All Comments (73)

To Spiritual Mongrel; Ask Hitler if force changed his mind--that is if you can find any of it. To deny the sheriff a gun will insure victory to the bad guys.

Col. Bullröhr, USA (Ret.): writes:

'The C-I-C knows what he's doing. I invite critics and the distinguished members of the press to submit to a sample waterboading to see how safe and non-threatening the process is.'

It would hardly seem effective or necessary to use a 'safe and non-threatening method' to get information unavailable through other methods, therefore, WHY USE IT?

The passage of the Grand Inquisitor is why I list the Brothers Karamazov as my favorite book. Which is why I've always found it fascinating that Laura Bush once listed the book as her favorite.

I've always wanted to ask her why she picked the book as her favorite, and whether she saw any conflict with her choice and what her husband was doing as president.

CREWSIN:

You’re assuming that violence demands violence as a solution. The cycle never ends. That being said the quick answer is nuke any place that may harbor terrorists or enemy threats. It is the only way to be sure we get them.

I would then not fault Russian for launching their entire arsenal at the US because they never know when we might decide they are a threat and act first.

A great movie is The Kingdom with Jamie Fox. Without giving the entire ending of the movie away the last 5 minutes are the most telling on this conflict. After the American squad has returned home there are two questions asked of two characters. One is the little girl in Saudi Arabia who is asked what did you grandfather say to you as he was dying. Back in America some asks Jamie Fox what did he say early in the movie to Jennifer Gardner to make her stop crying.

The answers are identical and frames perfectly what violence and war get us.

Be what you want to create. If you want pace be peaceful. Some may see this as blame America first syndrome. My response is in any situation you can only control your actions. It then comes down to what do you want to stand for and how do you perpetuate your message. We all play a part in the state of the world and if we try to impose our way of life on another country how do we think they will react?

We can’t change there minds through force. That has been proven again and again and again.

CREWSIN:

My memory goes back futher to our wars and occupations, internments, and torture
in the Philipines, the Native Americans, the African Americans, Vietnam, slave labor
in Haiti, ect. This is without mentioning the torture and civilian deaths
in our current conflict.

I don't want our country to be what I despise. Even less so if the technique rarely
gets useful information.

We need to solve the root causes that make people so desperate for political
change in their own countries that they attack the supplier of weapons and
intelligence. We didn't go after Bin Ladin with the Marines and airborne troops,
but sought a country that is in a "sea of oil". We seek to continue our control
of the worlds natural and human resources, regardless of it's end result. We are the
biggest provider of weapons that keeps the war drum beat going around the world.

We cannot use our own personal freedoms and wealth to justify dehumanizing others.

Susan: The liberal mind is mush. Take a trip down memory lane for a moment. Remember those poor souls jumping from the World Trade Center to their deaths. Think of a couple of large American cities turned to cinders by an Iranian nuke (let's say Chicago and Denver). The survivors and (hopefully you'll be one) will be wandering over the countryside looking for food and shelter in dead of winter. Every other large American city will empty out because of fear and join this nomadic herd. What will they eat and where will they go--not back home to be nuked. Then you poor liberals worry about a little water poured down a murder's nostrils in an effort to get intelligence. What a joke--tell me another one.

Could Iraqi's who consider themselves defending their homeland consider our soldier's "hard core terrorists" because of the many civilian deaths that have occurred in their country? Could they justify torture to protect their neighborhoods?

Neal Obstat,
Ironic indeed that so many are so stirred by such a tiny and directed effort against so few. Meanwhile, the proportionate amount of other problems in our society seem to go ignored while people focus their laser beam attention on the protection of the "rights" of Islamist murderers.

It's also noteworthy that Saddam Hussein was a consummate torturer. Google electric prods and testicles if you want to read some gory details. To take down this regime was an act against torture and in favor of human rights and democracy, though the ensuing civil war demonstrates how naive we were to go in there so unprepared and understaffed.

Try to keep some perspective, Neal. The U.S. by and large follows the Geneva Convention and the prisoners at Guantanamo are treated well, despite vigorous attempts to prove otherwise. Abu Ghraib was an appalling lack of oversight of two or three American privates who were subsequently court martialed and imprisoned for their disgusting actions and the exception, not the rule, in the behavior of the U.S. armed forces in Iraq.

