Comments on: Whoops! Lindsey Graham Cites Retracted Report As Proof Torture Worked

By: jon

jon — Thu, 14 May 2009 10:20:51 +0000

why doesn’t the stench of your hypocrisy sicken you?

By: MoeHoward

MoeHoward — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:05:12 +0000

I was burning mad, watching Huckleberry attempt to justify torture by virtue of the fact that it’s been used for so long….what an embarrassment.

By: Gothfather

Gothfather — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:47:15 +0000

Hmm, that vapid staring off into the distance…a new signal of the repug intelligentia’s approach to anything? Or was he just distracted by a ’shiney’ thing?

By: Pam , S.C.

Pam , S.C. — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:35:47 +0000

Now you see what happens when a state like S.C. doesn’t invest in education . We get Lindsay Graham .

By: LL

LL — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:16:06 +0000

From now on, when someone cites the “ticking time bomb” defense of torture, I want to hear a reporter ask “well, ok. If it’s ok to torture people because they might have information that might prevent an imminent attack, is anything off limits? I mean, can we torture their children in front of them to make them talk?”

And when the torture-defender tries to squirm out of the question, which they would inevitably do, said reporter should ask “hey, once you open the door, and say it’s ok to torture people to save American lives, what’s the different between torturing them to death–something we’ve already done to completely innocent people, by the way, just in case you had forgotten, Mr. Cheney–and torturing their families in front of them to make them talk? You want to save American lives, right? You’d do anything to save American lives, right? You’re willing to torture someone who may *or may not* have the information you seek, who may be guilty or innocent, to save American lives, why not waterboard his daughter right in front of him? If she dies, well, we’re trying to save american lives here, right?”

These torture-defenders, like Cheney and Graham, are beneath contempt, when they’re not actively scary. Cheney is just trying to paper over his crimes…his comments and those of his defenders, make very little sense when subjected to rational scrutiny. I suspect he knows that, which is why he makes those comments to friendly audiences only.

He’s a scum-bag and a coward and a moral degenerate of the worst kind. Never should have allowed anywhere near the levers of power.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:07:19 +0000

It’s just a shame that Lindsey Graham has lost all integrity. I used to respect him. In between when he called for Clinton’s impeachment and about 7 months ago.

He’s simply an opportunist who is polite.
Lindsey, come toward the light of truth away from the darkness of
the Party of Torture.

By: Peter Principle

Peter Principle — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:58:08 +0000

Lindsey Graham: I was against torture before I was for it.

By: Jeff W

Jeff W — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:13:18 +0000

Well duh, you can’t exactly expect a Republican to be able to read a newspaper, can you?

By: kelly

kelly — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:09:43 +0000

What really irked me was the limited time for this hearing. An hour and a half? Not nearly long enough and I hope Senator Whitehouse has a chat with his staff and gets his agenda in cue with hearings where he isn’t flying out of the room to catch a plane.

It was a stupid move and gave Graham the floor all to himself to blab on and on.

By: sbv

sbv — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:07:16 +0000

why is it cheney reminds me of blago with less hair. both are attempting to defend themselves and their actions while also attempting to affect the “jury pool.”

whether it worked or not, is not the question, only the pea in the shell game con. there is no quid pro quo – we tortured and we have not been attacked again; and further, we are now less safe because we no longer torture.

when people like cheney and lindsey graham defend this country’s use of torture, it brings shame and dishonor to the millions of americans who have given their lives to protect this country’s history, values and constitution.

By: classicalgregg

classicalgregg — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:06:52 +0000

Please tell me, please! That the debate is not going to degenerate into whether torture WORKS or not. That is SO not the issue. We are talking legality and morality NOT results of the process…I HOPE our legislatures are not that ignorant.
Here is an example of that mentality. Murdering your spouse quiets arguments. It works every time.

By: DR

DR — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:05:59 +0000

The question isn’t whether we do it to our own troops during SERE training.

The question is, if our troops are captured by the Iranians (as they have in the past) is it okay if the Iranians waterboard our troops to make sure they aren’t spies.

By: GenDisarray

GenDisarray — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:59:10 +0000

Confounded facts!

By: woland

woland — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:39:22 +0000

JoyceH and Aswad make great comments. The only persons I’ve heard counter the absurd argument that SERE subjects experienced torture are Eugene Robinson and Jesse Ventura. When Robinson countered this absurdity to Liz Cheney she had no response so she jumped to another point.

I’m tired of these sycophantic reporters and commentators who don’t challenge these conservative jackasses like the Cheneys when they make logically absurd arguments.

By: TheraP

TheraP — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:31:44 +0000

SERE training is voluntary, time-limited, and they have “safe words” they can use at any point. Those who’ve gone through the training report that they’re supposed to be able to give up when it’s too stressful, and that those who go as far as getting waterboarded are the ones who were not smart enough to give up sooner. Most are not waterboarded, only the hold-outs.

SERE can be nothing like being a true captive, treated like dirt, held without any judicial recourse whatsoever, with no end in sight and all of it, not just waterboarding, being cruelty, torture, and degradation.