Thursday, January 4, 2007

Let's Talk!

So let me see if I have this all correct. Our esteemed Republican colleagues are engaging us in debate concerning the necessity of the rule of law in a free country, the limitations inherent in the freedom of speech, and an executive branch subject to Congressional oversight. Further, they would like us to talk about saving elections from cheaters and frauds by limiting voters to those who can obtain a state issued photo ID. In fact the whole issue of voter suppression is up for debate, anyone want to get it started?

One of the most important debates to come in Congress concerns what is and what is not "torture." You have to read a little between the lines on this one because all kinds of code words are being used to obfuscate the "t" word. Evidently when folks think of "torture" there is really no argument that it is something abhorrent. So we discuss "the program," the "alternative methods," and the necessity of the government to "protect" us. We are asked to believe that because of the evil nature and cruelty of our enemy that we must be allowed to use:
"-- "Cold Cell," or hypothermia, where a prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees, during which he is doused with cold water.

-- "Long Time Standing," in which a prisoner is forced to stand, handcuffed and with his feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours.

-- Other forms of "stress positions" and prolonged sleep deprivation, perhaps akin to "Long Time Standing."

-- Threats of violence and death of a detainee and/or his family.


We are asked to stand in favor of legally authorizing all of these forms of "cruel treatment" as defined by the Geneva Convention. We are asked to believe that this "program" reflects American values and is necessary for our protection. Let the discussion ensue!

I can hear my Republican friends saying that it's "tough love." I can hear them saying that the evil of the enemy is so obvious and so repugnant that it's such a no-brainer to torture these "evil-doers." In fact, anyone that is arrested or detained by the administration is deemed a "terrorist" not because it's necessarily true, but simply because they've been arrested. We are asked to ignore any distinction that exists between "(a) being accused or suspected by the Bush administration of working with Al Qaeda and (b) actually being in cahoots with Al Qaeda and being a "terrorist. And finally I would like our Republican friends to start the discussion on Presidential Infallibility. Let's hear anyone discuss any of these points with out simply reciting dogma or talking points. Lets Talk!

No comments: