Comments about ‘Protesters rail against torture, war’

So the usual small fringe group of protesters showed up to protest something, again.

That is certainly their right.

However, they do not have a right to get their antics and rants published in a newspaper.

Send your reporters out to cover some real news. Or give them the day off.

I am sure the Tribune will be puffing up these chronic complainers far more than they deserve, but there is no need for the Deseret News to waste the time or ink to give them the undeserved attention they crave.

These "protesters" should begin by defining what they mean by torture. Most of us can agree on much of what clearly amounts to torture. But where -- exactly -- does one draw the line?

These people seem very sure of themselves, but if put in a position where the need for information from a prisoner may mean life or death for innocent people, could they really draw a clear line between acceptable interrogation techniques and techniques that are unacceptable?

Any protest that accuses government leaders of engaging in torture should begin with a clear definition of that word. After all, that's really what their "protest" hinges on.

So these folks have to continue to go back after the Bush Administration to protest a war. Why not protest Kennedy and Johnson for the Viet Nam War? How about Truman for the Korean Conflict and dropping the A-Bomb on Japan? What about Roosevelt for getting us into WWII? Oh - that's right - all of those Presidents were Democrats - we can't have that!!

Robert,

You should have attended the event and many of your questions would have beeen answered. The truth is that torture has been well defined by U.S. Law and ratified international treaties for decades. We've even executed Japanese war criminals for water boarding. Still, the meat of your question is in a situation where "the need for information from a prisoner may mean life or death for innocent people" could I draw that line?

Yes, I could. I'm an Iraq war veteran and I've faced the dangers that you're talking about. Torturing is still wrong even if you're scared. We need to stop being scared and start standing up for American morals and standards. It is unAmerican to torture, and that's final.

Beyond that, if you had attended the rally yesterday, you would have heard from two experienced military interrogators, one from the Korean War and one from several of the current conflicts, talk about how torture does not produce actionable intelligence. So, Robert, stop being scared and stand up for morals. You know what torture is. Don't let anyone do it in your name.

Of course, because we all know Iran, Iraq & the Taliban didn't ever torture anybody or kill innocent people. If waterboarding is the worst that happened to these monsters, they have a lot to be thankful for.

Marshall, thank you for your service.

I understand from the report that the dozens of people attending the event were 10 to 20 times the number of criminals (3) who were actually waterboarded.

Dozens? sounds like a real big deal to me. I guess Rocky hadn't seen his name in the paper for a while and he was suffering from publicity withdrawal. were those all the friends he could scrape together?

"We're putting an emphasis on human life," said Andy Figorski, an infantryman with the 82nd Airborne who suffered brain damage after his helmet was struck with a round during an ambush in Iraq. "The military isn't the only way you can serve your country. There are things like this. You can be for your country but against war."

You could go on a mission to France or work to elect Mitt. :-)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. To all those that say " yeah but the enemy is cutting off our heads and we're just pooring water on them" The fact that we have a line is what makes us the "good guys" and them the terrorists, the moment that line disapears we are no longer the good guys, we become terrorists fighting a competing faction.

Before you protest perhaps you should check the numbers,

HOW MANY were murdered, raped, and tortured by Saddam in same amount of years before the war?

I should think a great deal more.

NO matter how you add it up things are better.


And will you protest about the many more that WILL be murdered, tortured after the US leaves?

Ok, Honesty, don't you really know that the US was Saddam's strongest ally when he actually had weapons of mass destruction and was using them against the Kurds?!
Only the deluded could believe that the Iraqi people are better off now than before the illegal US war of aggression (a crime for which people were tried and convicted at Nuremberg). Haven't you read all of the accounts (including in the Deseret News) about the tragedies suffered by the Iraqi people because of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq? And, why again did we invade? The reason we were given before the invasion was weapons of mass destruction. Only after no weapons were found were we told that it had something to do with the interests of the Iraqi people.
Do all of you think the US should just walk away from the Geneva Conventions, from the principle of customary international law that strictly forbids torture, and from the Convention Against Torture? Or should those treaties, ratified by the US, apply only to other nations and not the US?

The question is not how many people were tortured, when all can agree that at least some people were water boarded and subjected to other forms of torture. The fact that other governments and entities have tortured people is also irrelevant. The point is that crimes have been committed, and there should be trials. Look at the situation from a domestic standpoint: if somebody mugged another person, we would expect the mugger, once apprehended to stand trial. The defense attorney might argue all sorts of situational ethics, but that would occur during an actual trial. That's all I'm asking for with those accused of war crimes. I'm just asking for Justice. The amount of people tortured and the actions of other countries are irrelevant. In a developed society, crimes should be punished.

Why is SOME torture acceptable? We're better than countries that torture. No circumstances should allow us to abandon our principles and morals as a nation and torture human beings.
And if torture, and other war crimes, have been committed in our names as American citizens, then justice must be served. We made a mistake when similar crimes weren't brought to justice during the Vietnam War and history repeated itself.
We can't let it happen again, which is why we must see justice served this time.

War is not peace, when aggressive, and when the possible motive is wealth...
there should have been and should be clear conflict of interest issues, that do not allow a person( congress person) to vote for war, and that is if they have potential ties for wealth in the matter..
I believe the Great Law of peace of the United Iriquois nation forbid the chiefs who called any war to take any profitfor themselves/family.. as to encourage peace and war only as to defend themselves and thier families..
the fact of the matter is , the Congress appears to have violated the Constitution is deferring their aye , naye , (and accountability to the people in their state ,) by deferring such to the president. ( unconstitutional ). what a bunch of chicken...The reason for check and balance is that one person does not make such a decision,... They should all be recalled..
A republic is order by representation under the unity of secure written governing instrument of law. USA Constitution...

camilliadolson.wetpaint.com

Well here you are. I was wondering where all the antiwar protesters were. Since you all disappeared from view I figured it was ok for a Obama to wage war but not a Bush. Why have you all been so strangely silent? Did Nancy shorten your leashes and put a muzzle on you?