Oh my. So Hillary DOES support torture sometimes

http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypolitics/archives/2006/10/clinton_on_tort.php

Hope this ends up not being true. But damn, this is big. This creates yet another opening for Kerry. Hope the Kerry people see this -- his moral authority argument needs to be front and center, as well as "NO TORTURE. PERIOD." This shows the Clintons, as usual, showing no moral core. I'm not going to GD this, because I think we should concentrate on '06, but all of this needs to be filed under "Clintons believe in torture" category -- we now have two items.

How stupid of Hillary to just buy into that bogus argument. It's the fascists' favorite justification for torture: "but, what if a bomb was going to explode in an hour and the only way you could stop it was to torture the suspect?"

I seriously offer a large sum of money to ANYONE who can PROVE that such a scenario has EVER happened. If ANYONE can PROVE to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a bomb was defused or some other crisis was averted BECAUSE the authorities had detained the RIGHT suspect AND tortured him to obtain CRUCIAL information that the suspect was NOT going to divulge UNLESS tortured - seriously, pm me right the fuck now and I will mail you a check.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up and STOP INVENTING BOGUS AND RIDICULOUS MAKE BELIEVE SCENARIOS TO JUSTIFY YOUR TORTURE FETISH!

Thanks for giving me one more reason to dislike Hillary.

if they are willing to fly into buildings, they are unlikely to tell you the truth on something that is imminent. Also, what of the person arrested who is either NOT a terrorists or has no details - he may send you on wild goose chase to stop the immediate torture.

I also question that you would be likely to know the day and time and have a terrorist in custody and no idea of the place or plan. I would assume Kerry is correct that wile and gile and being nice might be more likely to work anyway.

If A) you have the real terrorist in custody:

- he is a religious fanatic and is prepared to suffer extreme pain and death in order to be a holy martyr for his cause. In fact, he probably hopes to be tortured so he can "suffer more" for his "God." The cult of martyrdom, in both Christianity and Islam, glorifies those who suffer the longest and the most. Ergo, torture will never deter a True Believer.

B) you have the wrong suspect:

- you are torturing an innocent person, which is the height of pure evil, and can never, ever tell you anything you need to know about stopping a "terrorist attack."

And yeah: how the hell is it even plausible that you KNOW that there's a bomb that is going to explode in an hour, but you can't seem to figure out where it is or how to defuse it? If you already know there's a bomb, what's stopping you?

Extremists willing to blow themselves up are not going to cave in under torture.

I wouldn't necessarily object to legislation allowing torture in the true ticking bomb scenario, provided that it could be strictly limited to a true ticking bomb situation. The catch is, as you say, this is not a scenario which is ever likely to occur so I'm not giving away anything. There are just too many unrealistic assumptions in the ticking bomb scenario, including that you know for a fact that there is a ticking bomb, that the suspect really has the pertinent information, and that reliable information could be extracted from torture. While in a tv show where you see everything you may know that the bomb is there and the suspect has the information, in real world situations nobody will know this at the time of interrogation.

While I wouldn't necessarily object to legislation strictly written to only apply if we ever had a true ticking bomb scenario, this also is not really necessary. If we ever had such a situation and the interrogator went beyond the law, it is a safe bet that nobody would prosecute. (Of course if we ever had such a situation, we'd also call in Jack Bower).

The person makes a decision to break the law and will live with the consequences. A president makes that decision and may have to live with impeachment. THAT is what should be at stake before anyone even thinks of torturing to save lives. But Hillary didn't say that (at least according to the source). If you read the whole article, she says the law should allow for that with checks and balances. Sorry -- not good enough. Torture is a grave offense to humanity and should not be legalized under any circumstances. However, if somebody did torture and afterward it saved lives, there's a good chance they would not be prosecuted. But that's as far as it should go.

Iraq position:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2879856&mesg_id=2879856

The torture stance just sounds confusing: "some lawful authority for pursuing that." If it's against the law there is no lawful authority. Given the sentence before it is not a direct quote, her statement may be out of context. She did in fact vote against the bill.

Let's compare, shall we?

John Kerry: "The United States of America does not torture. Period"

Hillary Clinton: "In those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent, yeah, but then we’ve got to have a check and balance."

What the fuck is she trying to say?

What cracks me up is the few Hillary defenders in GD who try to claim that she's MORE straightforward than Kerry. :rofl: If anyone encounters them in GD, please feel free to use THIS example to burst that ridiculous bubble.

So that the Kurds can be bombed too?

for many months.


It's IMPORTANT that senators INSIST on using the words CIVIL WAR, because it's a matter of Bush having a legal premise to be in Iraq under conditions of civil war. He doesn't, and that is why the Kerry-Warner exchange was so important - a new resolution would have to be drawn.

Why is Hillary not willing to be truthful and admit Iraq has been in civil war for a long time now?

She doesn't care about much of anything except for HILLARY.

For whatever reason, she doesn't think it will benefit her to be truthful about the situation in Iraq, so she doesn't do it. This thought process seems to govern everything that she ever says and does: "Does it make ME look good?" The prospect of benefits for Hillary trumps any concern that she may have over Iraq... and personally, I doubt that she has much.

her political gaming won't allow any outward appearance of agreeing that Kerry's withdrawal plan is needed.

Political gaming is what caused Foley to get away with stalking minors, and kept US military involved in Vietnam, way past the point where it was a military mission.

People who do that end up pleasing no one.

Including themselves.

I don't think she is like the neocons who VERY clearly get off on thinking about human beings being maimed and abused, but her unwillingness to take a real position on it just shows that she doesn't give a damn about the issue.

And that is fucking sad.

Who are you, when you change with every breeze.

(By the way great JK picture.)

My guess is that Kerry's emphasis on morall leadership can't be used by a Clinton for very obvious reasons anyway. (I know it's not fair to blame her for Bill, but a huge part of her pluses is from being Mrs Clinton.) Additionally there are campaign finance problems and the cattle futures gain.

This is disgusting. I admire your reluctance to push this. (It does make me kind of gag on Sullivan's claim that she is against it - ignoring Kerry's utterly unambiguous comments.)

she clarifies this (remember when Tweety was asking JK about techniques, and he stopped the question; maybe Hillary was thinking she was answering one thing, but answered another).

Um, in regards to Andrew -- where do you think I got the link? So he's on to her BS. OTOH, this is what annoys me about pundits. They don't really study the candidates like we do. So if they hear something they like, they go all ga ga, and when the person makes a gaffe, it's total condemnation. Never mind what the person's track record over a long period of time is.

Unlike Kerry where there is NO way to interpret the Hardball thing as pro-waterboarding, at most it would be not denying it, she is effectively saying yes. Like you, I am completely overjoyed that Kerry said what he did in the Senate and elsewhere.

I didn't expect that I would have to deal at the state level with supporting someone who ok'd torture. Then both my Senators voted for it. (My husband, who heard Lautenberg's answer suspects he voted that way to give Menendez coverage on the left on a bill that was passing anyway.)

backpedaling on the issue and the link.

I guess I'm more annoyed with his fawning all over her speech against the torture "compromise" which I linked to here, which was okay, but hardly was earth shattering (Patrick Leahy gave the best speeches of the day). And he made it seem like she was the only voice against torture. That was bogus. So in a sense, he's now the fool for jumping the gun like that. It makes him come across as schizophrenic.

The bogus "24" scenario is a fiction. There are no situations like that in real life. It is sad that, once again, faced with a moral choice, Sen. Clinton stops short of taking a strong stand against something that is clearly un-American. Americans don't torture and we don't codify torture into law as an allowable procedure. That is morally wrong.

How very, very sad. What does she stand for? Are there no moral lines in the sand here at all?

The "time bomb scenario" is the torture advocate's equivalent of George Bernard Shaw's offensive joke about women and prostitution. That's the one where he offers a woman $1 million if she'll have sex with him. When she says yes, he then offers a dollar. She responds, "Do you think I'm a whore?" and he answers, "We've established that; now we're just negotiating the price."

Advocates for torture use this scenario the same way Shaw used $1 million. Once you've said "yes" to this scenario - whether you're John McCain, or an American citizen to whom it sounds reasonable - you're now a torturer. The rest is just a matter of degree - or, if you prefer, a "negotiation."