U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
40%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 06, 2005 08:00 AM UTC
90 Comments
It’s time the Colorado Republican Party endorses Bob Beauprez for governor. Get Holtzman out!
Its time the Colorado RepublicanParty endorses Bob Beauprez…We need to get Holtzman out!
sorry for the double post
Wayne Allard voted against an amendment that would prohibit the use of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held. Is Allard Pro Torture? Allard is for endangering the lives of miliatary men and women in combat. The blood of America’s soldiers, sailors, Air Force and Marines is on your hands. Wash all you can, it won’t come off.
I have to wonder why every time I see a car/truck with a “Marine Corps” or “Army” or “Navy” sticker, it also has “W” “Bush/Cheney” etc etc – when will the military families realize that the draft dodger in chief is no friend of theirs, and his policies put them in unnecessary risk above their normal (and honorable) duties protecting this nation?
As Biden and the above-poster have said, the our adherence to the outlaw of torture is to protect our own soldiers – needless to say the “yes-men” in the White House havent figured that one out either. Shame on Allard – a yes man vote putting Colorado servicemen (and women) at risk.
[national] Is Dobson hurting America? More religion is the answer to social ills according to many conservatives. But data from a researcher at Creighton University (a Jesuit school) says the opposite is true.
“… religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics.”
Too much religion may be a dangerous thing. Los Angeles Times, Rosa Brooks, 10/1/05
Proactive read, Andy B- thank you. If interested, you can find the entire study at http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Allard supports torture.
Despite his being personally assured by Major General Taguba last year in an Armed Services Committee meeting that to their knowledge, no identified terrorist had yet been incarcerated at Abu Ghraib, Allard joined only 8 other Senators yesterday in refusing to vote against “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners in U.S. custody.
Allard supports torture. Simple as that.
“Torture” for those that support facists who strap bombs to themselves, chop off the heads of innocents, and fly jets into buildings? Seems like fair treatment to me! I have no problem with Sen. Allard’s vote.
Putting the word torture in quotes does not make it moral.
Good job, Billy. I knew Allard had some supporters.
Please enlighten me on how outlawing certain interrogation methods you don’t like will help protect the soldiers and sailors?
Marine-Corps, Maybe the reason the military sticks with the President is because they believe that what he is doing is the right thing to do. Remember the poll done during the 2004 election, 65% of enlisted and 93% of officers support the President. While you may not like it, the military loves Bush.
Barry, I think you took that logic one step too far. I don’t think the military necessarily supports Bush the person. I think they support THE President, whoever he may be.
Schulteis, Welker, and Crane want to send our Tax Dollars to fund the Minutemen.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3090922
lets send Colorado taxpayers dollars to a group of private vigilante’s… in the words of the Guiness guys, brilliant!
what’s the deal with Bill Crane? I know very little about him. Schulties is probably the farthest right idealogoue in the house now that Brody has been bumped to the Senate (anyone know if his girlfriend can be moved to the Senate as well? I’d hate for those two to be seperated…).
Welker is a guy you just have to feel sorry for her, he’s in so far over his head down at the Capitol that it’s emberassing. It’s hard for me to judge him too harshly on this one, he’s a born follower…
It says a lot that a guy like Rep. Larson would come out against this little stunt.
It’s not Buttah-
I think it’s a little early to be asking the GOP to endorse BB. In a primary, the party should remain neutral. Especially when one considers the way both candidates have been conducting themselves. BB’s campaign staffers have been unsubstantiated claims that MH is a liar, and MH has been making some claims that I think is going to come back and bite him in the butt. In the end, all the GOP faithful have to look forward to is Scotty Mic or Tom Wiens to come riding in on their big horse wearing a white hat telling us that they’ve come to “save the day” -Yep, I’d say we have some great choices to look forward to in this gubernatorial campaign…BTW, I was a BB supporter…and I personally like BB, but I don’t like the campaign that’s being run…I think it’s bad policy to call people liars, and I think the electorate just hates this kind of rhetoric. I think there still may be some room for Coffman, and I would support him over all the other names I’ve heard.
Why is the Independence Institute running scared from publicly disclosing their donor base? Their contention that their radio ads (which clearly encourage listeners to vote “No” on Ref C&D) are educational and not advocacy does not pass the laugh test.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3090453
beaupreznit:
I put the word “torture” in quotes because the bill would have outlawed interogation methods other than torture. I’m glad you are supportive of soft treatment of terrorists.
There are no good studies of the efficacy of torture in obtaining information. However, many veteran interrogators conclude that it is a useless technique.
One example is Army Colonel Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who interrogated prisoners in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by Rumsfeld in 2003 to assess such methods in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply “not a good way to get information.”
Even if you ignore that evidence, torture has side effects that negate any theoretical benefit. It endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity. It does damage to our country’s image and undermines our credibility in Iraq.
