Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, December 4, 2008 06:46 AM

  More laws for them to break?

  What is needed in order to put an end to the Bush torture regime are absolute, unequivocal, and transparent legal prohibitions governing interrogations, ones that are devoid of ambiguity, flexibility and secrecy. -- GG

  I guess I should figure this from a lawyer but what good are more laws if people aren't going to follow them? Didn't we have a law against torture before? Weren't the Geneva Conventions supposed to be all we needed? They certainly seemed to be absolute and unequivocal and worked for years until John Yoo and BushCo. What happened to that set of laws? Since they were no longer good enough - didn't McCain sponsor some new law (a farce) which was supposed to stop all the torturing?

  We don't need any new god-damned laws. We have too many of them as it is and the only people subject to them are the peons. Who suffered Courts Marshal and did time for Abu Ghraib? We don't need new laws. We need some real accountability. New laws won't mean shit if there is no accountability. You want to stop torture? Torture team decision makers swinging from ropes (figuratively or literally) is how you stop torture.

  Does anyone honestly think we are a nation of laws and not men at this point? New laws will be about a successful as more Democrats.

  —adnoto Read adnoto's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel