Two comments on torture. First, President Bush:
BUSH: First of all, whatever we have done, was legal. And whatever decision I will make, will be reviewed by the Justice Department to determine whether or not the legality is is there. And the reason why…there’s a difference between what happened in the past and today is there’s new law. And um, and so to answer your question, whatever we will do will be legal. The American people have got to know that what we did in the past gained information that prevented an attack and for those who criticize what we did in the past, I ask them which attack would they rather have not permitted…stopped? Which attack on America would they have said, you know, well, maybe that wasn’t all that important? That we stopped those attacks. I’ll do what’s necessary to protect America within the law. That’s what you gotta understand. And um, [nods head]
Not surprisingly, that doesn't make any sense. What we did was legal, but the major difference between then and now is that there is a law, making what we will do legal–unlike before, when it was legal. That's why there is a law.
Now from someone who has been waterboarded:
Waterboarding has, unfortunately, become a household word. Back then, we didn't call it waterboarding — we called it "water torture." We recognized it as something the United States would never do, whatever the provocation. As a nation, we must ask our leaders, elected and appointed, to be aware of such horrors; we must ask them to stop the narrow and superficial thinking that hinges upon "legal" definitions and to use common sense. Waterboarding is torture, and torture is clearly a crime against humanity.
I guess they used to call it "torture." Glad we don't call it torture anymore.
This stunning pattern of circular logic has gotten a lot of playing over the past 6 years thanks to our Dear Leader.
The government does not torture.
The government does x, y, and z to its prisoners.
Therefore x, y, and z are not torture.
I need a drink.
“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation”
It’s scary how apropos this document is becoming. George W. Bush, the man who would be king.
Nice one Phil. But you’re just saying that because you hate freedom.
Jem,
You’re probably right, and quoting such a notorious liberal pundit doesn’t help my case.