It is illuminating that you Republicans agree with Allard that torture is just fine. We all want to identify and kill the terrorists, but torture is counterproductive.
What came of the initial round of documented abuses at Abu Ghraib, for example? The famous hooded figure that has become the international symbol of American lawbreaking is an Iraqi community leader named Hajj Ali, who was tortured for a year, then released as innocent. To date, no significant terrorist convictions have come from our prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, or Afghanistan.
I love how liberals only like campaign finance law until someone uses it agaisnt them. You idiots forced these regulations on us, and now your pissed that conservatives are playing with your BS rules?
You want transperancy? Do it right, get rid of all this stupid C3, C4, PAC, 527 nonsense and allow unlimited contributions with 24 hour disclosure: now that would be fair for everyone, and the lawyers would make less money.
Does anyone here live in Senate District 11? I got an opinion poll call last night testing candidates to oppose Ed Jones – 2 usual suspects (Merrifield and Ed Raye) and one out of the blue: John Morse. Took me by surprise…
Billy,
First you say you’re fine with torturing those who kill Americans. (Let’s leave aside the annoying fact that we’re not actually torturing those evildoers, just innocents and non-terrorist criminals.)
Then you say well, Allard opposed the amendment because it prohibits things other than torture. (Again, leaving aside facts, since the wording of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” apparently was taken by 90 Senators to mean “torture.”)
All I see is someone desperately twisting to find a way to paint Allard as the good guy.
Have some morals. It’s ok to say Allard voted badly. You can still be a Republican if you do, promise.
Billy and Barry,
Do you support the use of torture and other “cruel, inhumane, and degrading” punishment on our soldiers? How about all of those mercenaries we’ve hired? Would it be okay – even though it’s against the Geneva Conventions and the law – if it was done somewhere outside of an official country’s jurisdiction? Or maybe you think if we tourture enough “terrorists”, we’ll deter future terrorism…
The President has been hiding under the joint covers of “jurisdiction” and his C-in-C powers to attempt to dodge the letter of U.S. law.
For those of you willing to stand up for just about anything Republicans do, I have a question: is it okay to torture people who are innocent? There are so many examples from Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and other recent US interrment camps of people who were beaten, tortured, and even killed who had done absolutely nothing against us – people turned in for cash rewards, or who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Administration is right in saying that information about our inhumane, illegal actions will spur on terrorists; but it’s not the release of that information that’s the problem – the fact that we’ve performed these acts is the real problem.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at support for Allard’s vote: for some people, their ends justify any means no matter how vile.
Wilbur,
I live in Sen. 11. Merrifield says he’s running for his seat in the House. Raye is Salazar’s Exec. Dir. Raye wanted to run in 2002. Raye ran for the House a long, long time ago and was party chair (twice). Morris is the current party chair. The Dems have no viable candidate to run against Jones.
FWIW – Colin Powell supported the McCain amendment about torture..
the text of the McCain’s statement and Powell’s letter can be found here,
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_10_02_dish_archive.html#112857249624923095
Barry,
I would never deign to enlighten you, oh enlightened one. Sen. John McCain, Gen. Colin L. Powell,General Shalikashvili and a long list of other senior officers who have written a letter in support of the Amendment may be able to enlighten you. They have been in combat. They’re intent is to protect OUR troops, not terrorists. My intent also, not Allards.
Marine Corps
Viet Nam 67-68
Allard is a vet! A veternarian!
Bwahahaha… and he’s a Bush lap dog with no spine for independence from the idealogues in his party.
Joe, The question on the poll was “Do you support President Bush?”, I think that is very clear.
Beaupreznit & Phoenix Rising, will you answer my question? It was not how effective interrogation methods are, but how outlawing it will help American troops.
As for the Geneva Convention, the last time I checked, I did not see any terrorist organizations that had signed it, therefore it is not illegal to interrogate captured terrorists by any methods necessary.
Phoenix, the rest of your questions are silly. Of Course it is not okay to torture innocent people. Can you please name me ten innocent people that we have tortured? Valid interrogation does not couant and I want ten specific cases that have independent documentation, not just he said/she said. I wouldn’t throw that accusation around without the proof to back it up.
And don’t be a hypocrite by saying that the “ends justify the means no matter how vile” The Democrats are guilty of the same things you accuse the Republicans of.
Marine Corps,
Rather sanctimonious, aren’t we? By the way, I think the word is “design”.
I like how you liberals debate:
1)You make a statement.
2)Someone questions you on your statement and asks for further explanation or facts.
3)You tell them to find the facts out for themselves.
Barry
Republican ’78-Present
It’s too bad the left can’t separate its hatred for Bush from a generalized contempt for America. As a Vietnam era (but not combat) vet, I have enormous respect for John McCain. But I also understand the point that Allard is trying to make, that the enemy doesn’t play by Marquis of Queensberry rules.
On balance, I’d side with McCain, but you psycho-liberals who are accusing Allard of being in favor of torture are so beneath contempt. Why don’t you go have a nice hate session with Cindy Sheehan?
” It was not how effective interrogation methods are, but how outlawing it will help American troops.”
Well, as marine-corps hinted above and other connected to the military have stated more explicitly, American troops are more likely to be tortured themselves if they are captured if our government is sanctioning torture of our enemies on the battlefield.
so to summarize, there’s no evidence that supports the idea that torture is at all beneficial to our cause and it is the belief of many who have fought for our country (which of course no one in the Bush administration did) that our policy actually endangers the lives of our troops on the ground.
“It’s too bad the left can’t separate its hatred for Bush from a generalized contempt for America.”
46 REPUBLICAN Senators voted in favor of the McCain amendment.
it’s not an issue of partisan left and right, it’s an issue of right and wrong.
Beaupreznit already named one specific prisoner we had tortured; I’ll add in the (Doctor?) who died from a beating that had major press attention… I wish I had time to throw up specific names beyond that, but I’m too tied up at the second.
To answer your question, which I already did above: clarifying what we already outlaw helps our troops by (a) keeping the bright line between us and them, which helps our cause in both world opinion and in foreign and world legal bodies, and (b) by removing a strong recruitment tool and moral spur for the opposition.
Terrorists and insurgents are covered under the 4th(?) Geneva Convention and under U.S. law, which does not make distinction between lawful combatants and others.
*I* don’t support torture or other vile deeds, nor do I believe that I hold to any ends for which I would justify said deeds. Examples?
Barry Barry Barry,
Sanctimonious? How so? Deign intransitive verb:
To condescend to give or bestow; to stoop to furnish; to grant.
http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2004/03/13.html I used the word correctly. Find facts for yourself: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_10_02_dish_archive.html#112857249624923095
Not allowed to post the entire letter.
What makes you think I’m a liberal? McCain, Powell, Shalikashvili liberals? 46 Republican US Senators liberals? I take offence at that crack.
Marine Corps
because it’s been so much fun to watch the wingnuts cannibalize Harriet Meirs….
Meirs spearheaded feminist lecture series at SMU in the late 1990’s…
http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=e6yeo9i8hnrs60hye6marcd5rt52f6f5
“In the late 1990s, as a member of the advisory board for Southern Methodist University’s law school, Ms. Miers pushed for the creation of an endowed lecture series in women’s studies … [she] also gave money and solicited donations to help get it off the ground.
A feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, delivered the series’s first lecture, in 1998. In the following two years, the speakers were Patricia S. Schroeder, the former Democratic congresswoman widely associated with women’s causes, and Susan Faludi, the author of Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (1991). Ann W. Richards, the Democrat whom George W. Bush unseated as governor of Texas in 1994, delivered the lecture in 2003.”
Since you’re pre-emptively calling me on not providing more references, how about taking a look at the Abu Ghraib photos… Or maybe the video that the ACLU is trying to get released of a child being raped…
Or maybe you can look up ‘Ian Fishback’ and see the reports he’s collecting from his fellow soldiers.
Barry, torture is already outlawed by international convention which we eagerly signed, and by previous U.S. military law. We have for the first time formally abrogated these laws, so the Senate amendment to the defense bill was a restatement of expected behavior, not something brand new as you make it seem.
Stopping the torture will help our troops these ways:
– Young American men and women will no longer have to engage in beatings, suffocation, genital electrocution, forcing juveniles to urinate on their parents, or any of the other practices that would send any good person to a therapist for years.
– Troop morale would improve markedly. Soldiers don’t like doing this. Many of them choose dangerous combat duty rather than the safer confines of our war prisons.
– The international press will no longer have stories of American torture to print. This fodder has been instrumental in Al Qaeda recruitment, I’m sure.
– Iraqs could perhaps again be persuaded to believe that Americans are there to help them, not just to “disappear” their friends and neighbors nearly at random.
– We could begin to rebuild the coalition in the hopes of replacing American troops with international ones. That’s not happening while we flout the Geneva Convention and fail to address the horrors we’ve created.
– We could again focus on the deliberate relationship-building, trust, and infiltration that can yield real information about terrorists. Someone with hundreds of volts running through his genitals will say anything you want them to. Anything. Torture wastes soldiers’ time.
– What turns a struggling Iraqi into an “insurgent” trying to kill Americans? In at least some cases, it’s the fact that his Uncle, or brother, or son, was tortured by Americans. Every Iraqi we mistakenly torture becomes a terrorist recruiter simply by telling his or her story.
Now here’s one question for you: what terrorist have we brought to justice by torturing someone?