Friend:

What I said is true but doesn't make it "ok for our captured soldiers to be tortured." Just to repeat, the President is not seeking to preserve CIA authority to torture. Instead, he is resisting the efforts of some in the Congress to LIMIT the interrogation techniques available to our intelligence services when dealing with hard core terrorists.

Please read what CIA Director Mike Hayden reportedly said in a memo to employees this past weekend:

"[It is not a choice between] blanket application of the Army Field Manual or the legalization of torture ... No one can claim that [The Army Field Manual] exhausts the universe of lawful techniques available to the Republic to defend itself -- techniques not useful or not suited to the Army's circumstances but fully consistent with the Geneva Convention and with current U.S. law. These are the techniques in the CIA interrogation program. Although they remain classified (as were some techniques in previous editions of the Army Field Manual), they have been fully briefed to the intelligence oversight committees and their lawfulness confirmed by the Department of Justice."

That last point is important in my view. In fact, the enhanced interrogation techniques at issue HAVE been reviewed and deemed lawful by Attorney General Mukasey. You may recall Judge Mukasey is a distinguished federal judge and former federal prosecutor who was recommended for the Attorney General position by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer.

Similarly, General Hayden is a distinguished, career military officer who I doubt very much would so vigorously defend a course of action leading -- as you suggest -- to additional risks for American soldiers.

Neither Hayden nor Mukasey can accurately be described as Bush cronies. They are independent-minded, devoted and extremely capable public servants. With all due respect to you and Reverand Thistlethwaite, I find the Hayden-Mukasey-McCain view on this subject considerably more informed and far more persuasive than yours.

Finally, just to put what I hope is one more helpful fact on the table -- both the military and the CIA long ago eliminated water-boarding as a permissible interrogation technique. That is not the practice at issue here.

Sincerely,

Mike

T.Traub,
It was kind of strange to read your post, in which you placed yourself (at least implicitly) among the very few posters who actually thought reasonably about this issue and then went off into a complete non sequitur about thousands of men being raped and beaten every day in prisons in America. There's reason and logic for you!
It is indeed reasonable to be against torture. And it is reasonable to assume that what is in the Army Field Manual must be deemed, by the military at least, the appropriate guidelines for extracting information from prisoners. Are you in favor of amending the Army Field Manual's guidelines so that torture is allowed?
As a few people have mentioned, the United States has, in the past, punished those who used waterboarding against prisoners because it was considered an illegal form of interrogation--torture. Have we sunk so low that now torture is acceptable?

That Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite has failed to include in her piece her fellow Theology Professor David Ray Griffin's absolute proof, included his "The New Pearl Harbor," that Bush and Cheney committed 9-11, suggests she only teaches theology and doesn't really do it.

"Bring it on" Bush, a Vietnam draft-dodger and consort of $200/hr homosexual prostitute Jeff Gannon/James Guckert, has no morality, tortured or otherwise, is a traitorous closet-queen using the torture of others to feed his perversions and must be tried, convicted and hanged with his nearest thousand accomplices for 9-11 and false war.

Great Article Reverend

If Bush was a leader in another country we would be calling for his arrest.

It is a sad commentary when the “greatest country” in the world authorizes torture. We have set the bar real high haven’t we?

It is so sad that we need to repair the damage Bush and his cohorts have inflicted on the world. After 9/11 we had the world at our door ready to support us. I remember thinking as the second tower came down that this could unite the world. The world was ready to unite. Instead we became what we thought our enemies were. It was an opportunity to help the human race evolve, unite and move past our violent tendencies. We let that slip away.

As much as we as citizens have little authority once a person is in power we do have the power come November. If our government officials are our representatives then let’s make them stand for what WE believe in. Send a message at the voting both.

Mike Meece:

If what you say is true, then it is ok for our captured soldiers to be tortured.

I am not American. What disgusts me more than anything is the repeated use by Bush of the phrase "Our actions are saving American lives" What makes people think that American lives are more important than non-American? Does God value American lives above all others? If the focus was more on humanity as a whole and less on American interests then Bush and America would get a whole lot better press around the world.

Well written! Thank you!

Reverend Thistlethwaite,
I only wish that I could express myself as eloquently as you. I fear for the nations very moral soul, as well as the members of our military if they are captured by our enemies.

I just hope our leaders would read your comments and take heed of there meaning.

Thank you

P.S. To Torture Lovers

Haven't most, if not all, studies done on "Torture" concluded that torturing people does not yield reliable information, in most cases?

That would be a relevant point, don't you think?

T. Traub:

You make the single assertion that "the veto was not support for torture", and then give nothing to back that assertion up. Then you go into a lengthy diatribe against people who are disgusted with George Bush's immorality, as evidenced by his eagerness to go into this senseless war, and in his blatant and cynical disregard for our sacred constitution.

If you're going to be so self-righteously disgusted, at least provide the facts that you're claiming unilaterally to be true.

Thank you, Mike Meece, for being one of the two or three reasonable voices in this talkback forum.

Dear Reverand Thistlethwaite:

The President is seeking to preserve the ability for our highly trained intelligence officials to employ lawful and effective interrogation techniques not contained in the Army Field Manual on a handful of the world's most dangerous terrorists in order to prevent those terrorists from carrying out unspeakable acts of destruction against innocent citizens here in America and around the world. Apparently, the use of these alternative techniques -- which, presumably, maintain their effectiveness in part because we don't broadcast them to our enemies -- has helped to prevent a number of serious attacks.

This position strikes me as perfectly sensible and completely moral; and as the father of two young daughters, I'm grateful to the President for taking it. Moreover, I'd note that John McCain -- who possesses nearly unassailable moral authority on issues of torture and who has not always agreed with the President on these issues -- share's the President's view here, and not yours.

Still, thanks for your commentary. I probably wouldn't have taken the time to study this issue thoroughly but for my strong gut reaction to your views.

Sincerely,

Mike

P.S. -- In case you're interested, here is the section of the bill most objectionable to the President:

SEC. 327. LIMITATION ON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.

(a) Limitation- No individual in the custody or under the effective control of an element of the intelligence community or instrumentality thereof, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.
(b) Instrumentality Defined- In this section, the term `instrumentality', with respect to an element of the intelligence community, means a contractor or subcontractor at any tier of the element of the intelligence community.

I have an idea! Let's test these "alternative interrogation" techniques on Bush and Cheney, and their aides!

Maybe we can find out what their real agenda was for ruining this country.

If it doesn't work, we'll know such techniques are worthless, since these "men" are hardly brave.
Of course, no person claiming to followingv the teachings of Jesus can practice torture without being revealed as a hypocrite and an apostate. So I'll have to pass. I have sins, but none that bad.

Of course, you could probably hire a member of the Republican "religious right" to do it cheaply enough....

How can anyone argue against the Great Inquisitor? Our country was built by men and women who understood the values of freedom, liberty, and "nation of laws". They, then were the great exceptions. The America of today would never have been able to free itself from Great Britain. Regarding morality, Ron Paul was the single solitary vote in congress against the vote commending the Israelis for attacking Gaza and killing 100+ most recently. One voice of reason and valor and patriotism is not enough to sustain this country. It is not just the economy that is going down ...

I say that any method used to obtain information should be acceptable, if we would not object if we saw the same method being used on one of our captured people.

Thank you Rev Thistlethwaite. No one could describe the mind set of the great evil of our time GW Bush better. I am also reminded of  another parody that comes to mind in these times when in our beloved America the Spanish inquisition of the 16th century is celebrated by the followers of this evil inquisitor Bush. That relates to Senator Obama and how the Bush crowd are soiling his reputation. The Senator professes his committment to Jesus Christ as his savior and his Lord and prays to him nightly. The Bush hologans and inquisitors are not satisfied that the Senator is Christian enough for them because of his middle name and the faith of his father. I guess regardless of what the Senator believes in  he is doomed as far as these evil people are concerned. That was the fate of the unfortunate few Jews and Moslems who converted to Christianity rather than leave their homes in 16th century Spain. In the eyes of their inquisitors they were not Christian enough and they were dismemebered and waterboarded to extract the so called truth. Once they were in the hands of the Inquisitors they were doomed regardles because it was the pleasure of torture and not the truth that the inquisitors were seeking. And here we are again in 21st century America bringing back the evil of 16th century Spain thanks to GW Bush.  

Exactly one person in this forum, The Dude, actually bothered to inform himself--the veto was not support for torture--and everyone else has done nothing but make vicious attacks. Nazi, torturer, dictator? What utter nonsense. You may disagree with GW Bush's policies, and you may dislike his speaking style, but without burdening yourselves with actual knowledge of the facts of the situation your rants are pointless.

