Torture? Why what an ugly word..

Due to Alberto "I love torture" Gonzales (Much thanks to Alex Jones for that nickname) being a Attourney General nominee today, there has been much talk in the political spectrum for the past 48 hours about torture. They talked about it on CNN's Crossfire, and also on Beliefnet today. Many conservatives Bush Supporters are standing behind Gonzales like lame sheep, either defending or denying both his notoriety for the aproval of torture as well as the President's. You have half saying that torture is necessary as a tool against terrorists so that "we can get information that may help prevent another 9/11"

<-- Begin bitch rant for ignoramus's -->
NEWS FLASH FOLKS!!
9/11 was an inside job! Terrorism is a tool manufactured by governments to controll the population and create tyranny! The real terrorists are the morons that tell you they will keep you safe!!
<-- End Bitch Rant -->

and the other half saying that "Alberto Gonzales does not approve of torture, and neither does the President" (of course not! Why, they said so themselves on TV, and we all know that no self respecting politician would ever lie to the American public).. So you have two sides that are blinder than hell. One side just creates excuse after excuse (while they would fry the other side for doing such a thing), and the other just denies everything as some kind of rediculous concoction created by the other side.

First let's deal with my personal favorite group: the ones that deny everything. To say that Alberto Gonzales's approval of torture is a rediculous democrat conspiracy that is simply conjured because King George II nominated him is pathetic, and it shows just what that person will believe: every damned thing that will reinforce their thoughts and the phony left/right gap (read: Spin). In my Action Alert post, I gave the sources that showed that Alberto Gonzales is truly a torture architect. But for those too lazy or ignorant to look, I will compile a chunk of it here:

On June 13, 2004 the London Telegraph reported that Constitutional experts were shocked by Gonzalez's memo, which told Bush that the nature of the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions". On June 16, they also reported: "A string of leaked government memos over the past few days has revealed that President George W Bush was advised by Justice Department officials and the White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzalez, that Geneva Conventions on torture did not apply to "unlawful combatants", captured during the war on terror."

The Washington Post reported on 11/11/04:
Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based group that represents families of some detainees at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, said Gonzales' legal opinions "opened the door and paved the way" for abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. "He's right in the middle of where this administration went off the page of the law and into chaos," Ratner said. "They're promoting someone who was one of the legal architects of the abuse. It's just appalling."

His office also played a role in an August 2002 memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel advising that torturing alleged Al-Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in the U.S. war on terrorism.

The Washington Post published on its Web site an internal White House memo from Aug. 1, 2002, signed by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, which argued darkly that torturing al-Qaida captives "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted under President Bush. The memo then continued for 50 pages to make the case for the use of torture.

But why stop there? King George is promoting a man who is Pro-Abortion (didn't Bushie say that he was against abortion?), and also involved with Enron. You call this a good canidate? If you ask me, some Joe off the street would do a better job than this guy - atleast we know that the average Joe off the street isn't as corrupt! Wake up and pay attention!!

Now we also have the morons that say "hey! Torture is OK as long as it's on terrorists". Puh-lease. Torture is innefective. Did everyone just forget the Salem Witch trials? Most of the so called Witches were actually Christians that just happened to know someone that didn't like them. But under torture, they admitted to all sorts of fantasies that never happened. What ever happened to independant research? That seems to have totally died among most Conservatives since King George took office. I remember one columnist put it as "It's November 3rd, now all the Christians can go back to sleep for 4 more years"; basically implying that they (the "Religious Right") just pay attention to the politics game when it's election year. But I digress.. I've heard all the excuses - "It'll prevent another 9/11" , "If you knew you were going to be tortured, you would tell everything you knew". I'll say it again for those that have slow brains: Torture does not work! It is historically proven that torture is counter productive. I know this long before this issue was brought up, but just to be sure, (immagine that one kids!). Sure enough, every resource I found said "torture doesn't work". Quit is with the pathetic excuses. If Bill Clinton was torturing people, many Conservatives would be comming out of the wood-work to blast him on it. Stop being so blind!

So now my question to the Conservatives that support Gonzales is this: Who's right? The Conservatives that say he never authorised torture, or the ones that say torture is necessary? I hate the partisan game...