So – I can’t create a poll, but what percentage of people on this blog support Allard’s vote for “cruel, degrading, or inhumane treatment” of prisoners?
threeblindmice,
Please point me to the report that shows that “American troops are more likely to be tortured themselves if they are captured if our government is sanctioning torture of our enemies on the battlefield.”
I thought that we were fighting terrorists. They could care less how we fight, they will torture captured troops no matter how well we treat theirs. After all they have not problem blowing up innocent people for their cause.
Phoenix, Thanks for the vast amounts of info on the torture victims.
I am sure that you are right on the Geneva Convention, but the fact still remains that no terrorist group has signed onto it.
examples of vile deeds:
Clinton bombing a factory in the Sudan, killing innocent people, just to ditract from the latest scandal, FDR, interning the Japanese during WWII, Democrat support for salvery, Democrat opposition to civil rights.
Marine Corps,
“McCain, Powell, Shalikashvili liberals?” – moderates at best.
“What makes you think I’m a liberal?” – experience.
As for deign, I know what it means; I was just thinking good thoughts about you and didn’t think you would propose that it was beneath you to enlighten me.
Do *I* support the interrment of the Japanese? Do *I* support slavery? Just which party’s Presidents supported the Civil Rights actions of both the 30’s and 60’s? And just where did those racist Democrats wind up after their party deserted them?
And about that factory: you might look up little tidbits about Clinton, his scandals, and going after Osama bin Laden; you might try venturing outside of the usual “reliable” sources at LGF, FreeRepublic, and RedState. Bombing an Aspirin factory wasn’t brilliant, but it was designated by the CIA counter-terrorism folks. I don’t believe that justifies the error personally, but I understand the decision.
To finish up: just how loyal do you think I am to the Democratic Party? So loyal I support the actions of every Democrat that ever walked the Earth? So loyal I’d support that party if it ever did those things again? Bzzzt. Maybe you’d vote Republican even if the candidate was a dead mob hitman, but I’m not that loyal.
Barry,
I tried to answer your question: “How will outlawing torture help American troops?” when I posted my comment beginning “There are no good studies…” You may not have read it, so I answered you specifically in my last post “Barry, torture is already outlawed…”
If you would deign to answer the question I asked of you: “What terrorist have we brought to justice by torturing someone?” I would appreciate it.
Barry,
Sen. McCain did not say that American troops are more likely to be tortured themselves if they are captured if our government is sanctioning torture of our enemies on the battlefield.
Here is an excerpt of what he said: The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we?re better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others ? even our enemies.
Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor.
…we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country?s honor to prevail; that they are always, always ? through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss ? they are always, always Americans, and different, better, and stronger than those who would destroy us.
I believe our soldiers, sailors, Air Force and Marines are better than the enemy. I believe they are entitled to that honor.
Marine Corps
As far as your rebuttal that terrorists don’t care about the Geneva Conventions, etc.: no, but Iran might; Syria might; North Korea might. Every action we take on the battlefield – no matter whether it’s against terrorists, insurgents, or regular armies – is remembered by history, and when in the future we go to fight a new enemy, they’ll look back at our conduct as a sign of our honor.
And maybe that future enemy will do exactly what you’re doing now, and come to the conclusion that “they don’t follow the rule of law, why should we?”
Or perhaps you’ll believe our President, who today hypocritically uttered the phrase:
Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision. And they end up alienating decent people across the globe.
How far down the slope is murder from torture and inhumane treatment – especially since death from those treatments has already resulted?
Phoenix, careful! That kind of irony (or cognitive dissonance) can cause heads to explode.
Sorry. I’ll be more careful in the future. If you think you can take it, read the transcript of the speech – it’s pricelessly full of ironic statments like that.
Barry,
What terrorist have we brought to justice by torturing someone?
“It endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity.”
First, let me say that I agree with prohibiting toture and would be surprised if there isn’t something to that effect already in law.
But, remember, we have the Geneva Convention that protects both enemy soldiers and our soldiers from reciprocity, in time of organized, uniformed combat. Amongst civilized human beings thrust into combat by historical circumstance and differences between nations.
That said, it is shockingly naive (whether you are liberal or not) to think that any stance towards torture has anything to do with treatment of our prisoners by enemies who execute non-combatants and cut off heads after playing tough guy on video.
You commies should be harrassing republicans by arguing that torture incites more terror, not that no ban on torture encourages reciprocity on the battlefield. Please! We are dealing with uncivilized and quite primitive heathens (meaning terrorists, those who don’t wear uniforms, or those who target non-combatants to incite fear as a part of strategy), not armies of nations. If you don’t get that, you are stupid. Have a nice day. 🙂
Phoenix, wtf? “Terrorists and insurgents are covered under the 4th(?) Geneva Convention and under U.S. law, which does not make distinction between lawful combatants and others.”
