Rudolph Giuliani and Fred Thompson Go Soft on Torture

If you need another reason to stop voting Republican, just listen to the voices of Republican presidential front-runners Rudolph Giuliani and Fred Thompson. When asked if he believed waterboarding, the simulated drowning technique, was torture, Giuliani remarked that “It depends on who does it.” Fred Thompson promised he wouldn’t order waterboarding “as a matter of course,” but sometimes would “do what is necessary” to stop the terrorists.

Waterboarding, as with any interrogation tactic that produces the perception of death, is rendered clearly illegal under federal law — specifically, 18 U.S.C. 2340. So what are Fred Thompson and Rudolph Giuliani saying here? That it’s acceptable for presidents to break laws to stop terrorists? That breaking the law is permissible as long as you do it just every once in a while, but not habitually? That it’s OK for some people to break the law but not for other people to break the law?

What kind of moral and legal values are these? Would you trust Fred Thompson or Rudolph Giuliani to make the right decision if it were you strapped to that chair?

(Source: New York Times October 26 2007)

This entry was posted in 2008 Reasons, Election 2008, Homeland Insecurity, Moral Values, Politics, Republicans. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Rudolph Giuliani and Fred Thompson Go Soft on Torture

  1. Sunana says:

    Wow, of course we wouldn’t want a leader who would…”do what is necessary” to stop the terrorists.” No, we’d want one that had a terrorist within eyeshot but let’s him go because it might look bad (Bill Clinton) or we’d want one to convene their team of lawyers to determine what the conclusive advice of every one of them was, before deciding to do nothing (Hillary)

    Decisiveness bad. Terrorists Good.

    Moron.

  2. Jim says:

    Idiot.

    You don’t waterboard a “terrorist within eyeshot.” You have to have the terrorist in custody first.

    If you want perfect security, go crawl into a cage and lock yourself in.

  3. Winghunter says:

    Lets talk about this even more than it already has been and publicly bat it around back and forth until we’re absolutely sure every flippin’ terrorist on the planet knows that if Waterboarding is used on them we won’t take it too far just as Dr. Keller pointed out and the Admiral also attested to.

    Are you catching on YET!?

    Wake up people, we can’t be babysitting mental midgets all the time.

  4. Jim says:

    Well, it’s the law, Winghunter.

    Are you suggesting that the government break the law?

    Because, you know, your party once impeached a president for getting a blow job.

  5. Iroquois says:

    Sunana and Winghunter are making a big assumption–that torture works and that it is an unpleasant but necessary “tool”.

    Torture is not a tool at all. Torture doesn’t work–in fact, people who are being tortured give false information or any information they think the torturer wants to hear.

    Then there are the secondary effects: the danger to our own troops who may be captured, and world opinion that turns against a superpower that talks about freedom and justice but acts like a bully.

  6. Winghunter says:

    “Well”, because it’s “the law”, somehow justifies we aid and abet the enemy to murder us?…I must admit that I’m not familiar with that level of logic Jim… I wasn’t even aware it was practiced by other than Darwin’s Nominee’s.
    Perhaps, it takes a full membership in the Experimentation Party to achieve such an unwavering dedication to mass suicide but, since everyone is not stupid enough to participate, it’s murder.

    Since our law also states that your freedom of action is limited up to and until you endanger the lives of others AND that ignorance of our law is no excuse, knock it the hell OFF!

    Are you catching on yet!?

    To address your last mindless dig; Our elected officials partially impeached a liar, among several other things, who happened to fool some of the people into thinking he was a President…though, nothing could have been further from the truth.

  7. Jim says:

    So you are suggesting that the president violate the law? Interesting.

    You say you’re not “familiar with that level of logic” that places the rule of law over security? Well, then, you need to read the Constitution, which is filled with “that level of logic.” Get nice and familiar with it. See especially the presidential oath of office. What does the president solemnly swear to do?

    It seems you’d rather crawl into a cage of your own making than support the ideals upon which this country was founded. How un-American of you, Winghunter. How selfishly unpatriotic.

  8. Ralph says:

    Nice to see conservatives come out so openly against the rule of law and fundamental standards of ethical behavior.

    It’s a refreshingly straightforward articulation of conservative principles.

    Good luck with the “values voters” this election cycle.

  9. Bob says:

    Wow,

    Way to twist what Winghunter was saying. Nice side comments from Ralph without really adding anything to the discussion.

    It’s people like you that make the death of my uncle on 9/11 seem for not. And it’s amazing that we would treat those responsible better than what he got.

  10. Iroquois says:

    Jim and Ralph, how dare you kill Bob’s uncle.

    If we could only get right down to it and admit that the president can break every law on the books as long as he doesn’t get a blow job, why, Bob’s uncle might be alive today.

  11. Jim says:

    “It’s amazing that we would treat those responsible better than what he got.”

    Right. So, Bob, you’d like the United States to adopt terrorist tactics. Another pro-terrorist. How sad. Why do you hate the foundational document of American government?

  12. Tom says:

    Well this is a good cross section of the mindless idiots running the country who “truly believe” what they’re doing is stopping terrorism and punishing those who attacked the US on 9-11. Christian fundamentalism turned nationalism morphing into tyranny doesn’t faze their way of thinking.

  13. Ralph says:

    So the only way to give meaning to the 9/11 murders is by the U.S. committing torture?

    Then how is meaning given to the torture? More murders?

    What Bob, Giuliani, and Thompson are calling for is a vengeance-driven blood feud, and endless cycle of murder and torture.

    That’s a rejection of basic ethical standards and the rule of law.

    We’re going to need justice, not vengeance, to fix this mess we’re in. Everyone who has organized, allowed, or committed torture or terror ought to be arrested, given a fair trial, and imprisoned humanely for a good long time.

    Giuliani used to have a reputation for being tough on crime, a law-and-order kind of guy. Thompson played one on TV.

    Now they’re pandering to pro-torture vigilantes.

    Pretty sad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>