Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

On The Use of Torture

Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have been bombed by terrorists. A fourth attack has been thwarted and the suspects have been detained at Guantanamo Bay. A fifth (and larger attack) is rumored.

What do you do?

McCain went first. He rejected the use of torture to obtain information, citing his experience in Vietnam as a prisoner of war. "It's not about the terrorists, it's about us," McCain said. McCain added that so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture, adding that his position was held by most retired and active duty military officers.

Romney backed "enhanced terrorism techniques" but drew the line at torture. He drew applause with his call to double the size of Guantanamo Bay, rather than close it.

Giuliani again referenced his experience as the mayor of New York City in his answer. "I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake on this," Giuliani said. He added that he would tell the Guantanamo interrogators to "use every method they could think of" but stopped short of endorsing torture to gain information.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 15, 2007; 10:29 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A High Note for Giuliani
Next: At Second Debate, a Few Sparks Fly


What Romney said is despicable. More at:

Posted by: Patriot | May 20, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

tHAT'S RIGHT rdf. It was good to see Ron Paul call it what it is in the last debate. Newspeack. I liked that line. You know the republican toes curled at that word in that setting

Posted by: bOB | May 17, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

crozier -- I think roo was being ironic, you know,... eye ron ee...!

Posted by: Bill MacLeod | May 17, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

"Ask these bozos whether they can think of a single real "ticking bomb" torture-saves-the-day scenario in history. They can't, it's never happened. Not once, anywhere."

I say to you this, Al-Queda was originally created to take Saudi Arabia and defeat the Al-Saud family. When they have attacks against the gov't. in that nation, the Al-Saud family tortures folks within 100 miles. It's a very effective tool in getting the information they need to find and defeat the source. B/c of their ruthless aggression, I'm certain they do save lives. The government aggressively attacks terrorist cells once they get the information on who and where they are. You may think it's "mean", but you can not tell me it's not effective. Yes, Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship and you could suggest the Saudi people need to be free. But, that doesn't take away from the fact that their ruthless aggression against terrorists is effective, b/c it is.

I do not believe we should torture Iraqi servicemen, but we certainly should have the right to torture terrorists. They do not abide in the Geneva code, and against them, we should fight fire with fire. But, we should make it clear to other nations that we would not torture a member of a national standing Military.

Posted by: reason | May 16, 2007 10:49 PM | Report abuse

while your methods may have been effective during the cold war, they probably wouldnt work as well now.
As McCain pointed out, they are dealing with terrorists (or automatically assuming they are)
what government would own up to planning 4 (and possibly 5) attacks on US cities? and calling up hostile nations and threatening them with mutually assured destruction would only make the US look more war-hungry to the world than it already does we'd just look like we were provoking them.
not to mention the possibilities...nuclear world war III anyone?

Posted by: Jessica | May 16, 2007 9:31 PM | Report abuse


1st point
Your right about Roo...he/she needs to take bible 101.

2nd point
Both you & Razorback are right about torture. All studies show that American's are against torture except when presented with the dilemma of a loved one being kidnapped or being a POW. It's a scenario very similar to the pro-life advocate that discover's thier 15 yr old child is pregnant.

Posted by: MRP...Also a Razorback | May 16, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

This is all well and good, but I still, some 60 odd posts in, haven't gotten an answer to my question posed to Razorback.

If the American public wants our military to be engaged in torture, then why aren't the Republican candidates openly declaring themselves to be pro-torture? There are 10 of them after all, and not one of them has come out and said that they are in favor of torture.

I still await an answer to a question that has been ducked repeatedly. If Americans want torture, then why aren't the Republican candidates running as the ones who will give it to them?

Posted by: J. Crozier | May 16, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Please, Guliani and Romney both endorsed torture. They might call it by a fancy name, *enhanced methods* or whatever, but that doesn't take away from what it actually is.
Get real.

