|the "torture 9"
||[Nov. 10th, 2005|04:46 pm]
Remember the TV commercial about "4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless gum for their patients that chew gum"? Do you remember wondering after that who these rebel dentists were that recommended sugared gum instead?
On that line of thought, I googled to find out who the 9 Senators were that thought explicitly banning torture was not worth voting for. They are:
You may recognize the names of Tom "Lesbianism rampant in the schools" Coburn and Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens, but I don't have any wacko dirt on the other 7. But I'm now inclined to think the very worst about them.
Fun fact: Coburn wanted Stevens' bridge killed, in favor of reconstructing New Orleans with that $223 million. Stevens threw a hissy, which made my jaw drop when I saw the clip on the Daily Show. My solution: since both men do not explicitly disapprove of torture, Coburn should now be able to use, shall we say, unapproved "lobbying" methods on Stevens until he agrees to reappropriate the bridge money. Everyone wins.
'No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.'
Over the last few years, I've seen some remarkably flexible definitions of "inhuman" and "degrading". "Degrading" very often seems to work out to meaning "whatever the US may be doing".
I'd expect a lot of judges, when handed a law like this, to just go to town on the question of what level of solicitude for the delicate sensibilities of peace-loving Islamist terrorists is required to avoid the stain of "degrading" them. (Yes, when I'm tired my sentence structure gets out of control...)
So while I am much happier about rampant lesbianism than Tom Coburn is, I think he voted right on this one.
'The question here isn't whether the peace-loving terrorists deserve to be tortured, but whether we're the sort of types that torture.'
I'm just fine with banning "torture". I am not just fine with banning everything which some judge may construe as "inhuman" and/or "degrading".
In fact, I'm fine with declaring open season on "degrading" terrorists, if we think it'll do some good.
If we passed a law against ineffective behavior to terrorists, we'd have to lock up the entire government. Where would we keep them?
Who was the Senator who didn't vote at all? As I recall is was 90-9.
2005-11-11 04:41 am (UTC)
Allard is kinda funny in that Hitler loved Jews kind of way. I do dig his logic on why he voted against it. Since we all know its wrong and the parties directly involved have been punished one way or another, they should't have to make a law against it.
I like his logic. Using his methodology, we can get rid of a lot of silly laws. For example, there hasn't been a serious attempt on the presidents life in some time and the last person who did try is sorry he did. Therefore we shouldn't have to make it against the law. Our society has learned its lesson and should be trusted to know better in the future...
Google on inhofe idiot, and you'll get wacko dirt on at least one more of the bunch. Inhofe pops up from time to time not as an example of the wackos, not as an extreme right-winger, but rather an extremely wacko far right-winger.
He is good for the occasional palm-slaps-forehead or head-smacks-desk maneuvers, however.