A Tortured Debate
Its got to be a pretty thankless task to lay out the pros and cons of whether the United States should be engaged in torture. But as Ron Nessen, post.com's Think Tank Town blogger, tells us, that's exactly what Hoover Institution author Victor Davis Hanson did recently. Has it clarified anything? Here's what the readers say:
Harry suggests that a collective understanding of what torture really is, is eluding America after so many public disclosures of indignities and abuses in the war on terror. He wants to know where we draw the line.
Later in the debate Rdrover challenged that point, saying there are ample public definitions used to define torture and establish policy. For him, we already know what is and is not torture.
Jonziegler also sees a fuzzy line, but for him it comes from the Bush administration. "Very interesting to note is the Administration's recent insistence that the US does not employ torture. If this is the case, then it is rather difficult for the White House to argue against the McCain proposal. It would be nice for the media to pick up on this."
Keith agrees that mixed signals from the White House are mucking up the matter, a point echoed again by Dave, who writes, "McCain pretty well hit the nail on the head - torture endangers our own people, it ruins our reputation abroad and for the most part it does not work...why, if as Rice says we don't torture, does the President oppose McCain's amendment?!"
Why there is a pro versus con debate at all leaves Barbara mystified. "Torture is what we fight against not for!!" Sam voiced a similar concern, wondering what it says about the state of America's values.
For Bob and Andy, the issue of torture practice is nothing new. Bob argues that from slavery to covert tactics, the U.S. has a long standing tradition of "hypocritical evil."
But Pragmatist counters that, "No doubt every country has dark moments in its past when it has failed to uphold its ideals and values...However, it is one thing to fail in living up to high standards and another to abandon those standards as a matter of policy."
By Lindsay Howerton |
December 7, 2005; 1:24 PM ET
| Category:
National Issues
Previous: Achenblog's Sex Talk |
Next: War Criticism and The Polls
Posted by: Alan Wong | December 8, 2005 02:12 AM
and enjoy hurting Americans or those who support our war on terror. I have been a silent American. I am sick and tired of
publications like the Washing Post, etc. constantly criticizing America when our young men and women are willing to put their lives at risk and, "yes", perhaps to be tortured to rid the world of this evil and to protect our own country. Get a life!!
Posted by: Sandra | December 8, 2005 09:16 AM
and enjoy hurting Americans or those who support our war on terror. I have been a silent American. I am sick and tired of
publications like the Washing Post, etc. constantly criticizing America when our young men and women are willing to put their lives at risk and, "yes", perhaps to be tortured to rid the world of this evil and to protect our own country. Get a life!!
Posted by: Sandra | December 8, 2005 09:17 AM
The MP's from Abu Ghraib are paying for this.
See www.supportmpscapegoats.com
Posted by: charley | January 10, 2006 10:50 AM
I would have to agree that state sanctioned torture does endanger the lives of our soldiers and citizens abroad. That being said there are and will be times when the information held by one atagonist is deemed of such high importance that the protagonist is required to use extreme measures to obtain it. I would agree that the information gained will potentially be tainted however the question that needs to be asked is "does the end justify the means or vice versa? Weather the readers of this column agree or disagree with the current direction that this country is moving toward the goverment is required to protect its citizens. If torture with the aim of obtaining inforamtion is deemed necessary in order to protect the citizens of this country is not the use of torture justified? I realize that I sound somewhat out there but think for a minute - if your family was in danger what would you be willing to do to save them?
Posted by: Keith | May 12, 2006 01:58 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
Mr Bolton must realize that the report on outside US detention camps are reported by US newspapers. Is he suggesting that it is not true. How can one have access to such camps to prove it to Mr Bolton. Sec Rice has not even denied it.