Posted by: rdf | May 16, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I'd also like to point out that GWB and all federal office holders are sworn to uphold the Constitution -- not circumvent it. The language used in the Eight Amendment is explicit. So are the Fourth and the Sixth. Article VI is also explicit in that duly ratified treaties are the Law of the Land (including the Geneva Convention). Notwithstanding the views of reactionary judicial activists like Antonin Scalia.

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | May 16, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

The debate question which resulted in the discussion on tortue was somewhat along these words of a hypnotical question;

"If a couple of major US shopping centers experianced a terrorist nuclear attact, and a captured terrorist was thought to know where and how the next planned attack would happen, would you use torture to attempt to discover that information"

My answer, if I were elected president, that any torture to gain information would "be too little and too late". I would on taken office, tell the one, two, or possible three governments which we believe are the only place nuclear weapons could originate that they will suffer as complete of devastation and as quickly and as complete as we are capable of. No talk, just action.

We know, with little room for doubt, where a nuclear device would come from. Let them know that the US holds them responsible, not a rag tag bunch of radicals with a warped sense of right.

The fear of deterrent worked to keep us safe from nuclear war for over 50 years. Now without possible attact (terror) coming from a known nation, we must turn that fear of deterrent towards terriosts by using the fear of deterrent against the countries that feed and support terror. If they know the consequences of terrorist actions in America, they will reign in terrorist attacts before they happen.

Posted by: EdA | May 16, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Razor, two points: 1 - You misread The Sixth Amendment. It says we have a right to counsel, not that the government must appoint that counsel. 2 - Abiding by the Eight Amendment does not inherently mean we ignore or abide by other Amendments. But abiding by the Rule of Law means that we do.

What do you have against the Constitution and the Rule of Law, anyway, Razor? Do you feel they are outdated?

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | May 16, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

As a former infantryman, I can tell you that I don't believe in torture. McCain knows what he is talking about.

But I also note that my definition may not be what your's is. To me a hard look, a shove, or a "smack offside the head" is far from torture, but I've seen people here and elsewhere describe actions such as those as torture.

We're all just talking past each other.
A common definition would help, but I doubt that we'll ever see one.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Getting back to the irony/hypocrisy, last night we saw candidates who will call upon God for their opposition to abortion and their belief in the creation of the world, but they ignore God when it comes to torturing any of God's children.

Posted by: Ted | May 16, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Right Chi Town. The AMerican policy is to not tortue. It is the republicans who want to change that policy. It's not for the democrats to defend their stances. The democrats stance is the stance that AMERICA has generally taken. It's the republicans who WANT to torture. They must defend why and how, and live with it

Posted by: JKrish | May 16, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

It's not my jib to police the president or the media. My problem is, WHo's job is it? These people are not doing their job. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not here to defend the dems or bush. WHY ARE OUR WATCHDOG GROUPS, like the FCC, not doing their jobs?

Because the people in high command were all replaced by cronies. I wish I didn't have to come on this site razor. I wish REAL news was on the air and all fakers and propogandists should be off the air. It's not my job to do that. If I don't speak out who will. Where have you been living for the last 4 years, in a cave? :)

I wish I could go be to my normal life and not worry about this. That day will not happen until Bush is out of there. Maybe then I can go back to a normal life. Maybe a life like your's, where I only care about myself and how much money I'm making. Right now I think the future is in jepordy. Facism and dittoheads are on the prowl. I don't what what happened to germany to happen here. Luckily we caught the conservative right before they fully streached their wings. The movement is over Razor. They are liars and propogandists. You didn't get the memo?

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 16, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

No torture. We are a society of laws. It is what distinguishes us from the people doing the bad things.

It is the reason true patriots put their lives and their families lives on the line in a gutsy separation from the English Empire because they believed in fundamental human rights.

It is the reason we fought a Civil War. We believed in fundamental human rights and that one human being did not have the right to own another.

