Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't really see a principled reason to think that government agents should have the unbridled discretion to torture people but can't be trusted to decide whether to prosecute others for torture.
As much as anything else, this whole debate is about the Bush Administration's desire to do away with checks and balances so that the executive branch can do whatever the hell it pleases. All government agencies would love to be free of oversight. It doesn't mean they make better decisions -- quite the opposite.
|
The first is kind of a tautology, isn't it? If torture's illegal, then everybody is prosecuted for it, so giving the agents the right to engage it is a crime in itself, isn't it?
I agree on the second point. The real issue here has never been torture. And this Admin should be reined in, dramatically. And you and I, we agree on the need to lessen the scope of the Exec's power. So why then does you side of the political spectrum ask to make the govt so much bigger in other areas? You want more social services, more programs and more oversight. You say govt is a friend and big business is a danger to us when we're talking about entitlements and taxes, but when it comes to branches of the govt using their power as Bush is doing, suddenly you're a Libertarian.
Why don't people like you and I get together around a compromise of shrinking all areas of the govt and reining in its power across the board? I want Bush downsized and caged. He's an idiot who's ruinging our foreign policy and taking us into an endless war. I also want our domestic govt and every program in it sliced to the bare bones. Cut it all. Lets be fair. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a big govt for those who suckle from it and at the same time a small govt when it comes to matters of Exec power. Either the govt is big and broadly powerful or it is small.
Pick.
Threaded Mode