Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., told The Eagle’s Alan Bjerga Wednesday that he still hasn’t made up his mind whether to support or oppose President Bush’s attempts to legally sanction interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation, stress positions and other practices that opponents say amount to torture.
“We will not walk away from our Geneva Convention obligations,” he said. “I want to listen to what my colleagues have to say.”
It’s good he’s listening, but as we said in Tuesday’s editorial, it would be better if this conservative champion of human rights were leading on this issue.
Or have Brownback’s presidential aspirations complicated his moral principles?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
14 Comments
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17148
Dont televised beheadings violate the Geneva Conventions?
Specifically using torture tactics naming, position, and techique harms the Geneva Convention’s vagueness.
What’s good torture to Bush can be interperted and altered by other countries. Their positions and sleep deprivation techniques are not the same for American soldier captured. Vagueness allows less to happen, basic human rights exist for prisoners.
Brownie is a waffle if he can’t choose between right and wrong on this topic. Pick a side Senator.
If he’s waiting until the political winds change in November, that’s too late and obvious. He’s being a rubber stamp guy for what Bush wants.
Brownback is just an ambitious HACK!! And his failure to take a position on this proves it.
Dont take this guy seriously!!! That is if you ever did.
Randy,
You incorrectly assert that taking a position in favor of Bush would somehow be contrary to Brownback’s moral principles.
Lets wait to see what Brownback actually says instead of you jumping the gun.
Paul you complete and total nincompoop.Beheadings having nothing to do with Brownback’s support of the law.You are suggesting that since terrorists use this tactic, we should also engage in barbaric tactics.I am amazed at your inability to form a coherent, honest argument.I’m embarrassed for you, since you seem to have no shame.
Yes, Paul, they violate Geneva. Therefore I am now fully justified in ignoring the Conventions. The carr Brothers murdered people; therefore I am justified if I murder you.
(Sarcasm off)
meta-comment: Can we avoid the ad-hominem arguments? Please?
Alden-apparently not.
Brownback will never let his morals get in the way of his ambition. After a few days of waffling, he will decide that Bush is correct and that torture in the name of national security is just fine. WWJD if he was running for President? Does a moralist like Brownback actually mean what he says or are his ethics carefully calculated to further his career? Is God watching only when the cameras are on?
It must be a hard decision to weigh. On one hand changing the law opens the way for nations everywhere to torture Americans and hold mock trials in kangaroo courts, the other gets votes from sadistic, anti-American, morally bankrupt people who enjoy seeing people suffer. It’s perplexing that someone actually has to think about their choice in the matter.
The only time Brownback has moral principles is when he is hoodwinking the Christian Conservatives for their votes.
Brownback is ambitious and wants the White House prize. His power and ego will kick in at some point and he will be going for the jugular to get what he wants.
Why worry about Brownback?He is a bible thumping pro-illegal overly ambitious jackass whom is going to get his butt kick out of office in the next election.
He’ll have to phrase his position so it can be interpreted as “torturing for Good”, or “Torturing for God”.
Here’s an article on the torture that CONservative Rethuglicans love so much:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368360.stm
Yeah, we brought freedom to Iraq so they could be tortured without restraint. Paul thinks being tortured with a power drill is no big deal, anyone want to torture Paul a bit, he’ll love it.