"I want to know what the moral reasoning is for a man who went from being a Freedom Rider to being a torture apologist," Miner asked Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, as some in the crowd applauded. "I want to know how you justify that."
[...]
"Obviously I don't accept your second description," Lieberman said, and then launched into a spirited defense of his recent vote on legislation governing the prosecution and interrogation of terror suspects. The approval by Congress of the detainee bill was considered a significant election-season victory for President Bush and the Republicans. [Hartford Courant. "Lieberman Hit On Torture". 10/7/06]
This has all been lost under the mind-numbing, yet occasionally good, blog coverage of Lieberman and Hastart. Once again we see Sen. Lieberman, a self-proclaimed critic of the Administration , helping the President on his most vile policies. Lieberman can defend it however he likes, espouse all rhetoric about how much these people want to kill us, but the fact is nobody should be tortured or denied due process.
14 comments:
Exactly. Lieberman did well trying to defend the indefensible by saying that enemy combatants do not deserve the same protections as a US citizen - which is true.
However, even though that is true, he needs to be beaten over the head with the two questions suggested here for the next month, because they are essential to American values and HAVE NOT been answered by his statement:
Does anyone deserve torture?
Shouldn't everyone imprisoned by the US have evidence against them, and some understanding of that evidence?
If he can't give satisfactory answers to those questions, he doesn't belong in power representing any party in this country.
perhaps we should also tell the military to stop shooting people who deserve "due process"
the yankees season will be over today just as Joe Lieberman's will be on November 7th. Vote Ned Lamont!! There is alot of work left to be done, but our ship is ganing ground.
> anonymous 4:16pm: perhaps we should also tell the military
> to stop shooting people who deserve "due process"
By your logic, all prisoners of war should be shot, because they'd be shot on the battlefield anyway.
Neo-Cons: Leading Us Forward Into The Seventeenth Century
Lieberman doesn't consider arabs Human Beings,It's really that simple.
His "nobody apologized to us for 9/11" statement said it all.Joe blames ALL ARABS and does everything in his power to dehumanize them in order to justify the collective punishment he thinks is in Israels interest.Thats all part of the neocon gameplan.
I can agree about torcher; it degrades both the torcherer and the country that permits it.
Due process is different. The processes should be different for enemy soldiers, combatants and non-combatants on the one hand and disengaged citizens on the other. Have you never heard the expression "do the due process to others as they do the due process to you?" It simply makes no sense to treat oranges as if they were apples. That is not justice; it is foolishness.
We're getting close to the wire here and we've allowed Lieberman to steal some of Lamont's thunder.
Now, it's time to refocus on Lamont exclusively! Is there any way the state democrats could get Bill Clinton here to motivate the state dems and put an arm around Lamont? Clinton seems to be the only one with forceful democratic campaign spirit!
Let's stop hanging on to Lieberman's every word. Ignore him. Make him the insignificant speck of lint that he is.
Lieberman has stolen no thunder from Lamont. Lamont goes around and is surrounded by audiences brimming with positive energy. Lieberman goes around and is surrounded by audiences that often dog him and make him squirm. That's not thunder to me. People need to stop rewriting world history based on one week of polling, The Daily Show had a great piece a few days ago about how the polls contradicted each other week-to-week; however, if you looked at the graph they presented of four major polls, there were definitely long-term peaks and valleys that each poll was registering, you just have to look at patterns cumulatively with polls for a relevant analysis.
Keep in mind all things are relative, as the last two months had less overwhelming national coverage of this race, relative to the month before the primary and this last month before the general; Allen/Web got much more TV coverage, and then this Foley thing just exploded, directly impacting every controversial race in the Senate to a greater degree than this one. But Lamont/Lieberman is still ultimately going to be the biggest referendum on the biggest issue of election day, and so the full-force media coverage will continue to ramp back up.
This of course is great news for Lamont, as all he really has to do is get as much face time and talking time possible, and he'll win. His speech at Friday's rally substantively appeals more to liberals, moderates, AND many conservatives than Lieberman's rhetoric; it articulates a very clear, security-oriented, logical, pro-military stance, and many of the people I saw most inspired by the speech were middle-aged and older veterans, typically a more conservative voting block. In addition, any time there's a major issue in America, a candidate who uses common sense arguments when no other politician is doing so will appeal across party lines; people like straightforwardness, and they like practicality.
Furthermore, any time the two candidates spend on the same stage benefits Lamont and hurts Lieberman, who acted very condescending in the primary debate, as if he felt his challenger was beneath him and had no right to be running against him; that aristocratic hubris of entitlement is the kiss of death in American politics, and was the final nail in his coffin with undecided voters in the primary (a mistake he will most likely repeat this time around in the general).
I agree with anonymous 10:33 pm that although torture and absence of process are unacceptable, US citizens do nonetheless deserve more rights than enemy combatants. As I pointed out earlier, Lieberman was smart to articulate this truism as it buys him a little time, but ultimately does not answer the two main questions involved here.
Here we go again with the "far left" again, that fringe group of 66% of Americans who say the Iraq war has not made America safer from terrorism. Why can't those leftist nuts be more like moderate Republicans in the House, who represent the traditional values of the American people, such as covering up Congressman chasing teenage boys under their care for over a decade, while simultaneously winning the party's President re-election based on putting an anti-gay marriage iniative on the ballot.
Let's just hope you're right that that fringe majority of voters doesn't somehow succeed in holding our state hostage come election day.
shdow and BMG, by your apparent theories the military should attempt to apprehend terorists without violence since they are entitled to "due process"
Perhaps we can have a reprise of the California case with the heirs of a murderous bank robber suing the LAPD for shooting him and not getting him medical attention fast enough to prevent his death.
I prefer to follow the George Patton model to the Johnny Cochran model of security
Did you know that 11 Democrats in total voted for this bill - NOT only Joe Lieberman?
Did you know that terrorists don't have anti-torture laws? They simply cut the heads off people once they are done torturing them.
Did you know that votes on bills like this demonstrate why Americans don't trust Democrats enough to protect our security?
this unaffiliated voter is going for Lamont. the simple fact is that all of the candidates have bird brain supporters of one type or another but Lamont is now gaining the support of some credible people on the national scene including some that have experience with national defense and national security.
Bug Eyes Lamont hasnt got a chance in hell of winning in November Because you Liberals have used up all the ammunition and people just arent buying the immediate Iraq Withdrawal message no more.
Post a Comment