the hospital laptop's being returned to alec's room mouseless, i find i cannot cut and paste, which would make responding a LOT easier!
you put forth a well-crafted position and deadly (for a democracy) historical analogies. what to do? vote in november. write a strongly worded letter of protest to your congressperson. write a letter to the editor of the new york times or washington post...
i think we'd probably all agree that assigning extra-constitutional powers to the president (including the right to torture) and placing him/her above accountability are not going to be found in any u.s. civics course. nor should it be tolerated. i guess my november vote will be my formal protest.
we should be worried about the long run, i guess, but i am (perhaps naively) hoping that set term limits would make creating a dictatorship or fiefdom difficult.
of more immediate concern to me is the reality that *my* government feels the need to get a legal stamp of approval on acts of torture!!?? that's not what america is about; basic respect for civil rights being one of the tenets that *separates* us from sadd*m's ilk.
i am not totally naive and of the belief that if we all joined in a group hug, we could be all one world and enjoy a coke - wait, that was already tried, wasn't it (g) - , but, to my mind, there is a huge gulf between "torture" and "accepted techniques of interrogation." i know we are talking about fanatics...but torture doesn't necessarily elicit a *better* truth...and how can we convince people that we hold to a higher ethic if we no longer do? and what about people who may hold extreme views, but are innocent of wrongdoing? where does the line get drawn? it's a quagmire that we don't belong in, ethically, and the taxpayers will have to pay for it many times over, including all the legal fees for each participant when the inevitable senate hearings take place.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-15 06:15 pm (UTC)you put forth a well-crafted position and deadly (for a democracy) historical analogies. what to do? vote in november. write a strongly worded letter of protest to your congressperson. write a letter to the editor of the new york times or washington post...
i think we'd probably all agree that assigning extra-constitutional powers to the president (including the right to torture) and placing him/her above accountability are not going to be found in any u.s. civics course. nor should it be tolerated. i guess my november vote will be my formal protest.
we should be worried about the long run, i guess, but i am (perhaps naively) hoping that set term limits would make creating a dictatorship or fiefdom difficult.
of more immediate concern to me is the reality that *my* government feels the need to get a legal stamp of approval on acts of torture!!?? that's not what america is about; basic respect for civil rights being one of the tenets that *separates* us from sadd*m's ilk.
i am not totally naive and of the belief that if we all joined in a group hug, we could be all one world and enjoy a coke - wait, that was already tried, wasn't it (g) - , but, to my mind, there is a huge gulf between "torture" and "accepted techniques of interrogation." i know we are talking about fanatics...but torture doesn't necessarily elicit a *better* truth...and how can we convince people that we hold to a higher ethic if we no longer do? and what about people who may hold extreme views, but are innocent of wrongdoing? where does the line get drawn? it's a quagmire that we don't belong in, ethically, and the taxpayers will have to pay for it many times over, including all the legal fees for each participant when the inevitable senate hearings take place.