September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Darwinism | Main | Nothing you could say can tear me away from my guy »

Apr 29, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

JC

" This is about more than an opportunistic Senator saving his own hide."

I'm not sure it is. I don't think it took a lot of courage for Specter to change parties. By his own admission, he wasnt willing to face tough opposition and be judged by his own party.

What if he would have ran in the primary, lost, ran as an independent, and won (see Joe L)? Would his message to the GOP not have been vindicated? If this was about the GOP leaning too far to the right, why not just become an independent?

I've heard that the rules for an independent or third party candidate run in PA is somewhat difficult, but for a man of his political longevity surely he could have found a way.

For the record, I think a lot of what he said yesterday, and is being echoed today by Snowe, is spot on. Too bad Specter doesnt have the guts to really do anything about it.

Sven

By his own admission, he wasnt willing to face tough opposition and be judged by his own party.

Yeah, it's really quite amazing he wasn't up for that.

winstongator

JC - Specter did not have the option of running as an independent after losing the primary, as Lieberman did.

Ed Cone

JC, when I say it's about more than Specter himself, I'm referring to the 200,000 former Republicans in his state and the impact their defections has on the party, which now seems likely to contract around harder-line candidates like Toomey.

You can write Specter off as the worst guy ever, those numbers are pretty telling nonetheless.

JC

Thanks Winston. This quote has been attributed to Specter from Mel Martinez.

"He said: 'I've looked at the polls. I can't win as a Republican, I can't win as an independent. The only way I have a shot is to be a Democrat.'"

Roch101

What Winstongator means, JC, is that Pennsylvania has a "sore loser" law that does not one to run as in independent in the same election after running in and losing a party primary.

Spag

"The GOP is left, for the moment, to root for the latter, which is not much of a platform."

Exactly what you Democrats did for the past eight years- even when the lives of American troops were at stake.

The hypocrisy again is unbelievable.

Roch101

Sam, if a US citizen is waterboarded at the hands of foreign captors, is that permissible torture or impermissible torture?

Spag

Roch, US law would not apply to acts committed by foreign captors against US citizens unless committed in a US territory, so applying any legal standard based on US law is pointless.

So if you want to clarify whether you are invoking the legal definition of torture or a personal one, I may be able to provide you with a better answer.

Roch101

Then remove the application of US law, which I did not include in my question. (Or, if it is easier, you might just try "right or wrong.")

Spag

Right or wrong depends on the purpose of it. If it is just for the hell of it, then it is wrong against anyone. What the previous discussion has been about is the legality of the act and whether it is torture or not. It is a form of torture, but in my opinion does not meet the definition of torture as defined by US law and therefore would not be illegal under US laws that govern torture.

Roch101

What is it with you modern conservatives? You used to be they guys who could tell the rest of us with authority what was right and what was wrong. You used to keep the liberals in their place by chastising them for their situational ethics. Now it seems as if moral judgments are too difficult (or at odds with party allegiance). I'll try for the eleventh time for a straight answer: Would waterboarding a US citizen by foreign captors to get him to reveal information he did not wish to reveal be right or wrong?

meblogin

If the last name of the US citizen was Madoff...geez..tough call. What the heck...waterboard him....he will be ok a few minutes later.

Spag

It depends on the value of the information, Roch and the purpose to be gained. The fact that he is a citizen of the US is irrelevant to the question since you are now talking about morality as opposed to legality.

Let me ask you a question: Is ripping a baby from a mothers womb wrong or right?

We can play this game as long as you want to.

Jeffrey Sykes

Meet Arlen.

Roch101

"It depends on the value of the information, Roch and the purpose to be gained."

Let's remove the Tinkerbell suppositions. There is no way to know in advance the "value" of the information to be gained or if any will be gained at all. So, since the possibility of the ends justifying the means cannot be known in advance, I'll ask again: Would waterboarding a US citizen by foreign captors to get him to reveal information he did not wish to reveal be right or wrong?

Spag

Roch, your logic is failing you.

Grabbing a guy off the street and waterboard him under the belief that he may know about some terrorist plot is not the same as grabbing a known high ranking terrorist and waterboarding him about possible other terrorist attacks, especially when that terrorist first tells you under normal interrogation that "you will find out soon" what is going to happen next.

Roch101

Okay. So would waterboarding a US citizen by foreign captors to get him to reveal information he did not wish to reveal be right or wrong?

Spag

It depends on what the information is. I don't know how many times I can answer that.

Suppose you are walking down the street with your girlfriend and a man jumps out and grabs her with the apparent intent of taking her somewhere, raping her and then killing her. Do you let him just take her or do you cause him a few moments of discomfort by kicking his ass in order to save her life?

Roch101

Thanks, Sam. You've answered.

The comments to this entry are closed.