an increasingly authoritarian Russia. Their unsettling synergy of interests and actions on this body ominously echoes the heights of their Cold War co-operation. Consider:
Despite over a decade of U.S. protestations, communist China and Putin’s Russia are the top exporters of nuclear technology, chemical weapons precursors, and guided missiles to Iran. In 2004, the U.S.-China Security and Review Commission declared “Chinese entities continue to assist Iran with dual-use missile-related items, raw materials and chemical weapons-related production equipment and technology;” and further noted these transfers took place after the communist Chinese government’s 2003 pledge to withhold missile technology from the Iranian regime.
Looking at the UN Human Rights Council, some members are more suited to a rogues’ gallery than a roster of righteous nations. Soon the UN will enthrone as arbiters of global human rights regimes like communist China, communist Cuba, Putin’s Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Only the UN would put oppressed people’s hopes in such blood stained hands.
Our association with this insanity exacts a steep price.
Since 1945, the U.S. has been the UN’s largest annual contributor. In 2006, American taxpayers forked over $423.5 million in dues (or 22% of the UN’s regular budget) and over $5.3 billion in total to the UN. In 2007, Israel, unconditionally and on time, will pay the UN $9 million (or 0.419% of its regular budget); this amount ranks Israel as the UN’s 27th highest dues paying member. In addition, Israel will pay the UN’s separate peacekeeping forces’ budget $35 million. Nevertheless, Israel, the U.S. and all free nations remain the targets of the UN’s member regimes’ internal intrigues and corrupt practices.
Two statistics define this dysfunction: Only 46% of the UN’s members are free nations; but the UN’s top ten financial contributors are all free nations.
In a crystalline instant are the UN’s symptoms manifest; its disease diagnosed; and its prognosis shameful: the UN is a global Tammany Hall lethal to the liberty and dignity of our human family.
In our time, we face challenges equivalent to those posed to President Truman. Once more, the United States, Israel, and the entire Free World face a global, generational War for Freedom against vicious enemies bent upon our destruction. To win, our devotion to liberty must transcend their obsession with death. This cannot be accomplished by fecklessly continuing to rely upon a debauched UN for our collective security.
Recall Truman: “(I)t must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” So it remains in our global age, wherein a world condensed by an internet cannot endure half-slave and half-free. Our survival at stake, all free nations must prudently diminish their participation in a debased UN; and unite in the cause of human dignity and liberty. Encircled at the UN, we’ve no more time to entreat with wolves in our midst. Best we hold them at bay in their lair, and forge a course for the world’s new birth of freedom.
Our new course is a Liberty Alliance.
Similar to the “Community of Democracies,” which could be transformed into this more focused and potent international organization for freedom, the Liberty Alliance must be founded upon the self-evident truth all human beings are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and it must be steeped in the wisdom extending liberty to the enslaved will ensure liberty for ourselves.
The Liberty Alliance must be composed of free nations dedicated to expanding human liberty to peoples yet free. Member nations must meet a mutually agreed upon criteria of human and civil rights. Observer nations must be domestically expanding their people’s liberty and, upon attaining the agreed upon criteria for membership, shall be admitted to the Alliance. Importantly, member nations which diminish their people’s liberty beyond the agreed upon criteria must be demoted to Observer status and, when necessary, expelled from the Alliance.
The governing structure of the Liberty Alliance shall be determined by its member nations with the objective being the maximization of transparency, equity, and democracy in accordance with the effective expansion of human liberty and dignity. In accordance with Truman’s doctrine, the Alliance “must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.” Ergo, the Alliance’s emphasis must be upon liberty – wherein human beings individually and communally shape the nature, form, and functions of their representative institutions – not upon abstract notions of uniformity, like “western” democracy or “democratic capitalism” – presumptuous and to often destabilizing impositions upon peoples trying to seize their freedom and shape their destinies as they deem fit. After all, Americans have a President and a Congress, and Israel has a Prime Minister and Knesset; both peoples are siblings in liberty.
Heeding Truman’s assessment “The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want…poverty and strife…(and) reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died,” in order to foster liberty, the Alliance must advance human liberty and dignity through diplomatic, political, economic, and cultural initiatives aimed empowering and emancipating the individual, their communities, and their emerging democratic governments from dictatorial rule. The Alliance must not have a military component; but member and observer nations will retain their powers to continue or commence security agreements with other free countries through bi-lateral and multi-lateral treaties. Never must any member or observer nation’s rights be infringed upon by the Alliance.