It is the reason that I think the number was 500,000 americans died in WWII. To 'save the world' from Fascism and Social Nationalism with their promotion of centralized power of the State at the expense of civil rights.

It is the reason this administration must be called into account for it's assault on the constitution and disregard for fundamental constitutional rights and worldwide human rights.

We are what we are. A country of Laws. A nation created based on the belief that all people have inalienable rights.

If we torture. We are no better than the British empire we seceded from that could imprison and deprive its subjects of life without cause, the Confederacy that relied on slavery and cruelty as means of production, and Fascism that believed certain groups were genetically superior allowing the extermination of those that a central government felt otherwise about.

We have to be better than that. We disrespect the blood spent by those who made us what we are.

Posted by: chi town hustler | May 16, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133, how many times do we have the same conversation. If you think Bush violated a criminal statute, why dont you tell us what that statute is? Criminal laws are specific and are interpreted by courts.

You cannot find a statute, so shut up about the law.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Section 506 (After moving):

Please state one example of Bush "Shutting down the other voices".

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"Even The Washington Post Editorial Board -- long tepid, at best, concerning the NSA scandal -- recognizes that Comey has offered "an account of Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source." And as I documented yesterday, these "shocking" revelations were long concealed due to Alberto Gonzales' patently false assurances that the testimony of Comey and Ashcroft -- which Democrats on the Senate Judiicary Committee sought last year -- would not "add to the discussion."

What more glaring and clear evidence do we need that the President of the United States deliberately committed felonies, knowing that his conduct lacked any legal authority? And what justifies simply walking away from these serial acts of deliberate criminality? At this point, how can anyone justify the lack of criminal investigations or the appointment of a Special Counsel? The President engaged in extremely serious conduct that the law expressly criminalizes and which his own DOJ made clear was illegal. "

Glenn Greenwald

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 16, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Americans will support torture with a wink and a nod until they see the video of one of our guys being tortured. Yeah, all you Redstate Rednecks believe in torture. You love torture... so long as it is only used on dark-skinned people. Wait until you see some fresh faced American kid from Oklahoma getting a hole drilled in his foot, and tell us how you feel. That is why THINKING AMERICANS know that torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques" is ALWAYS A BAD IDEA.

I thought it was kinda funny Romney supports "enhanced terrorism techniques." I guess those techniques include Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and enhanced INTERROGATION techniques.

I do not care what people say about Romney. That guy CREEPS ME OUT.

Poor pathetic John McCain. He is probably the best qualified, but he seems so out-of-it lately.

Posted by: Frank | May 16, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Bush isn't trying to destroy the Constitution at all. He is doing what he thinks is right for the United States. What he's doing is completely wrong, but not because he is a bad person. Terrible things happen in history, not because of one twisted, despicable man, but because of many good people trying to do the right thing.

What I hold most against President Bush is his vilification of all who disagree with him. Shutting down the other voices is how evil can happen.

Posted by: Section 506 (After moving) | May 16, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I accidently posted that one twice.

So, I hope you will join me then in correcting all of the embiciles who say "bush wants to destroy the constitution" when what they really mean is that "I think bush is wrong"

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Section 506 (After moving):

You missed the point. The point is that the Supreme Court says what the law is, not me and not you. The psuedo lawyers on this blog always talk about alleged constitutional "violations", but ignore that fact that the Supreme Court rejects the very arguments they make about constitutional violations.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse


You missed my point: the Supreme Court is only part of our government and one that has been terribly wrong before. You're also incorrect, the Supreme Court does not say what a law is, they attempt to rectify discrepancies between the law and the Constitution. The lower courts don't even define what the law is, they just define whether it applies to someone or not.

Sheesh, talk about judicial activism!

Posted by: Section 506 (After moving) | May 16, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Section 506 (After moving):

You missed the point. The point is that the Supreme Court says what the law is, not me and not you. The psuedo lawyers on this blog always talk about alleged constitutional "violations", but ignore that fact that the Supreme Court rejects the very arguments they make about constitutional violations.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse


The U.S. Supreme Court has a duty to focus on domestic law. I'm talking about principles of our country. Think of it this way: would the Supreme Court force the U.S. to use torture or not provide lawyers to detainees if we legislated that way?

