"The United States has largely encouraged the use of the army to fight the cartels, but now some are warning that the human rights abuses could cost the country aid dollars. Many Mexicans think that's rather rich coming from a country that tortured prisoners for years."

TP

LMAO, not only does the USA run torture chambers - and have for at least the last decade - but polls show that the MAJORITY of Americans APPROVE of torturing prisoners! So what's the problem? Golly, remember how these same clowns acted all indignant about Nazi torture chambers - for the last six decades - but now jubilantly cheer on Chimp's rape rooms and torture chambers? Or how Americans fake indignation over the 'genocide' in Darfur, even while their own troops conduct a genocide in Iraq, in which more than one million people have been slaughtered? In short, Americans have forefeited their right to act indignant about any and all 'human rights violations' without setting off a global laughing fit. Would YOU listen to a lecture from a bunch of murdering torturers? I didn't think so. And neither will anybody else.

God Bless America.

America is NOT outraged, Nike. Many Americans know that when you start killing cops, they are going to retaliate.

You have failed to respond to links to polls that show the majority of Americans oppose the use of torture under any circumstances.

Take this poll from 2004 for example (yes, before Bush's re-election for those that argue that the 2004 election was an approval of such tactics, and as such, the American electorate would better be placed in the docket than Bush/Cheney or it's subordinate enablers):

May 27, 2004— Americans by nearly 2-to-1 oppose torturing terrorism suspects — but half believe the U.S. government, as a matter of policy, is doing it anyway.

<link>

You've become a caricature of your own indignation, and unable to respond to the simplest challenge. I'm not surprised any longer.

We are an intolerant lot. Rather fascist these days.

I blame the Neo-clowns of the last administration. The Bushies are CIA. You know the organization that has NEVER predicted a major event like the fall of the Berlin Wall or the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait. They did not see the Korean war coming.

ARM, I read that the drug lords tortured and beheaded their police victims. And as for surveys...try asking American cops how they would feel about criminals who tortured and killed their fellow police officers. Then try asking them what they would do about it.

I don't dispute human rights abuses on the part of Mexican authorities. I don't dispute that the US pushed for the military campaign against the drug cartels.

My reply to nike was his repeated insistence that the MAJORITY of Americans support the use of torture. One can find polls that support his contention and one can also, just as easily, find polls suggesting the majority of Americans OPPOSE the use of torture.

So where does the truth lie (no pun intended)?

Nike's argument that Americans have no right to comment on human rights abuses because of hypocrisy hangs on his cherry picking which polls to use and which to omit.

I don't dispute that the US committed acts of torture, and therefore committed war crimes. This seems obvious to me. Another thing that is obvious about the torture issue is the politics that surround it.

I don't see that willful inaccuracy helps much but it's essential to Nike's screeds.

Well, ARM

I usually have to agree with you but this time, I'm going with nike. Sure, all polls lie one way or another. But the spin has pushed America to accept torture as a part of the war against terror. And that is a recent poll. But they were thinking this back in 2005.

And just look at what people are doiing, while calling other countries' on torture, the media outlets, even NYT and NPR, still refer to any acts by the US only as enhanced interrogation. If that doesn't connote acceptance of our torture program, maybe this does. We haven't prosecuted any of the architects, only the soldiers caught on film.

I don't disagree that their have been many attempts by government and allied media to shape public attitudes into accepting that, in the post-9/11 world, torture is necessary to national security. The language used to depict the issue is Orwellian in it's euphemisms.

But if the issue is whether or not the MAJORITY of the American public supports the use of torture, then we need to define the evidence--in this case polls. If the evidence used to support or deny public attitudes about torture is conflicting, then what good are the conclusions? At best one can say some polls demonstrate majority support and some demonstrate the opposite. In any case, that really isn't the heart of the torture matter.

No question the Abu Ghraib MPs were scapegoated in an effort to head off accountability to the lowest possible level. But, the MPs also committed crimes by obeying the orders given by their superiors. If what the MPs did was wrong, then the paper trail leading up the command chain to the architects leads me to conclude the chain of command and architects were also wrong.

We are faced with either fully addressing the use of torture, or insisting upon collective amnesia.

How about we mind our own fucking business!

The war (and it's surely a war) between the Mexican government and Mexican drug cartels is pretty much a Mexican internal situation. As discussed above, our hands aren't exactly clean when it comes to torture, abductions, and even killings of innocent civilians.

One other thing everyone might want to keep in mind.....

If there wasn't such a demand for drugs here in the US, there wouldn't be any profit motive in the Mexican drug-running industry - and thus no war between the Mexican government and the Mexican drug cartels.

How about we admit that the driver for the entire situation is American demand for drugs! If we, as a country, quit using then the drug trade in Mexico would shrivel up and die.

No profit motive, no war!

It's easy when you step back and look at the big picture.

ARMCX1...polls straight up on the issue, but no one can deny that people voted for Bush a second time when they knew he was torturing people; and when polled, some of these idiots think that waterboarding is not torture...they fall for the Con line that its "enhanced interrogation techniques" as per that Nazi Frank Luntz and his Orwellian language brain cookers.

I don't condemn us, we are lied to, but sooner or later you have to use your brain and stop being fooled and used. There are a lot of good people in our elite and its time we SUPPORTED THEM.

DoctorTom, if we are the driving force behind the drug cartels, then isn't it our business? Well, at least we own some of that violence. Actually, a lot of it especially since the US seems to be funding both sides.

And of course one way is by doing exactly what you are asking for, better drug intervention and more effective social and jobs programs on our side of the border which would decrease the drug use as well as prison population, blighted areas, unemployment, welfare rolls, etc.

But part of the reform must also cross the border. We have always taken the War on Drugs as literally a war. Why not change the outlook and take that aid toward hardcore enforcement and develop something akin to the Marshall Plan. That way, we not only dry up the demand on our side, but we help make it easier for farmers and citizens, the people who have come to depend on the drug lords for survival, to walk away from the supply side.

As long as people here in the US look the other way while big-name entertainers, sports stars and even business leaders publicly flaunt drug laws, there's never going to be any progress against drugs. As long as those people are willing to break the law and fork over the price for the goods, there will be someone willing to kill for their business.

These people make it "cool", and when they're caught they get a slap on the hands. Who is going to take seriously any campaign against drugs when their bosses, their sports heroes and their favorite entertainers are stoned on illegal drugs as often as they're not?

Even if the Mexican drug war ended tomorrow and no more dope crossed the Mexican border, the drug traffic on the northern US border would simply increase (and it's already significant) and the cartels and their killers would simply change addresses.

A sensible drug policy would go further toward removing drug related violence and black market profits that fuels the drug trade than a reheated just say no program.

BTW, my post wasn't about the mexican drug wars.

Do you really think "coolness" is why people take drugs? Really? I expect logic like that from a now absent doctor on this board. Nancy's campaign didn't even make a dent in drug use. And being a teacher in an inner city school, I know the kids could care less about what posers were doing since they didn't seem to care about the kids.