Now, two sanguine hopes. The U.S. and Israel will lead the establishment of the Liberty Alliance. And, secondly, the Liberty Alliance’s headquarters shall be sited on the free soil once scarred by colonialism, communism, fascism, world wars, and the Holocaust – Eastern Europe, where, cradled in the intrepid human sprit, liberty’s lamp triumphantly pierced these benighted recesses of evil.
In heralding the Liberty Alliance, we do not invite the Free World to exit the UN. Especially by participating in a Democracy Caucus, the United States, Israel and all free nations should remain in the UN to advance or defend liberty by keeping her enemies close. But we must not be so mad as to pay through the nose to get kicked in our assets. So, a simple proposal: no free nation will pay more to the UN than its lowest paying tyrants – like North Korea and Burma, who only contribute $170,660 (or .010% of the UN’s regular budget). Free nations’ monies and personnel spared from the UN shall be dedicated to the Liberty Alliance.
Doubtless, discombobulated global sophisticates will decry the Liberty Alliance as undesirable and/or impossible. They are overwrought and best ignored. For as we know, “The day is short; the task is great.” But we will not withdraw from it. The United States, Israel, and all free peoples are cemented and steeled by the harmonic bonds of liberty, comity, and duty. Like Harry Truman and the greatest generations of both our nations – to date – we, will not bend, we will not break in our reasoned faith in a future graced by free nations. “We (will) keep that hope alive.”
Toiling our way up to that day, may God grant all free peoples the strength to be as He in Marie Syrkin’s verse, The Strongest:
I’ll be the strongest amid you,
Not lightning, stream or mountain blue,
But dew that falling to the earth
Gives birth.
I’ll be the strongest in my hour,
And lofty tree and quiet flower
Will both drink gratefully
From me.
I’ll be the strongest in the land.
I’ll be the word that heals, the hand
That unseen and still, as from above,
Gives love.”
May it be. And may God continue to grace, guard, guide, and bless the people of the United States, Israel, and our entire human family.
Mark,
Are you SURE that you accurately quoted ‘Decidenator’? I KNOW that you have few, if any, journalistic standards, but you should know better than to so blatantly fabricate straw-man positions by putting words into peoples’ mouths!
Mark,
I also wanted to ask you (rather than just put words in your mouth as you do for others) – if you DON’T consider ‘waterboarding’ as torture, does this mean that you are okay with other countries using such techniques on OUR United States Soldiers?
I mean, either it’s a valid questioning technique and allowable under the rules of war, or it is not. Correct?
Mark said:
No, I wasn’t. I didn’t express any opinion about either issue. My concern is that in your original post, you claimed that you were upset about hypocrisy because some people are against wars and not against abortions.
That’s fine, I can see some hypocrisy in that too. But if that’s hypocrisy, then taking the opposite stand on both issues (pro-war and anti-abortion) is hypocritical too. And if you were really concerned by people who were hypocrites, you’d be calling out the folks above who are defending those stances.
They have given you a great opportunity to defend your position against hypocrisy. Go get ’em!
coulterfan,
I would be okay with other countries waterboarding our soldiers. That’s actually much preferable than beheading them, which is the current practice.
In fact, we waterboard our own soldiers to familiarize them with techniques that may be used against them if they were ever captured.
Are you okay with that?
neocon: In fact, we waterboard our own soldiers to familiarize them with techniques that may be used against them if they were ever captured.
Did they talk? If not, why not? If so, what did they admit to? Perhaps more importantly, did the interrogators know they were waterboarding someone they knew had nothing to potentially divulge?
It seems to me that there are two issues here: (1) whether waterboarding is acceptable in extreme circumstances, and; (2) if it is, is it more effective than other, less controversial procedures?
I assume that everyone believes that waterboarding for the sake of waterboarding (i.e., just to be cruel) is unacceptable… right? Or is that okay too?
Rico,
What a typical liberal drama queen question:
“Or is that okay too?”
No dear, it’s not.
