(Updated) Why Are Right-of-Center Bloggers So Silent On The Bush Torture Regime?

Why Are Right-of-Center Bloggers So Silent On The Bush Torture Regime?

Why Are Moderates & Left-of-Center Bloggers So Silent On The Bush Torture Regime?

Because if they looked at the facts, they would observe that Bush is now using the eight amendment to the constitution to wipe his ass, and that the only remedy to this fact is Impeachment.

or you could call the torture enhanced interrogation.

The right of center bloggers are hoping it will just fade away, and for many Americans it probably will, afterall, the sensibilities of the people who inherited this country from the hard work, sacrifice, healthy intellect and morality of others have experienced major downgrades in recent years. The outrage we should be seeing across the board has been replaced with denial and clueless or glib attitudes befitting a country that is no longer in touch with either it's heart or it's head.

Could it just be that they are still too giddy over Limbaugh's new mega $$$ contract & missed it?

The reason you don’t see a lot written on this topic in center-right blogs is that people who lean right tend to use language more precisely than those on left.

Torture has a defined meaning, as do words like fascism, Nazi, lie, recession, war, civil war, domestic spying and dozens of others. Liberals tend to twist the meaning of these words in order to shock and enrage their base. What this does is devalue the word so that when a situation arises when the use is appropriate, it does not have the same impact and meaning.

If there is outrage with the less-than-comfortable techniques used to illicit information from people bent on the murder of millions of Americans, this should be discussed. However, the method should be accurately described so that when actual torture (pliers and blowtorch, for example) is the topic, the word brings to mind the atrocity it truly is.

When your children are being taught the history of people who were actually tortured, do you want them to imagine that the victims were “forced to stand for extended periods”? Does that convey the horror of the experience?

Where is the outrage over DC denying its citizens constitutional rights by banning their ability to own firearms?

Where is the outrage over Barak Obama wanting to step on the constitution by violating the: “the freedom of expressive association.”

It seems Bush has shinned a spotlight on a trend that has been going on for years and now Obama is picking up the mantle. I mean after all hes going to vote for the Fisa wiretaps.

Where is the outrage over that?

Outrage! [tm], PC-selective, or Sixties-legacy-idiocy "therapeutic alienation" [snicker]

And the previous 3 comments illustrate why there is silence...or talk that falls into 3 categories:

1. The "You can't handle the truth!" meme: What we're doing to the terrorists isn't nearly as bad as what you might think we're doing or if it is you have no right to complain because you can't handle it (although we're following Communist Chinese guidelines that in any other place & time are considered torture) (example courtesy of jwest).
2. The "Change the Subject" meme: Well, instead of asking why we aren't mad about torture, why aren't you mad about X, Y & Z (of course, having nothing to do with the subject at hand) (example courtesy of Neocon).
3. The "Name calling" meme: Variations on "You DFH! How dare you question me?!" (example courtesy of DLS)

And just so I can't be accused of not contributing to the topic at hand...wait I am contributing since I was answering Shaun's question, albeit not about right-of-center bloggers but explaining the reactions of right-of-center (to much further right) commenters.

Where is the outrage over DC denying its citizens constitutional rights by banning their ability to own firearms?...........Because the left was happy over this trouncing on the constitution. It served their purposes.

Where is the outrage over Barak Obama wanting to step on the constitution by violating the: “the freedom of expressive association.”...........Because it is a left candidate who is proposing this and therefore they are silent on its constitutionality.

Politics is self serving. That is why the supreme court determines whether laws or actions are constitutional. NOT Shaun Mullen or the man in the street. The president, right or wrong worked off policy laid out by the state department that said its okay to do this or that and once it was defined and cleared he went ahead. Later it was deemed unconstitutional. HOORAY for the US and its system of checks and balances.

BUT if we had to wait on a ruling from the SC everytime we wanted to pass a law and move forward we would be frozen in time and unable to do anything. Get over it. Its how it works.

The left has trampled on the constitution while in power. Not intentionally but they have. Obama is proposing something that is or might be deemed unconstitutional already and hes not even elected yet. Get over it. That is how this country operates.

I have faith that the left will not allow the right to get away with anything and Im confident that the right will not let the left get away with anything and the ultimate decider is a relatively Neutral Supreme Court when their is doubt.

Guess neo, jwest and dls have answered the question. The right is ok with torture (oh, sorry, "less-than-comfortable techniques") even though we have prosecuted those doing exactly the same and denounced these techniques in no uncertain terms. And jwest, they're used on those who *allegedly* or *are under suspicion of* being "bent on the murder..." But few actually are. See "Taxi to the Dark Side" or any of numerous factual accounts of innnocents rounded up and tortured (and sometimes killed) IN OUR NAME. You defenders of torture have shown your true stripes very clearly in these comments. The GOP proudly accepts the mantle of the pro-torture party. Sad.

I believe the U.S. should follow the Geneva Convention concerning these individuals. Of course, that would mean they would be placed against a wall and summarily shot.

The Geneva Convention guidelines are basically a contract between civilized nations on how participants in war are to be treated. They provide for the humane and dignified treatment of prisoners of war who themselves are following the rules, such as wearing a uniform, not using civilians as shields, etc. It also provides the option for extreme (death) penalties for those who are captured who are not abiding by the rules (as with spies).

When a country who is a signatory to this document allows people who were not following the rules the same benefits (or worse, more benefits) as those who do, they undermine the very core of the agreement. This will give others in the future license to rape, murder, use human shields and commit any atrocity they want while knowing that if caught, they will be afforded the same courtesy as honorable soldiers would receive.

By feigning outrage that an enemy combatant is discomforted for a period of time in order to vent on the President, liberals are insuring that our troops and other civilian populations will face enemies who have no fear of committing atrocities, for they know there will be no consequences to their actions.

It's senseless to argue with the pro-torture crowd. I know that. You know that most of those captured were not "enemy combatants" and that there is no serious evidence against them. I have no doubt you would place them against a wall and shoot them. Their blood is on your hands.

Some folks are content to embrace low standards and defend them regardless of facts on the ground, or any evidence contrary to their chosen stances. When it comes to torture, I suspect those are people who may have limited capacity for empathy or perhaps they don't have a great deal of real world experience. In any case, the whole torture debate (not that I would dignify very much of the commentary here as "debate") boils down to those who comprehend why it's unacceptable and those who want to make excuses for something that is at it's core unAmerican.