From Juan Cole:
The great shame of it all is that Alberto Gonzales was confirmed as Attorney General despite it being widely known that he had played a central role in attempting to authorize the use of torture on prisoners in US custody. He had tossed aside the US Constitution's own prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" (such a wimpy bleeding-heart liberal document).
....
The great shame of it all is that Gonzales is being ousted for what amounts to selectively abetting voter fraud.
His role as torturer-in-chief would not have forced him from office.
It is a great shame.
Yes, it is a great shame. What a pair - Bush and Gonzales. In Texas they joined together to make Texas the execution capitol of the country, with Bush presiding over 152 executions during his terms as governor. In the US government, they joined together in an attempt to make torture of prisoners legal, with the result that - legal or not - untold numbers of prisoners in US custody have been tortured since 9/11. It is a great shame.
Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
It's incredibly frustrating, isn't it? That's all I can say.
ReplyDeletePJ, that many of the folks who scream loudest that the US is a Christian nation seem untroubled that we engage in torture, drives me close to madness.
ReplyDeleteLife with this administration is like being in a house of mirrors. I share your frustration and incipient madness.
ReplyDeleteAlso that the loudest screamers are against abortion, but not killing of other human beings!!
ReplyDeleteAgainst abortion, but opposed to making provision for the saved foetus once it's outside the womb - witness Bush's recent threat to veto any extension of federally-funded medical coverage for uninsured children and his preposterous "dumb rich boy" comment that this sort of thing is what the hospital emergency room is for.
ReplyDeleteYes, it seems that the government must protect life in the womb and when you're on life support - at any cost - but in between those stages, you're on your own.
ReplyDeleteI have rather conservative views on abortion - not that I want a reversal of Roe v. Wade, for I don't - but if you're pro-life, it seems to me that it should be across the board.
I agree with you to a point on abortion, which I have never regarded as a positive good. And the "right-to-life" position of the Roman Church, which applies equally to those unborn and to those condemned to death, at least has the virtue of having a consistency sadly lacking elsewhere on the religious and political right. One notes that members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy eager to deny the Sacrament to "right-to-chose" RC Democrats (the appalling Burke of St. Louis is a prime specimen of this nastiness - where's Henry II when we need him?) show no indication of a similar eagerness to protect life when it comes to the five-man, solidly Roman Catholic, pro-capital punishment voting bloc on the US Supreme Court. Wouldn't you love to see the ruckus if some archbishop threatened to deny communion to Scalia for sending folks to the death chamber?
ReplyDeleteWell, in Texas we are not too much on the life support.... Your favorite president signed the Texas Futile Care bill which allows hospitals to pull the plus on anyone whenever it becomes convenient or even if they just feel like it. All they have to do is give the family ten days notice. St.Luke's Episcopal Hospital murdered one person in 2005 and one in 2006 using this law. In both cases the family was opposed. I don't know much about the 2005 case. But, the person they murdered in 2006 was not brain dead and, when not over medicated, expressed a desire to go on living. So, far the Episcopalians haven't killed anyone this year but, hey, it's only August. This kind of disregard for human life is just part of the diocesan culture of violence which permits spiritual abuse and turns a blind eye to clerical incompetence. It's really not surprising that they are murders too.
ReplyDeleteJust my opinion.
Lindy
Lindy, if what you describe is allowed in Texas is correct, I would not be in favor of that.
ReplyDeleteI have a living will stipulating this:
"If at any time I should have an incurable injury, disease, or illness certified to be terminal and irreversible condition by two physicians who have personally examined me, one of whom shall be my attending physician, and the physicians have determined that my death will occur whether or not life-sustaining procedures are utilized and where the application of life-sustaining procedures would serve only to artificially prolong the dying process, I direct that such procedures be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die naturally naturally with only the administration of medication or the performance of any medical procedure deemed necessary to provide me with comfort care."
I am not talking killing. I am talking allowing a person to die, if their condition is terminal and irreversible.
OH, I'm all for being able to die the way you want to. My own living will is pretty much along the same lines as yours. But, if you don't want to die... Then we should help those people live. I don't think a hospital should be able to usurp the right of the patient or the patient's family on that.
ReplyDeleteLindy
I don't think a hospital should be able to usurp the right of the patient or the patient's family on that.
ReplyDeleteNor do I, really. Sometimes it's complicated. But I've seen instances in which family members hang on to their loved ones, who exist in a kind of living death, beyond what seems reasonable, and I suppose education would be the answer in those cases.