But I do believe some of our soldiers divulged that Rove leaked Plames name and that Bush directed Hurricane Katrina to NO because he doesn’t like blacks.
>>In fact, we waterboard our own soldiers to familiarize them with techniques that may be used against them if they were ever captured.
Are you okay with that?<<
This is absurd! Are you honestly trying to equate training to withstand torture with torture itself? Military personal have also been locked in prison to simulate the experience of being captured- is this the same as actually being captured? What about paintball training, is this the same as engaging the enemy in combat?
Of course I’m okay with soldiers voluntarily having simulated waterboarding performed on them as a training exercise! The difference is that they KNOW that they will not die, they are in the hands of FRIENDLY soldiers, etc, etc. In contrast, waterboarding CAN and DOES kill people and is not as abbreviated and carefully performed as it is during training exercises.
The US used to be a beacon to the world in regards to humane and just treatment of prisoners and POWS. Thanks to Bush and his supporters, we now can no longer condemn torture when done by brutal regimes. We court-martialed soldiers during VietNam when they engaged in waterboarding- during WWII, Nazis would GIVE THEMSELVES up to us because they KNEW that we would treat them humanely. This is no longer the case.
At least you are honest. We are a FAR WAY away from the days when bruises on US soldiers’ faces were seen as evidence of torture. Evidently, you and your ilk would allow far worse to happen to US soldiers these days. Sadly, we no longer have any moral high ground thanks to this kind of thinking.
neocon, thanks hon, you’re a gem. But mine was more of a rhetorical question. You’ve been around here long enough to at least suspect that there are some who really DON’T have a problem with cruelty for no other reason than to send a message. You might disagree with that sentiment, but you know it exists. I mean heck, just yesterday Khan asked why take these guys prisoners in the first place? Why not just off them? You didn’t take him to task for that comment. You must have missed it, as did everyone else apparently — except me. Likewise, no one on the right criticizes anyone else on the right for saying stuff like it’s okay to turn Iran into radioactive glass — except me. Or that it’s okay to exterminate all Muslims — except me. And yet it is claimed that the Dems are the only ones that protect their own. If only that were true.
By the way, I thought your comments about friendly soldiers admitting to Rove and Katrina were pretty funny.
coulter,
No question you and your ilk are champions of human rights. Why just look at the decades of human misery you have overlooked rather than confront tyrants. Take a look at the tireless work you’ve put in in Darfur putting an end to that travesty. Look at the millions of unborn babies you have tirelessly defended, or the victims of violent crimes you’ve protected by allowing the criminals a second chance at life and to offend. Look at our troops that you so tirelessly worry about by accusing them of torture and rape while in the middle of a battlefield.
I must agree coulter, you and your hypocritical, treasonous ilk certainly are looking out for the best interest of human compassion and dignity.
Not.
coulterfan, speaking hypothetically…. would you be against limited use of waterboarding — or any other technique for that matter — if it could be conclusively demonstrated that the technique in question had the greatest possibility of procuring evidence from a high profile detainee in a time-critical situation? Would it be okay if, say the president, or the SecDef were required to sign off on it? Or are those techniques just wrong, always, regardless of the situation — even if (hypothetically again) they are the only ones that are likely to work in the time available?
Rico,
I believe Khan was trying to point out the absurdity of liberals defense of the indefensible, rather than being literal.
neocon,
You are ridiculously setting false positions which I never advocated instead of engaging in direct debate on the issues at hand. I would address them, but you have no real interest in my answers. . . just to divert attention from your illogical, hypocritical views.
Ricorun,
Interesting question. However, the hypothetical nature of your questions makes it very difficult to answer. I am on principle against torture (and I do consider waterboarding to be torture). Therefore, I would never advocate nor promote the usage of it under any real-world circumstances. However, if I KNEW for a fact that I could extract ACCURATE information by using it to save my own family, for instance- I WOULD do it, but would be prepared to face the consequences because I believe it should be illegal.
On a related note- suppose you are against abortion, but you could predict with 100% ACCURACY when an embryo would be a murderer, rapist, or terrorist. Would you then allow abortion under these ‘limited’ circumstances? If you could have aborted Bin Laden before he was born, for instance, would you?
Again, interesting question with little to no real-world application. But I’m still curious about your answer.