The Supreme Court is part of the government and as such is not sacrosanct. We as citizen-rulers need to make sure the government functions the way that matches what it means to be American, which in this case involves the belief in inherent rights.

And, by the way, your concern for the power of the Supreme Court should extend to at least being familiar with how they formerly differentiated between those who had black skin and those who were considered citizens and had rights. The Supreme Court has been wrong a great deal about what the right thing to do is.

Posted by: Section 506 (After moving) | May 16, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Dear Mr./Ms. Razorback,
You did not address the main point. Where does it say in the New testament to torture?
We can take, from your dodging, that you believe Jesus said it is okay to torture to protect innocent lives. Please quote us the chapter and verse.
God bless.

Posted by: Ted | May 16, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Section 506 (After moving):

How gratious of you to recognize I was right while trying to avoid it. At least you admit that you cannot pick an chose which constitutional rights we give to terrorists.

Your concern about the Constitution should extend to at least being familiar with how the US Supreme Court diferentiates between those who are US Citizens, and those who are not, and between those who are on US soil and those who are not.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

One thing - you can't be a Christian and a Republican. It doesn't make sense.
Jesus would have nothing to do with torturers, period. End of discussion. Or murderers (see Iraq).

Posted by: No Christians | May 16, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

The kind of "torture" that we've used and what Sen. McCain experienced in Vietnam are two VERY different things. The North Vietnamese were brutally torturing everyone they captured to ellicit statements for propaganda. In contrast, we have used much more ethically acceptable means to get key information out of certain key individuals.

No one can condone brutalizing a captured "foot soldier" who would not be privy to useful intel. But saying that the next 3000 American lives are worth less than the temporary comfort of one of our enemy is just plain STUPID!!!

Posted by: StaySafe | May 16, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

The U.S. has the moral superiority, we value life, liberty and freedom. But when you torture, you lose that. Plain and simple. You are now no better than the terrorists you seek to defeat. Democracy cannot survive gestapo tecniques, because, how do you know the governmnet is really protecting you? Democracy is transparency. Their word is not good enough.

Now, you want o argue for the death penalty for being convicted of treason against the US, or life in supermax prison with no hope for parole, sure, I'm down with that. The country must defend itself. But no torture, no opacity.

Posted by: DCAustinite | May 16, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Ignoring Razorback's nonsense, there's a real dilemma here with applying the Constitution's protections to terrorists, i.e. the 8th and the 6th. I agree with McCain, though, it's about us and not them. It's not a moral if it's situational.

I also agree with Jefferson. All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Our Constitution attempts to define those rights practically (Jefferson listed three principles), not because we thought it was privileges of our club of US citizens, but because we believed they were inherent to being a human.

If we change the standards for non-citizen humans, then we've abandoned who we are. Torture is un-American, and as difficult as it is to admit, denying terrorists lawyers is too.

Posted by: Section 506 (After moving) | May 16, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I would agree that we should do anything that the Israelis would do.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Almost forgot, re: the pro-choice, anti-death penalty position, I am not philsophically opposed to the death penalty, I just want to make sure we don't execute innocent people. That being said, you never hear me lecture people about "the sanctity of life," which pro-torture, pro-death penalty, pro-war Republicans don't believe despite all claims to the contrary when dealing with a fetus or vegetable.

Posted by: Steve | May 16, 2007 9:56 AM | Report abuse

John McCain is being dishonest about his stance on torture and the rule of law. He had his chance to opose the President on this issue, and he, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Warner (R-VA) all made this big show of standing up against the President, but they gave him everything he wanted, with the "concessions" being things that were watered down in such a way that they couldn't be enforced. What respect I had for McCain vanished that day.