With regard to water boarding, I suppose it should not be used by a civilized society even against the kind of barbarians we face. But I would invite the commentator and the various frothers at the mouth here to consider a conveniently forgotten fact: thousands of men in prison are raped and beaten in prisons every day all over the country. Thousands of women and children are cruelly raped and abused each year in this country. Is this not torture? Why not wring your hands over these problems and speak out like the good Christians you claim to be, instead of whining over the cruelty of a noninvasive interrogation technique as applied to a few dozen would-be mass murderers?

I would leave you with one final thought. Sooner or later, a terrorist group is going to obtain a nuclear bomb and they will attempt to detonate it in an urban center in America or Europe. Under these circumstances (and spare me the nonsensical argument that George Bush created these terrorists in the first place!) are you willing to allow brutal interrogation techniques that might save literally millions of lives?

The Nazi analogy used earlier is more accurate than many would like to believe. There seem to be many parallels between the jingoistic, rabidly partisan atmosphere that currently pervades our society and that of the beginnings of the Third Reich. Misinformation, extreme patriotism - to the point of being hateful, and a willingness of a large group of people to suspend empathy for their fellow humans who may be different from them in some way are just some of those parallels. All in the pursuit of political, and hence economic, power.
If we truly believe America is one of the greatest countries on the planet, we cannot surrender our souls to those who would have us do so out of fear - largely manufactured - and stand by silently as they decimate our proud and dearly fought for dream. We must stand strong and insist that we maintain the higher standard America has stood for lo these past 232 years.

No library for Bush. Maybe a kind of wax museum would more suitable.
Worst President, ever!

Gardenia,

You lie when you write that Christianity had nothing to do with this vile and repugnant Bush/Cheney Administration.

I would wager that not one Pagan vote went to Bush.

The Christians that put Bush in power - that's right - good Christians --- even Jesus would puke over what all of you Christians have done.

Sincerely,
Providence

George Bush has not been indicted because his illegal wiretapping efforts have been very effective. Those with information to prosecute Bush are being blackmailed into silence. Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with this administration.

How ironic that a literary giant living in tsarist Russia captures America's worst president with such a ring of truth.

I am not ashamed to be an American, but I am ashamed that Bush is an American, and that so many members of Congress from both parties seem oblivious of their collusion.

I believe Dostoevsky's point is, in essence, that the Inquisitor says, to Christ: "WE make them happy. YOU make them free."

Alas. This administration reminds me more of the chapter BEFORE the Grand Inquisitor, which every thinking person should read. Are these leaders the moral equivalents of Dostoevsky's Turks? I understand they enjoy sweets very much.

Thank you for this thoughtful essay.

It seems clear that this administration has used a conservative wedge to prop itself up as on a moral plane from which it continuously slips down further.

The outrage of the veto is this deceit. I appreciate seeing Dostoevsky in this context, so apropos, and clear about the distortion of morality to serve self-interest and expediency. It is a shame, and shameful for all Americans, that we let this man gain the presidency in 2000 and retain it four years later. It is the uncomfortable responsibility of freedom as Thistlethwaite describes, not the flying of a flag and bullying of the oppressed, that will liberate us from the situation in Iraq and in due course liberate the Iraqi people. It is desperate now that this country changes course.

one thing to disagree, another to prosecute. bush should be tried and convicted, any number of charges that relate to such evidently unconstitutional measures. he's a disgrace, and an idiot.

George W. Bush and his conservative "base" are people who delight to observe the misery of others. If they are personally able to contribute to increasing that misery, the pleasure in greatly multiplied. If the individual is too weak to defend themselves as well, the pleasure becomes ecstatic. Such soulless jabbering meat has no place in our nation or on our planet.

"I invite critics and the distinguished members of the press to submit to a sample waterboading to see how safe and non-threatening the process is."

Sure, as son as I get to see Congress using it to interrogate Bush and Cheney. After all, it's safe and non-threatening, much like a picnic, and I'm sure they have very important information that Congress needs to find out about quickly to perform their Constitutionally mandated oversight duties.

If the churches of America do not stand up and tell their Senator and Congressperson to override the president's veto, then the moral fiber of our churces will only reflect the horrendous illmorality of this country. If abortion is wrong, then torture too must be wrong. You cannot declare one wrong and inhumane and the other Ok. Both are wrong. The only problem is, I don't hear the churches screaming from the top of their lungs that we will not accept torture in any form! I don't even hear a whisper from them on this issue. Their silence is deafening. Where is the outrage you Christians? Where are your values?

