I was very touched by the story you guys had on the front page the other day about the WWII interrogators. I mean it's not the same situation but it was a very clear rejection of what we think we know about what is going on right now but I want to know everything, and so I think we have to draw a bright line and say No torture abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed,' and then try to make sure we implement that.
I don't think, alas, that this is a clear refutation of what she was originally quoted as saying. She wants the rhetorical high-ground of "no torture" - but so does Bush, remember. And check out the "buts": "But I want to know everything." She wants to "abide by the laws we have passed," which may include, of course, the Military Commissions Act which gives the president lee-way to define torture as s/he sees fit. I don't know what she will really do. I do know that it goes against everything we know about Clinton that she would revoke any of the powers - including the power to order torture - that Cheney has given the executive branch. And I don't trust her.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.