That being said, torture does not work. Even things that don't rise to the level of torture don't work. When I was in Iraq three years ago, my platoon was put on a rotation to guard people who were being held for questioning, and one of the soldiers mocked me and another sergeant afterwards for being too easy with the soldiers (He was one who was much more prone to yelling than we were. Considering that one of them was a 72-year-old man with diabetes and a bum leg, he was no threat.), but I pointed out that none of them ever told me no when I gave an order (mainly to stand up during exercise), knowing that one of them did that to him.

Seriously, considering the way that terrorists are trained in giving deceptive answers under torture (Our elite forces are given the same training, but grunts like me never did.), what you propose is absurd and false on its face. Torture doesn't work. If you don't believe me, look at the evidence from Israel's research on counterterrorism techniques. So, you can say that you propose "doing what it takes to prevent a terrorist attack," but what you propose will actually cause one because a) it doesn't work and b) all it does is inflame anti-US opinion and fuels more terror. Jack Bauer is a fictional character, and "24" isn't real. We certainly shouldn't base our foreign policy on it, anymore than trotting out Michael Crichton as an expert on global warming. oh, wait...

Posted by: Steve | May 16, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Ted: Whatever irony exists for a pro-life person to believe all means necessary should be used to defend Americans also exists if a pro-choice person is opposed to torture.

Some lefties also see the same irony with respect to pro life people supporting the death penalty. If those same liberals were consistent, they would see irony in pro-choice people opposing the death penalty.

The difference is obvious except for the most simple of minds. INNOCENT life is what we propose to protect.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Scott in the PacNW, the 6th amendment requires appointment of a lawyer. How can you state we must follow the 8th and yet suggest there is some middle ground to ignore the 6th?

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 8:36 AM | Report abuse may want to double check that. I'm reasonably sure that Jesus wasn't commanding the Romans at the time. The Romans did the torturing. Jesus was a victim of the torture you describe.

Posted by: J. Crozier | May 16, 2007 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Ted--In the Bible Jesus makes this bunch of other guys wear spiked helmets and drives nails through their appendages, ropes them up in stress positions and starves them?

Posted by: roo | May 16, 2007 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Razor wants to present a false dilemma: It's either torture or appointing a lawyer -- as if there's nothing in between.

Torture is in violation of the Eighth Amendment, Geneva Convention, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the UCMJ. That makes it illegal no matter where it is done. Anyone advocating otherwise is siding with the terrorists against the rule of law.

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | May 16, 2007 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Razorback is an a$$h0le.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Dear Mr./Ms Razorback,
I see the irony of candidates who profess a respect for life and the underpinnings of the teachings of Jesus but are willing to torture has escaped you,
O where, o where did Jesus say it is OK to torture?

Posted by: Ted | May 16, 2007 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Wait a second Razorback, I thought that Iraq and the Global War on Terror were one and the same. Isn't that what the Republicans have been trying to tell us for the last five years or so now?

Why change the tune now? And we weren't talking about lawyers, we were talking about torture. I'll repeat the question from above, since you've declined to answer it directly. If you truly believe that most Americans support torturing of prisoners who have been convicted of no crime, then why hasn't any of the major (or minor for that matter) Republican candidates come right out and stated that they are the torture candidate?

Why do all of them still feel the need to hide behind their euphamisms? Why, if they truly have the majority of the American people behind them as you claim, don't they proudly proclaim their desire to torture people in the name of national security? Why isn't the official policy of the U.S. military to be one that allows torture?

Seriously, if this is the will of the American people, why did the then Republican controlled Congress pass a bill that prohibited torture? (Of Bush issued a signing statement...but whatever.)

Why did everyone protest at the Abu Ghraib photos and go at great lengths to assure the world, and the American people for that matter, that the pictures did not denote America.

I've asked the same question about ten ways now. If the American people support torture, then why aren't Republicans openly advocating it?

