The article you refer to includes the following:

"On her visit to Europe, Condoleezza Rice has repeatedly denied that the US tortures prisoners.

"On Wednesday, Ms Rice stressed that all American interrogators were bound by the UN Convention on Torture, whether they worked in the US or abroad.

"Nato and EU foreign ministers, after meeting Ms Rice in Brussels on Wednesday evening, declared themselves satisfied with her assurances that the US does not interpret international humanitarian law differently from its allies."

I noticed that you didn't quote any of the above in your blog. Why is that?

If, God forbid, another 9/11 happens and 1000 or 3000 or 10,000 or more people are killed, all the people complaining about the Bush administration's treatment of detainees will be the first to criticize them for not doing enough to prevent such an attack. You can't have it both ways!

Are you protesting the beheading of hostages by the terrorists? If not, you have an obvious double standard. If you're concerned about the US's possible use of "secret prisons" (hey, maybe we don't want terrorists trying to attack these facilities, if the prisons were in areas near where the terrorists operate! Well duh!), and worried about the alleged possiblity of torture, shouldn't you be absolutely OUTRAGED at the beheadings of hostages?

This is a war that the terrorists started and we have no choice but to finish. I don't want people tortured, but some "truth serium" ought to come in handy to save the lives of thousands! I'm sorry, but I don't have too much sympathy for monsters who can execute innocent women and children in cold blood (I'm referring to those who trained and equipped the 9/11 terrorists and the homicide bombers in the Middle East)!

Give me a break! You sound like the folks who think that if we will just "be nice" everyone in the world will play nicely with us. That is a "nice" little philosophy until you run into genuine evil in the real world. Read Romans 13 again and note that God doesn't give the governor the authority of the sword for nothing.

Wake up!

Wow, an actual Bush supporter, here on my blog. I'm underwhelmed.

I didn't quote the sections you mention because such statements are more of the same doublespeak we usually get from this administration. I quoted the part which was unusual: that they would admit something which is not considered admirable. This same administration which says that our "interrogators were bound by the UN Convention on Torture" is also working to undermine the McCain amendment against torture. The hooha about Bush accepting the amendment came only after it was modified to allow that torture would be allowed if a "resonable person" thought that there was some justification for it, or some such jargon. If I were really feeling picky I'd point out that Rice said our interrogators "were" bound. Does that mean they are no longer bound? Perhaps that is just the way that the "liberal" media reported what she said. (OK, I guess I am feeling picky.)

As for your claims of people criticizing the Bush administration for not doing enough, I think you are stating a false dichotomy. When Bush&Co are using faulty intelligence information (perhaps collected using demonstrably ineffective techniques such as torture? perhaps carried out in unsupervised secret prisons?), ignoring warnings of potential attacks (wasn't the miscommunication of such warnings among our security agencies one of the reasons given for the formation of the Department of Homeland Security), focusing on the wrong problem (as was done when they reduced forces seeking Osama Bin Ladin in order to attack Iraq), violated the laws of our country (as Bush has admitted that he has done by authorizing the NSA to spy on US citizens without warrants), etc. (and with this administration, that list of "etc."s is very long), when Bush&Co are doing all of these things then I think that it is fair to complain that they have not done enough if their efforts fail.

As for outrage at the beheadings, I am appalled and saddened by the treatment of those hostages. But it is exactly for that reason that I complain about what Bush is doing. By contravening humanitarian and international standards of behavior, he is providing the terrorists with excuses for what they are doing. Those excuses are not justification for what they are doing, except perhaps in the minds of the terrorists, but I have no access to the terrorists (of which I am aware) to argue with them about their behavior. But I do have access to my own elected officials (at least I should have such access). I complain because I do not want to see us reduced to the type of activity that the terrorists are using on the basis of "well they did it first!" kind of infantile argument you seem to be using. Our behavior should not violate our own ethics (and wasn't it because of percieved violations of ethics and lack of moral leadership that so much of the country shifted to support Republicans rather than Democrats? As if these pork barrel, reverse-Robin-Hood, torturing, secret prison Republicans exhibit moral leadership! What a joke.) in pursuing our goals. If we argue that we have to violate our ethics to achieve our goals then I find myself questioning either our goals or our ethics is incorrect that they are incompatible. I prefer the ethics I am aruging for and not the goals that the Bush administration is seeking (American hegemony, raping the world for the benefit of the few, suppressing dissent, etc.).

If turture were a "truth serium [sic]" then there might be some justification for it. However, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that information acquired using torture is not only ethically tainted, it is also frequently incorrect. What a surprise that a person being tortured will say anything to get the torture to stop. And you argue that this "truth" is worth something? I'm glad you clarified that you were referring to those who trained and equipped the 9/11 terrorists, otherwise I might have thought the monsters to whom you referred were the Bush administration who have knowingly ordered the actions which have directly caused the deaths of many times the numbers of people as were killed on 9/11.

I don't recognize the email you left and don't know if there is any likelyhood that you would return later, but I find your arguments lacking. If you want to start quoting scripture then there are many verses calling for forgiveness, not returning evil for evil, love your enemies, etc. which I find much more persuasive than the Romans 13 you mention.

Thanks for visiting. I would suggest the same to you as you do for me: Wake up! This is arguably the worst administration this country has ever had and is leading us on a disastrous course (IMHO, of course).