DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**johnsonjunior** · 11-13-2005, 06:09 PM

It is simply unacceptable (and incredibly stupid) for the US to allow itself to be associated with torture. As the US lowers its standards, as it devalues the principles which once commanded respect internationally, it reduces the distinction between itself and the enemy it is fighting. AS the Economist states, it is a recipe for losing support and alienating the very people it is supposed to be fighting for. When will the Bush nightmare be over? It's leaving the international reputation of the US in tatters. For those who think this doesn't matter....think again.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ory_id=5139141
Torture
How to lose friends and alienate people
Nov 10th 2005
From The Economist print edition

The Bush administration's approach to torture beggars belief

THERE are many difficult trade-offs for any president when it comes to diplomacy and the fight against terrorism. Should you, for instance, support an ugly foreign regime because it is the enemy of a still uglier one? Should a superpower submit to the United Nations when it is not in its interests to do so? Amid this fog, you would imagine that George Bush would welcome an issue where America's position should be luminously clear—namely an amendment passed by Congress to ban American soldiers and spies from torturing prisoners. Indeed, after the disastrous stories of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and Afghanistan, you might imagine that a shrewd president would have sponsored such a law himself to set the record straight.

But you would be wrong. This week saw the sad spectacle of an American president lamely trying to explain to the citizens of Panama that, yes, he would veto any such bill but, no, “We do not torture.” Meanwhile, Mr Bush's increasingly error-prone vice-president, Dick Cheney, has been across on Capitol Hill trying to bully senators to exclude America's spies from any torture ban. To add a note of farce to the tragedy, the administration has had to explain that the CIA is not torturing prisoners at its secret prisons in Asia and Eastern Europe—though of course it cannot confirm that such prisons exist.

This is all contingent of how torture is defined. Until that is defined, then your point is moot.

11-13-2005, 06:09 PM	#8
johnsonjunior Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 522 Senior Member	It is simply unacceptable (and incredibly stupid) for the US to allow itself to be associated with torture. As the US lowers its standards, as it devalues the principles which once commanded respect internationally, it reduces the distinction between itself and the enemy it is fighting. AS the Economist states, it is a recipe for losing support and alienating the very people it is supposed to be fighting for. When will the Bush nightmare be over? It's leaving the international reputation of the US in tatters. For those who think this doesn't matter....think again. http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ory_id=5139141 Torture How to lose friends and alienate people Nov 10th 2005 From The Economist print edition The Bush administration's approach to torture beggars belief THERE are many difficult trade-offs for any president when it comes to diplomacy and the fight against terrorism. Should you, for instance, support an ugly foreign regime because it is the enemy of a still uglier one? Should a superpower submit to the United Nations when it is not in its interests to do so? Amid this fog, you would imagine that George Bush would welcome an issue where America's position should be luminously clear—namely an amendment passed by Congress to ban American soldiers and spies from torturing prisoners. Indeed, after the disastrous stories of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and Afghanistan, you might imagine that a shrewd president would have sponsored such a law himself to set the record straight. But you would be wrong. This week saw the sad spectacle of an American president lamely trying to explain to the citizens of Panama that, yes, he would veto any such bill but, no, “We do not torture.” Meanwhile, Mr Bush's increasingly error-prone vice-president, Dick Cheney, has been across on Capitol Hill trying to bully senators to exclude America's spies from any torture ban. To add a note of farce to the tragedy, the administration has had to explain that the CIA is not torturing prisoners at its secret prisons in Asia and Eastern Europe—though of course it cannot confirm that such prisons exist. This is all contingent of how torture is defined. Until that is defined, then your point is moot.
	Quote