The answer is, of course, is that the American people, most of them anyway, do NOT support torture.

Posted by: J. Crozier | May 16, 2007 12:27 AM | Report abuse

They Repubs lost because of IRAQ.

The idea that you should appoint a lawyer for anyone suspected of terrorism, even non citizens apprehended overseas, before you question them is supported by a small minority.

Posted by: Razorback | May 15, 2007 11:55 PM | Report abuse

If that was true Razorback, then the Republican party would still control Congress.

Posted by: J. Crozier | May 15, 2007 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Romney backed "enhanced terrorism techniques"

A Freudian slip perhaps? Or just a simple misquote?

Posted by: David K | May 15, 2007 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Most Americans favor using any means possible to protect Americans.

Posted by: Razorback | May 15, 2007 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Those who are against torture are the minority Razorback? When that truly happens is the time when I will know for certain that it is time for me to leave this country.

I am firmly convinced that the majority of the U.S. electorate is against torture, despite shows like 24 trying to popularize it. The base of the Republican party isn't against it, but they are a shrinking minority.

If most Americans were truly in favor of torture, do you really think that the Republicans would be going to such extreme lengths to avoid using the word "torture"? No, they know that to admit that they are advocating torture would leave them dead in the water in the general election, so they must muddy the waters and disguise the issue by trotting out euphamisms.

By all means, let's see whichever Republican who wins the primary come outright and say that he endorses the torturing of U.S. detainees. If he openly comes out and says so, and still wins the election, then I will come on here and admit that I don't know my country at all and that you do.

Posted by: J. Crozier | May 15, 2007 11:43 PM | Report abuse

We shall admit that protecting the country and its citizen is usually in collision with protecting their rights. What we need is a balance. And how to make this balance is really a tough work. To some extent, I support the opinion of McCain, we shall never violate the basic rights of human!

Posted by: Jerry | May 15, 2007 11:41 PM | Report abuse

There's no lesson to be learned here. If any one of these guys wins the nomination, they lose the general, period. None of them appears presidential. McCain comes close, but the man is already 70 years old and desperately out of touch with Americans at large.

Fred Thompson is the GOP's only hope, and he'll lose the money race, so he won't be the nominee. Sorry Republicans, but the White House goes blue next year.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 15, 2007 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Razorback and other GOP apologists -- so John McCain, the guy who marches in lockstep with the most unpopular president in thirty years [29 percent woo hoo!], he's the guy who makes the most sense? Wow. Are you folks in for yet another rude surprise, apparently. I guess you didn't learn anything from last November, so you're going to have to learn the hard way. Again. In 2008. As for the torture issue. . . it bears noting that the only successful "terrorist" convictions have come the old-fashioned way-- through boring old law enforcement, without Guantanamo or torture. But, by all means, if you really want to be pro-torture when it doesn't work, hey, great. We are all for the GOP as the Pro-Torture party.

Posted by: Christian in NYC | May 15, 2007 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Romney seems to be all about Romney and power. Will say whatever he thinks people want to hear, has no apparent moral compass, stands for whatever is most politicaly expedient. Wow. He is a consummate politician and I mean that in the most derogative manner I can.

Posted by: Christian in NYC | May 15, 2007 11:28 PM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | May 15, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

I've got to give McCain a lot of credit for making sense on the torture issue, and he was the only one who did. It seems like he was the only one who had thought through its moral implications.

Posted by: Eric | May 15, 2007 11:24 PM | Report abuse

NMAIF says:

"Once again the only man to actually serve in the military is the only one that makes sense."

Well I guess that cuts out Hillary, Obama and Edwards.

Posted by: Razorback | May 15, 2007 11:09 PM | Report abuse

It's good to know that only 1 of these morons can win the nomination of their party. At that, it is not even a representative sampling of the voting public. Oh how the tune of the winner will have to change when the actual race is on.