Although I agree with the substance of Dr. Thistlethwaite's argument against the president's veto (waterboarding is, indeed, torture), I find her invocation of "human dignity" and her shrill denunciations of a "moral nadir" rather incoherent and even hypocritical. At a so-called Interfaith Prayer Breakfast during the annual convention of the Planned Parenthood organization in March 2006, she had the temerity to cite the Western "Just War theory" in her defense of the abortion license:

"But even for those who regard all abortion as the taking of human life, there is still moral precedent within especially of Christian thinking on war and peace to allow abortion. Christians have written at length on when it may be considered moral to engage in war—this is Just War theory. Frances Kissling made a cogent argument in 1991 that if war can be just, then abortion must be also."

A "cogent" argument? Only if one perceives the unborn child as a kind of "unjust agressor" who warrants violent destruction--an absurd (perhaps evil) contention on its face. Dr. Thistlethwaite's tortured defense of the enormity of abortion lends her little credibility to hurl verbal brickbats at "this administration."

It is hypocrisy to say that Abu Ghraib was an aberration and "this is not America" and then as the highest elected official in America, authorize torture.

It is hypocrisy to talk of the rule of law and then repeatedly violate the highest law in the land.

And it is nothing but hypocrisy to say you follow Christ and then, with care and forethought, choose to torture on the basis that the end justifies the means.

Jesus replied, "You hypocrites! Isaiah was prophesying about you when he said, These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away." Mark 7:6

The C-I-C knows what he's doing. I invite critics and the distinguished members of the press to submit to a sample waterboading to see how safe and non-threatening the process is.

Bush, as always, remains true to form. First he was the decider, and now he's the opposer...there has never been a cooperative, bipartisan, multilateral bone in his body.

He wants it known that he gladly owns this war, and will suffer no opposition to his policies - Iraq is his legacy and he's right proud of it. But really, he's just a simple minded contrarian and has never on his best day had the qualifications to be president. That much should be perfectly clear by now to anyone with an ounce of objectivity and even modest intelligence.

His father ran the CIA before he was president and helped Reagan covertly implement the Iran Contra debacle, during which time many were tortured and killed (including many innocents). Why is it that republican administrations invariably support right-wing military dictatorships?? At least until they've served their purpose.......

The only moral imperative these people know is that 'might makes right'. Torture is really not a big deal in their world, as long as it's being inflicted by and for the benefit of the 'good guys'..... certainly a very ambivilant classification when torture is being subborned by elected representatives. I think the expected Bush legacy will not be what he imagines.

The ones that voted for the amoral monstrosity we call the Bush administration are very, very sorry - but who would like to wager that these same sorrowful political penitents will be casting their votes for McCain none the less?

I warrant it will take a lot more than Bushco to persuade republicans to change their stripes.

It is stunning isn't it?

A president who has, not only alienated many of our allies by mocking world-wide attempts to establish a World Court, refusing to uphold the Kyoto Accords, belittling academics far and wide on issues ranging from beneficial scientific research and macro-economics, concocting blatant falsehoods about Iraq (OK--lying), thus creating the worlds largest safe-haven for terrorists; a man who lands on an Aircraft Carrier in a military flight suit--having never seen combat--announcing a victory that never happened, now endorses torture of other people by Americans (while tapping our phones), thus shamelessly disengaging himself from the very religious roots and beliefs he constantly claims (and swore) to uphold--an act contrary to the ethics and beliefs of every military leader and president we've ever had--needless to mention the spirit of our remarkable, far-seeing Constitution and Bill Of Rights.

Anybody see the real man yet?

God help us all.

The longer I live, the more familiar the rationale for violence even in the face of changing times and changing characters. The call for victory as a overall rational to continue violence appears to vindicate the proponents of the original decisions to engage in violence. The momentary euphoria of winning as in a super bowl appears to be the climax sought by the combatants and the community which supports the winning partisans in the contest. Reducing the teams to "good guys" and "bad guys" - good meaning us and bad meaning them seems to help to promote the mantle of righteousness for which anything goes because the cause is greater. Becoming like them (the bad guys) in methods in the service of the good cause seems to have a life of its own. No thought is given to the effects on the perpetrators of this violence. Every generation has probably compartmentalized their violence as a necessary evil in order to defeat the enemy without regard to the inner violence and degradation done to their interior soul or self. Maybe our situation may be like the stories of Moses who had to wait in the desert for a generation before htat generation entering the promised land or the Jesus family leaving for Egypt until King Herod and his regime would pass before returning. Perhaps violence can be overcome by the next generation. I wonder which generation is now coming to the moments of decisions.

