- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
- You know, let's not even worry about the City Commissioners office messing up voter registration processing
- Bold ideas to fix the budget
- Mayor Nutter's Town Hall Meeting Schedule
- City Releases Library Information to City Council
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: torture just fine with me.
Submitted by Hannah Miller on Sun, 11/04/2007 - 2:23am.
I know most of you are pissed off at Chuck Schumer...but...
Excuse me??? Did this really happen??!?!?
Dianne? Our Dianne?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein. The first woman mayor of San Francisco. One of the most ridiculously liberal Democrats in the country. So insanely liberal no one thought she'd get elected.
A twenty-year veteran of the LGBT struggle (she's actually a heroine in an opera about the assassination of Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk). Child care. Anti-apartheid movement. Medical marijuana. Multilingual.
It was kind of cool and scary that we even got to send her to the US Senate in the first place. We all knew she had to conform somewhat.
But not this.
With her vote today, as a United States Senator,
she said
that the people of California
believe that torture
is acceptable
within American jurisprudence.
With Nancy Pelosi (D-San Mateo) as her backup.
The problem is this: I don't think most Californians think torture is okay.
So I guess after all that struggle... California, after all, is not going to be on the vanguard of the revolution? Wow.
La lucha sigue, Dianne.
Hannah
Bookmark/Search this post with:
correction
Nancy Pelosi is from the 8th in SF. But I think she started in the south bay.
She is not really a
She is not really a progressive Senator now, nor has she been over the course of her career, unless you think the Senate Dem caucus is a lot more to the left than I do.
She voted for the Iraq war, and her progressive punch lifetime score puts her as the 30th most progressive Senator- basically right around your median Democrat.
I've calmed down about
I've calmed down about this.
The Rs just wanted to make an example out of her and Schumer. Jerks.
Whatever. It doesn't matter. There ain't nothing on god's green earth that can stop what's going to happen to those stupid cowboys in 2008. Because the deal is - you may not tell justice where your party is, but if she wants to crash it, she finds you.
"ridiculously liberal' Feinstein
As a "progressive" and with the continual re-evaluation of one's "ideals" isn't possible that she has in fact become a supporter of torture after careful revamping of her so deeply held yet so superficial ideals?
Why are you upset, can't she be "out of the box" on one or two (or 20) subjects and still remain a darling of the left?
I thought you embraced individual thought?
Jeerleader
Interesting.
I know this is not to your main point, but I simply have to ask this. I can't help but wonder - since you chose to answer this post in the way you did - are you personally in favor of the use of torture?
I'd love to hear your argument.
Is it safe? IS IT SAFE????
Personally I think that the formal rules of war are a worthwhile thing for nations to abide by.
I do not think that we owe each and every protocol to every human on the planet that takes up arms against us. I think that we should apply them as considerations we will honor for the other side playing by the rules. If an enemy does not play by the rules they should not automatically be afforded those protections. Treating illegal combatants as POW's with the accordant privileges and considerations is in fact violating those very rules because they do not meet the criteria to be characterized POW.
I do not think we (the USA) should remove any apparatus or action from our disposal (even if we never use it). Having the enemy believe you can be ruthless is useful, not evil. Publicly stating we will never
torture anyone will be equated with weakness by the present horde of throatslitters we are fighting. This is where I believe the democrat's votes are based. It seems many democrats are having conflicts with the democrat "base" on this but national security takes precedence over blind loyalty to the moonbat left. I congratulate Feinstein and the others for holding the nation's interests first.I really don't care to hear the argument that we are better than them, especially from the left; it is nauseatingly hypocritical considering your constant moral relativism.
So odd that you would have that opinion
Given that it is in direct contrast to the stated opinion of our current administration ("The US does not turture"), as well as the recommendation of most interogation experts, as well as the recommendation of the majority of the intelligence community as to how to best undermine the popularity of Jihadism.
One might think, on that basis, that you are more interested in political expediency than you are in undermining the ability of extremists to gain popular, political, and military power.
But it isn't odd that someone who repeatedly makes an argument that s/he denies believing would have a perspective as illogical as thinking that having a reputation as torturers is somehow advantageous for Americans; it's entirely consistent.
And BTW, is this quote:
Yet another example of your interest in good faith debate?
A dealbreaker
In reality the issue is much larger than just
gun rightstorture.Gun rights areTorture is the canary in the coal mine so to speak; a politician'shostility for gun rightswillingness to condone torture speaks loudly on their general understanding/ affinity for the traditional concept of liberty, (beingunencumbered by purposeless restraintsfree from cruel unlawful punishment and legislative acts repugnant to the Constitution and the conscience).--Tim
Who Me???????
That's all so very compelling except non-US citizen illegal combatants on foreign soil are not afforded the rights and privileges of the COTUS.
If one is personally against torture then that's a fine and moral stand to take. Me, I'm just keeping my feelings on torture to myself; I feel it's best to keep everyone guessing.
Torture & Diane Feinstein
1. Diane Feinstein is hardly a liberal Senator. she is a DLC clone who as Mayor of SF was a real enemy of renters and poor peoples property rights.
2. There main reason we do not engage in torture is to protect our soldiers from being tortured. In WWII when it was discovered the appalling abuse of GIs by the Japanese, many units stopped taking live prisoners.
3. Torture does not work. It gains very little useful information.
4. Do us all a favor and tell the gun discussion participants to break and go to separate corners.
I just wonder what it means
I just wonder what it means about us as a culture that the news on the TV is currently dominated by the question, is it wrong to take a pair of pliers and rip out someone's toenails, or shackle someone to the floor and nearly drown them, or break peoples' fingers or rape them or nearly freeze them to death...or something we tolerate, like the annoying need to separate one's plastic bottles from one's diet coke cans before you drive them both to the recycling center in your gus-guzzling SUV?