Posted by: Butch Dillon | May 15, 2007 11:06 PM | Report abuse

The only place where the liberals might give up the current political advantage they have because of Iraq is on the issue of what to do with terrorist suspects.

The leftist position on this blog is a minority position.

Posted by: Razorback | May 15, 2007 11:06 PM | Report abuse

This debate was much more substantive that either the first R debate or the D debate. Matthews asked difficult questions from a political tactician perspective, but not really focused on national problems.

All of the questioners threw at the candidates heads, which gets them off their talking points, which makes for a more substantive debate. Tough questions help good candidates look better. This is why the D's were ignorant to boycott Fox news.

Posted by: Razorback | May 15, 2007 11:04 PM | Report abuse

"He drew applause with his call to double the size of Guantanamo Bay, rather than close it."

Hmmm, I'll bet a donut that this doesn't sit well with the Church of LDS.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 15, 2007 11:02 PM | Report abuse

First, Hume and Wallace deserve huge applause for running a serious set of questions - they set themselves well above Matthews and Williams.

Second, the evening ended with my not having changed my perception that McCain and Giuliani asserted themselves and for me the Reps are a two man race now. But I am an independent and I really want to hear what Reps think.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 15, 2007 11:00 PM | Report abuse

No burford holly, we all know that 24 isn't real (kind of like Al Gore's movie in that respect), but what really makes the terrorist laugh is when someone suggests they should be given a lawyer before questiontioning.

Part of the definition of a terrorist is that they seek to use our freedoms against us, that is what they laugh about.

Posted by: Razorback | May 15, 2007 10:59 PM | Report abuse

I think terrorists laugh their ass off when they see us shaping antiterror policy based on an extremely silly television show like "24."

Posted by: burford holly | May 15, 2007 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Torture, enhanced interogation techniques, stress positions, or whatever other term you want to call it is wrong and evil. End of discussion.

Anyone who advocates the use of such things is also wrong and evil, without exception. This is one issue that is not open to nuance. It is not open for debate. Even worse are the people who choose to hide the fact that they are advocating torture behind pretty phrasing and subtle wording. "Dunking a terrorist in water" as our current VP called Waterboarding for example.

Giulani and Romney have advocated outright evil positions on this issue. I look forward to religious organizations denouncing them for doing so similar to the treatment that John Kerry got for being in favor of abortion in '04. I doubt it will happen though.

Posted by: J. Crozier | May 15, 2007 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Once again the only man to actually serve in the
military is the only one who makes sense. The rest
should just say they would listen to their military
advisors. Makes as much sense for them to
pontificate on this issue as for the Pope to give
advice on how to train for a triathelon.

Posted by: NMAIF | May 15, 2007 10:53 PM | Report abuse

I will take George Bush over anyone here (except McCain). The rest are outright scary!

Posted by: Mike, Chicago | May 15, 2007 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Once again the only man to actually serve in the
military is the only one who makes sense. The rest
should just say they would listen to their military
advisors. Makes as much sense for them to
pontificate on this issue as for the Pope to give
advice on how to train for a triathelon.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2007 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Why did Tenet say that information from detainees was the best source of information?

Posted by: Razorback | May 15, 2007 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Ask these bozos whether they can think of a single real "ticking bomb" torture-saves-the-day scenario in history. They can't, it's never happened. Not once, anywhere.

Ninety percent of people tortured around the world aren't even being questioned at all. It's done to break their will, or for revenge, or just to pass the time.

Posted by: OD | May 15, 2007 10:47 PM | Report abuse

McCain was the only man that made sense on the "torture issue" the rest of the field showed why they should NOT be President, when you throw our ideals and our purity out the window, then maybe we shouldn;t try to claim the moral high ground, we used to have, are we the United States or have we become the nation of Jack Bauer?

As a soldier I know what I fought to defend, and I will stand with McCain....

Posted by: Mikey30919 | May 15, 2007 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Torture is a tool of tyranny, not freedom.

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | May 15, 2007 10:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company