America lost from the time George Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court. That was a harbinger of bad things to come. We really should not be surprised. Bush is not a man who thinks and learns so all the glorious history and noble aspirations by the Founders of America are lost to him. Bush's presidency also has shown that democracy can easily be manipulated when the governed are apathetic and ill-informed. Torture has been declared immoral and unlawful by our Military, embodied in its Military Code of Conduct. We can all learn from Bush's regime and hopefully, our government under a different leadership will regain the moral high ground which has served America for more thatn 300 years.

Whatever,

Good observation about the presidential oath of office.

It might be appropriate to mention the beginning of the oath that I took as a soldier in 1968: "I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign...".

I still consider myself bound by that part of the oath. Since Bush has, IMHO, violated the 8th amendment about cruel and unusual punishments, that could make him a domestic enemy.

Arminius

Thank you for your column. This is a pivotal moment in the history of our country. We will save our country and ourselves or head down a path of no return. All considerations, legal, moral, ethical, religous or political would indicate we must turn away from torture and the subversion of the rule of law. Without our core values we are nothing more than a crumbling empire.

John Eley, you forgot to also mention the word "preserve" with respect to the Constitution when mentioning the Presidential Oath of Office.

"...and therefore cannot legitimately question the decisions that the President thought necessary to keep his Constitutional and moral obligations to protect the American public."

We not only have the legitimate right to question the president's decisions, but we have the duty to as well.

Rev Thistlethwaite,

Best essay ever, two thumbs up! What that knuckledragger in the oval office and his benighted crew have done to America and the world makes me ashamed.

Arminius

"...he vetoed the bill because it would broadcast to the world what it is we do during an interogation."
Quite the opposite - it broadcasts to the world what we will NOT do during an interrogation. This is patently obvious, but your statement is typical of the doublespeak that we've had quite enough of. The bill did not list any of the interrogation methods that we use at all, and it's totally disingenuous to say that it did, even by implication. It simply proscribed the use of a despicable practice that puts America on a level with the Spanish Inquisitors, and drives another stake through the moral standing that is preventing us from gaining the respect and cooperation we need - from allies, and from moderate Muslims - to keep us safe from fanatics.

Torture, besides being morally wrong, is ineffective, because anyone will say anything the interrogator wants to hear if they're made to suffer enough.

"Isn't it...a moral problem when a commentator repeatedly mischaracterizes another person's actions to justify their own beliefs."
Yes it is, and that's exactly what you've done here. I suggest you take it up with your pastor and see what he or she thinks of your immoral outrage.

"And the Washington Post thought this issue so unimportant that they ran it on page 8 of the Sunday edition. This should have been a page 1 story."

Right, and in its place we get ridiculous right-wing tripe from the likes of Brent Bozell. If that's not irresponsible journalism, I don't know what is. It's getting harder and harder to distinguish the Washington Post from the Washington Times.

Isn't it also a moral problem when a commentator repeatedly mischaracterizes another person's actions to justify their own beliefs.

President Bush did not veto this bill because he wants to waterboard every person who we detain. he vetoed the bill because it would broadcast to the world what it is we do during an interogation. Anyone can be trained to withstand any type of interogation. Many US service branches currently do this with waterboarding and other common techniques.

By not broadcasting exactly what we will do
to captured enemy combatants, Bush actually keeps our interogation methods more effective. This allows us to get information effectively without torturing. By vetoing this bill Bush doesn't say we'll waterboard or use burning bamboo sticks or any other torture device. It just says that we won't tell people what we're going to do.

In addition, Dems loaded this bill with provisions beyond waterboarding that made it impossible for Bush to accept even without this waterboarding language.

That combination allows a commentator like this to mischaracterize an administration position. Something that as a partisan, she's more than willing to do.

Bush's veto limits no freedoms and compromises no soul. Not yours, mine, or that of the nation.

Bush's legacy will be as the torture president.