Sorry, don’t you have to actually be wearing a uniform to benefit from Geneva? I honestly don’t know but I’ll bet you have the time and resources to investigate. I would think the theory behind that is, “even though we’re killing each other, let’s all be civilized and honor human dignity by making it clear who is civilian and who is not, so that women and kid casualties are kept to a minimum, so that we’re not like offending the existence of the human race”. That way, when you have genocidal or terroristic types who believe their cause is worth the life of a non-combatant, everyone knows that they are lower than your actual enemies on the totem pole, and we can all cooperate in eradicating them from planet Earth.
I’m sure you have a response. I’ll be waiting.
I think Phoenix is looking for a more gentlemanly form of warfare. Something along the lines of:
“Excuse me, Sir, would you mind if I kicked your ass today?”
If the bad guy says yes they do mind, then we would have to wait until they acquiesced.
First let me say that I don’t care how Allard voted, I know nothing about the aforementioned bill, and the neither is relevant to my opinion.
I do firmly believe that torture should be used as a tool by American forces. Although I’m sure Phoenix will eloquently disagree with me, the ends do, indeed, justify the means. Torture is necessary in the same way that the atomic bomb was necessary. Is it pretty? No. Are innocent people collaterally damaged? Yes. But if cruel and inhumane methods of interrogation will save the lives of Americans, than I am completely in favor.
You’re free to argue whether torture is effective at gathering information. I believe – and until someone can empirically prove otherwise, will continue to believe – that it is. And if torture does assist American intelligence, than it is both logical and necessary.
Clearly we have a problem keeping it under wraps; and that, I believe, is the problem. If our intelligence officers were intelligent enough to keep a lid on what goes on behind closed doors, not only would there be no international fallout, but we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
I think it helps to think in hyperbolic hypotheticals: If there was a nuke in YOUR hometown, and YOUR mom’s life was on the line, and we had one terrorist who could provide the information to disarm the device, and torture was guaranteed to work; would you then support it? If not, then there is no sense in continuing this discussion, because you clearly value principals over realities. But if your answer is “yes”, then I you have to ask yourself, “where does the slippery slope end?”
For me, the answer is “yes” and slope ends at the bottom of the hill. Because it’s us against them, and it’s a battle I don’t want to lose.
what?,
Indeed there is already law prohibiting torture, but the Bush administration has suspended it.
Simply calling something “shockingly naive” does not constitute a rebuttal in my book. There is no good study on the efficacy of torture, so I tried to cite military experts. And generally, I think the onus should be on those who favor torture to prove with evidence that it is useful, since it represents a break from American tradition. The silence is deafening right now…
“commies?” “stupid?” I think we’ve all been civil here, and you don’t do yourself any good by name calling.
First let me say that I don’t care how Allard voted, I know nothing about the aforementioned bill, and the neither is relevant to my opinion.
Beautiful: “I don’t know and I don’t wanna know, but here’s my two cents.” That’s where I stopped reading.
Breaking News
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/zebemails/zzz187.jpg
Wonderful, we have two Republicans on this site who favor torture. Well, you are out of step with 90% of the U.S. Senate, including the vast majority of Republican Senators. You are also out of step with the Americna public.
Most of the American public realizes that the ends don’t justify any means.
Most of the American public realizes that using torture undermines your legitimacy and makes it impossible for you to win a guerilla war in Iraq because people will never stop hating an occupying force that tortured its citizens.
Most of the American public realizes that the problem with torture is that you don’t know if the guy is innocent or guilty — even legitimate ends justify the means pro-torture advocated don’t advocate torture as a means of punishing the guilty, they want to use it to get information. But, intelligence obtained with torture is not reliable. A guy facing physical pain is going to say anything to make it stop whether or not it is true.
In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.
Nabil Shaath says: “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, “George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.” And I did, and then God would tell me, “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ?” And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, “Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.” And by God I’m gonna do it.'”
“When a person talks to god, it’s praying. When god talks to a person, they’re nuts!: Lily Tomlin
Let’s face it……….this administration is being led by a whack job.
“Why is the Independence Institute running scared from publicly disclosing their donor base?”
I never thought much about the donor disclosure rules till this year. I’m poor so all I can give a group is my time and my heart. I would be scared to gray hairs if my name was released. All I have to do is imagine someone as vindictive as me, with more power than me and it makes me glad they aren’t disclosing the donors.
Beaupreznit,
You ask a silly question, “What terrorist have we brought to justice by torturing someone?”.
If you look at all of my posts I have never said that using torture would bring a terrorist to justice. Since I never made that claim it makes no sense to answer the question. This
While I understand that you are trying to define the argument in your terms, which is another classic liberal tactic, but it didn’t work.
Walter – You say President Bush is a “whack job”, but you obviously have never accomplished anything nearly as great as being president, so what does that make you? I say pathetic.
Barry,
You asked for evidence why stopping torture makes our troops safer. I answered in detail.
I asked for evidence that torture is accomplishing our goals. You said that’s “a silly question.”
I think we’re done here.
With all the venom he’s spewing, I think we need to rename Phoenix Rising as Acid Reflux Rising.
Maybe we shuold call him (or her!) AlkaSelzer Rising!
All you Democraps really need to get a clue. We come here and tell you how things are and all you can do is whine your whiney complaints about torture and all and what none of you realize is that NO ONE CARES. Theres no body listening to you, got it? Just go back to the USSR now.
Beaupreznit,
Keep in mind I was not saying anything about whether torture is effective at getting information.
“Simply calling something “shockingly naive” does not constitute a rebuttal in my book.”
You disagree that it’s shockingly naive to think that non-uniformed terrorists will change the way they treat US captives based on ANY US decision on torture?
It think it is in fact a rebuttal to the reciprocity argument (which I quoted) to say that Allard’s vote will have zero affect on how terrorists treat prisoners, because, hello, they already cut the heads off innocent women aid workers. And if you disagree with that, my next position is that you, too, are stupid. No offense (that’s why the happy face was inserted).
What?,
I very much appreciate you answering the specifics of my comment.
Of course Allard’s individual vote is not by itself going to save American soldiers from being tortured. And no, I don’t think stopping Americans from torturing Iraqis will immediately alter the behavior of existing terrorists.
But by torturing, we are handing these terrorists recruitment posters. (Yes, I know they’d lie about us anyway, but why make it so easy?) We inflame public opinion in countries that otherwise might cooperate with us to fix Iraq. We turn average Iraqis into people who will hate the United States forever. And, as John McCain said much better than I could, we destroy ourselves by throwing out the notion that Americans are better than that and that even in the most desperate times, we uphold basic principles of decency and humanity.
You and Barry both seem to concede that torture hasn’t bagged us a terrorist and that as a technique, it may not be effective at gathering information. Please correct me if I’ve put words in your mouth.
But if it’s not effective, why do it? Revenge? Cruelty?
Beaupreznit,
We see eye to eye. I think the only argument against torture is the terrorist recruitment argument. And it’s a good one, which is why I don’t support torture. At least, public torture, or torture of prisoners who wear the flag of a civilized nation that also does not torture.
But, I disagree that torture has been shown to not get information, especially based on one guy. Somehow I highly doubt we are ever going to hear the specifics of where torture has been successful, and what information was gained.
So, I don’t think it’s necessary to ban torture, unless the intention is propaganda and we really plan to actually do it (to terrorists only) in order to get information. I do think it’s necessary to have strict protocols, and only use it where it’s justified (i.e., non-uniformed targeters of women and children fit the bill, especially when it’s very difficult to get information on terror cells) and where it’s the only way to get the information needed in the time needed.
And you know what? If I was recruiting teenagers to blow up shopping malls and restaurants and bar mitzvahs and weddings all the while hiding in the wings, I would fully expect the Mossad to torture the living hell out of me if they ever had the chance. And that knowledge probably wouldn’t change my conduct, would it?
Beaupreznit,
Thanks for the holier than thou attitude. Out of 55 most wanted terrorists in Iraq the United States has captured over 45. In addition to terrorists how many weapons caches have been found, terrorists attacks have been stopped, and terrorist money that has been found?
Now, I can?t say that every one of these events is a result of aggressive interrogation methods anymore than you can prove that aggressive interrogations were not used.
Please give a shot at answering this question, which terrorists were captured on information that came from non agressive interrogation methods?
I disagree that torture has been shown to not get information.
Clearly neither of us has good data. All I can come up with are quotes by military officers, although there are many. And I agree we’re not likely ever to get specifics of whether or not torture has worked in Iraq.
I do think there are other very strong arguments against torture in general that stand on their own, and I’ve tried to mention some. But if we could establish that torture does or does not work at its stated purpose of obtaining information, it changes the debate significantly. I’ll keep hunting for specifics in this area.
What? – Many of the Geneva Conventions cover more than just uniformed soldiers; one of them is the reason I still think being in Iraq is the Right Thing to do: you break it, you own it (yes, Colin Powell was paraphrasing the Geneva Conventions). US law covers non-military persons as well. Sorry to tell you, but it’s true.
For the party of “moral values”, the morality of torture seem particularly flexible. Next thing you know, you’ll be arguing that abortion is okay if they’re black babies to make the crime rate go down (oh, wait…)
PheonixDying – “we come in here and tell you how things are” LOL! There you go again, making your own reality.
AcidReluxRising – I see you failed to actually add anything factual to the discussion. I guess only the GOP can have “righteous indignation”. 46 normally lock-step Republican Senators signed on to this Amendment; some things are just so morally reprehensible that they overcome party loyalty – for most people, anyway…
For the most part, even Saudi Arabia sticks to mild forms of torture. They figure they have better ways of getting people to talk: they send in an Imam.
