Comments on: The Panetta Appointment and the Torture Issue

By: Mark Woodworth

Mark Woodworth — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:50:15 +0000

“Torture is either good or evil; it cannot be good at one time or bad at another.”

Isn’t this a lot like saying “Shoving old ladies is either good or evil; it cannot be good to shove them out of the way of oncoming buses and bad to shove them into the path”.

Or “Slicing open women’s bellies is either good or evil; it cannot be good to slice them to deliver babies by Caesarian section and bad to slice them to deliberately cause a painful death”.

Or “Taking property by force is either good or evil; it cannot be good to take property as taxes to fund the common good and bad to steal from neighbors for personal enrichment”

It seems to me that the context and purpose of an act are critical in determining whether it is evil or not. I don’t think you can simply rule an act evil regardless of context or purpose.

I am not arguing for torture. I am just not convinced by this line of arguing against it.

By: MG

MG — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:09:54 +0000

Perhaps the CIA is no longer the center of US intelligence collection or analysis. And, after its recentinsurrection against the President, I think reorganizing them to the periphery of national security makes sense.

By: Sullihan

Sullihan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:15:58 +0000

I have known Panetta for over 30 years. Unlike most of the faces in Washington, Panetta through a little luck and a lot of hard work his a totally self made political career. He was never anybody’s protege. Consequently, except for his family, he does not owe anything to anybody. When first elected to Congress in 1976 his district had not elected a Democrat since 1944. so why did he appeal to a lot of voters who voted for Ford and then Reagan? First, he is patriot. Second, deeply religious, even moralistic. Third, an amiable smile masks a steel backbone which is based on principles, not politics. Finally, I believe he was disillusioned by Bill and Hillary Clinton during his tenure as White House Chief of Staff, and left at the end of the first term because he did not want to be around to clean up after them. All in all, the historical character he reminds me of is Sir Thomas More. A great man serving his country within a corrupt system for a bad King. And like Sir Thomas More, I expect his “friends” to be his worst enemies.

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:28:02 +0000

“…until that of George W. Bush.”

I am a bit confused. What about the Bill Clinton administration? At the very least, his folks sent suspected terrorists to countries where they would be “more thoroughly interrogated.” Has this fact disappeared into the memory hole?