John Eley says:

"People who do not sit where he sits and do not bear the responsibilities that he bears cannot possibly appreciate the depth of moral dilemmas that he and those who report to him face."

John, I think you're wrong, and I think I can appreciate it, and I think others can too. Would you have defended Hitler the same way? Because he had such a position of authority, accompanied by so much stress, nobody could rightly judge his decision to murder 6 million people? Sounds silly doesn't it? But that is precisely the arguement you're making.

There are a bunch of other gaping holes in your logic, but why bother.

You wanted to impress us with your intellect by dropping the name 'Reinhold Niebuhr', but instead you embarassed yourself with this ridiculous logic.

I remember, for a while there, Bush's mantra about why we invaded Iraq was that Saddam had "torture chambers and rape rooms" This was after it was pretty well confirmed that there was not a Saddam/9/11 connection, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and that they would not greet us as liberators.

He said it over and over and over. "Torture chambers and rape rooms... torture chambers and rape rooms". Then, at the climax of this incantation......

photos of Abu Graib.

In retrospect, me thinks thou didst protest too much.

Bush was never held accountable for that vile, shameful hypocracy. It was too much for the American pyche. The disgusting photos coupled with his smug lying face. The audaciousness of the lie. They threw most of us into a dumb shocked state. Instead of doing the obvious thing and impeaching him and trning him over to the world court, we started quibbling as to whether water-boarding was or was not torture.

Well it is. And it's still not too late to impeach him, try him in court, and imprison him for a raft of high crimes and misdemeanors and crimes against humanity.

This president's stature is that of a banana republic dictator. I lived in Argentina in the 70's. This is deja-vu. It hurts to see how low our beloved America has sunk. The fact that this subject is even considered open for debate is apalling. The terrorists must be delighted to see this happen.

Christian leaders such as Professor Thistlethwaite never seem to ask the question of the extent to which the President who takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the US against enemies foreign and domestic is bound by ordinary standards of morality, especially those of a Christian variety, when he finds it necessary to take measures that offend the moral sensibilities of others. People who do not sit where he sits and do not bear the responsibilities that he bears cannot possibly appreciate the depth of moral dilemmas that he and those who report to him face. Until they face comparable hard choices and learn how to trade off one moral value against another in situations where they have no choice, they cannot begin to know what they would do and therefore cannot legitimately question the decisions that the President thought necessary to keep his Constitutional and moral obligations to protect the American public. Those who are not willing to ponder the deep moral questions are simply playing a moral trump card designed to stop the conversation. As the late Richard Rorty reminds us, we must keep the conversation going if our democracy is to have any meaning at all. If we allow religious leaders to play trump cards such as moral outrage we might as well adopt the Iranian constitutional system, which even the Iranians want to change. It is too bad that we do not have successor to Reinhold Niebuhr to take on the liberals.

Thanks for your article.
People who claim that waterboarding is not torture must not be aware that the U.S. Government prosecuted one of our own military officers for allowing his soldiers to use the "water cure" against Philippine agents in 1898-99. They called it torture then. The U.S. also called it torture when we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for using waterboarding on US servicemen in the second World War. Suddenly, in 2008, that which we and the International Community has considered torture, is now claimed to be an acceptable U.S. practice.

We should have learned from the Spanish Inquisition that spreading American values to the rest of the world by way of torture is morally bankrupt and undermines the freedom that we claim to cherish.

Christian leaders such as Professor Thistlethwaite never seem to ask the question of the extent to which the President who takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the US against enemies foreign and domestic is bound by ordinary standards of morality, especially those of a Christian variety, when he finds it necessary to take measures that offend the moral sensibilities of others. People who do not sit where he sits and do not bear the responsibilities that he bears cannot possibly appreciate the depth of moral dilemmas that he and those who report to him face. Until they face comparable hard choices and learn how to trade off one moral value against another in situations where they have no choice, they cannot begin to know what they would do and therefore cannot legitimately question the decisions that the President thought necessary to keep his Constitutional and moral obligations to protect the American public. Those who are not willing to ponder the deep moral questions are simply playing a moral trump card designed to stop the conversation. As the late Richard Rorty reminds us, we must keep the conversation going if our democracy is to have any meaning at all. If we allow religious leaders to play trump cards such as moral outrage we might as well adopt the Iranian constitutional system, which even the Iranians want to change. It is too bad that we do not have successor to Reinhold Niebuhr to take on the liberals.