Sen. McCain and other POWs have repeatedly been quoted as saying “you’ll say anything if you’re being tortured”. The information is just so unreliable… Sure, you might get the truth, but it’ll be buried in a pile of just what you want to hear but isn’t true at all. Of course, POW testimony is a bit reality-based.
Beaupreznit, agreed.
Phoenix, you are torturing me with unsupported generalities. Do you care to actually respond to my question? Point me to language in any Geneva document that affords protection to terrorists by the signatories. I find the concept preposterous, but look forward to being proven wrong.
It’s not enough to respond by saying that the Geneva Convetion, or Conventions, apply to “more than just uniformed soldiers”. You also said “Terrorists and insurgents are covered under the 4th(?) Geneva Convention and under U.S. law, which does not make distinction between lawful combatants and others.” I questioned this exact point, and you have declined to provide a citation. I even offered to trust your interpretation. So I will look myself. And I’m betting that you are absolutely, 100 percent wrong, and that the Geneva Convetion(s) offer nothing in the way of protecting a human being who intentionally targets a non-combatant, and who does not clearly and visibly distinguish himself from a civilian if he or she claims to be a combatant. These are people who seek to blend in, and fire from mosques and schools to create propaganda value by getting kids killed!!
No matter how expansive your definition of “combatant” is, it by definition can never cover a terrorist. What defines a terrorist as a terrorist is precisely what disqualifies them from being a “combatant”, or at least one to which protections have been extended by the nations involved in Geneva.
I think you’ve been reading your alternative sources too much. I don’t know if you a kid, or what, but it’s a bit unsophisticated to not support your arguments when you start talking sources.
I see you went out and specifically looked it up and quoted it here to disprove me… Just maybe I barely have time to post some days. Just maybe I have to hold down a job. I don’t have these things at my fingertips any more than you do.
Let’s just imagine that there is a nuclear bomb hidden in one of our major cities. We have captured a suspected terrorist with links to the bomb.
If you could prevent the deaths of thousands of people with information obtained by the use of torture, would you do it?
What makes you think that someone who is willing to blow a major metropolitan city sky high is going to tell the truth when tortured.
The question contains a false premise. Torture is not an effective way to get people to provide accurate information. The logical thing for our could be terrorist (or a non-terrorist wrongly accused) to do, is to provide a wrong lead. If you are a terrorist, it postpones torture while allowing the bomb to go off. If you aren’t, it postpones torture and maybe you will be exonerated in the meantime. Our experience with police interrogation shows that confessions obtained under duress are freuquently not true.
Pure conjecture here, but? what do you all make of the complete confusion surrounding the New York terror threat? Local officials strenuously arguing that ?credible? evidence ?strongly suggests? and eminent terrorist attack, while federal authorities, namely the Homeland Security Dept, loudly minimizes the credibility of the very same threat. The source is an Iraqi, who has apparently provided both accurate and inaccurate information in recent days? What are the chances that torture was the means to such contradictory information?
It’s official. I spew up so much bile that I’m changing my handle permanently from phoenix Rising to Acid Reflux Rising.
I feel so much more honest this way.
And did I mention that I JUST HATE President Bush?
Wow, these pro and anti-torture arguments discomfit me. Each side here is mainly respresented by utilitarians, arguing like small shopkeepers from probable costs and benefits.
The cruelty of torture, by its very nature corrupts the torturers and those who enable them. It is an acid on our capacity for justice and mercy. Torture is an inherent evil. To do evil so that good might come of it is Satanic.
Show some intelligence and do it!
http://www.azexarms.com/Wscrape/Wscrape5.jpg
Peter/Sir Robin,
Don’t worry, someone already stole the “W” bumper sticker off of my car. Fortunately I have plenty more.
So I am checking out this site that Sir Robin posted with the scraping off W sticker (the election is over if you didn’t get the memo).
Check it out yourself – http://www.azexarms.com/
Now I love my guns as much as the next guy…for hunting and going to range but can someone please explain to me what would stop a terrorist in this country from waltzing into AZ Ex and picking up a 60 mm mortar – http://www.azexarms.com/nfa/60mm.Mortar.business.end.jpg.html
This doesn’t sit well with me. Look at some of the weapons they have available on this site. This is not a well regulated militia.
Phoenix that is absurd. You made the claim that terrorists have Geneva protections, and even tried to look like you knew first hand by making reference to a 4th(?) one. When I asked for support, you balked, and now you’ve said “I don’t have the time, why don’t you look it up”. Likely you were paraphrasing something you heard somewhere else, but acting as if it was first hand knowledge. I don’t know if it’s just lazy, or that you just want it to be true.
Either way, that is so typical of liberals I don’t even know where to begin. I’ll look it up alright. But I’m not the one making unsupportable generalizations, and worse, pretending like I’ve already looked it up. It makes me wonder how much of your other posts are also second hand heresay.
Phoenix Rising: “Terrorists and insurgents are covered under the 4th(?) Geneva Convention and under U.S. law”
What?: “Phoenix, wtf? ….. Sorry, don’t you have to actually be wearing a uniform to benefit from Geneva? ….. I’m sure you have a response. I’ll be waiting.”
Phoenix Rising: “Many of the Geneva Conventions cover more than just uniformed soldiers …. US law covers non-military persons as well. Sorry to tell you, but it’s true.”
What?: “….. Do you care to actually respond to my question? Point me to language in any Geneva document that affords protection to terrorists by the signatories. I find the concept preposterous, but look forward to being proven wrong ….. you have declined to provide a citation.”
Phoenix: “I see you went out and specifically looked it up and quoted it here to disprove me… Just maybe I barely have time to post some days. Just maybe I have to hold down a job. I don’t have these things at my fingertips any more than you do.”
END
There you have it. Make an assertion, and it’s up to others to disprove it because you don’t have the time and you have a job. Phoenix, no disrespect, but come on! Out of nowhere you claimed Geneva covered terrorists ‘under the 4th(?) Geneva Convention’. I asked for proof. And you don’t have the time. I don’t mean to interfere with your blogging pride, but if you say something, you should either back it up or retract it before moving on, wouldn’t you agree? This is not the first time I’ve seen you back away when you’ve been called on something. Trust me, it will be educational to look it up yourself. It will shed light on the way some of your prized ‘alternative sources’ present information. Maybe you’ll even become a republican.
What?
You are absolutely right. The Democrats have a problem of making outlandish statements and when they are asked to verify their statements with facts, they either tell you to find the facts on your own or make up some excuse.
This problem is pervasive in the Democrat Party; time after time their leaders make untrue statements that the facts do not back up and folks like Phoenix eat it up and regurgitate it to everyone else without thinking for a second about checking the facts.
At best it is ignorance, at worst it is purposeful deception.
Jonathan,
Do you mean deceptive statements like this?
“And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there’s a reason. We’ve experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Oh wait that was a Republican and the statement didn’t occur in some random comment on one of a thousand blogs, it was our Presidentit was our President
Marshall,
Thanks for your post. Your quote is very similar to these:
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
Or this one:
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002
Those quotes do look kind of similar, don’t they?
Kerry was talking out of his ***; there was plenty of evidence that Saddam was no threat before we ever invaded, including that from Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohammed al Baradei. Too bad so many of our legislators didn’t want to be seen as weak on Bush’s War on Terra[sic] and voted to wimp out and cede their authority to authorize a war.
When is this country going to learn that the Congress needs to grow a pair when it comes to wars?
Jonathan, predictably your point is lost on Marshall. Marshall does not care that John Kerry also made such statements and that this reasonable position was echoed by most if not all the Congress based on the best available information at the time. Because unlike Congress and the President, Marshall has no idea what it’s like to have to make important decisions using limited information when the costs are extremely high. That is the real world, and Marshall, like the rest of his armchair liberal friends, resides comfortably outside the reach of the real world.
But to make a very simple point on Iraq, I would say that Hussein’s decision to kick out inspectors (in violation of the cease fire I might add), coupled with his previous nuclear weapons program (I’m sure Phoenix knows about this considering how well read he or she is), are all the reasons necessary for the White House to issue the statement above and issue the decision to invade. If Saddam (or worse his wacko sons) were still there and being openly solicited by Afghani foreign terrorist expatriots for the means to attack the US, it would have just been a matter of time. Saddam miscalculated, got what was coming, and our soldiers are honorably defending our nation so that Marshall can continue his armchair liberalism. Would that Marshall could appreciate this.
Here’s just a sample of those that thought Saddam had weapons…long before Bush decided to invade…
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001
Funny….when Bush says it, it was a lie and he knew it. But when Dem’s say it, gosh, they really believed it!!
Phoenix,
What are your thoughts on these latest quotes that were added? I would like to hear your opinion on these pre-9/11 quotes and if you supported President Clinton.
More post 9/11 quotes for Phoenix…
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
“[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
scorcher.thickly pixels.apron!slammed solemn.Hollister.Paulson?wardrobes exacerbated tournament tournament http://www.realtorx2.com/where-to-bet.html http://www.realtorx2.com/where-to-bet.html blindfolding:Parisianizations?
vicodin
Finally http://vicodine.hostingrapid.com‘ rel=”nofollow”>vicodin easy.
penis enlargement
An exampleline http://atlas.walagata.com/w/penisenlargment‘ rel=”nofollow”>penis enlargement tell!