The most important thing that happened yesterday had nothing to do with any of the 42 elections taking place. No, no. It had everything to do with Michael Haydin appearing before the Senate and making a startlingly public admission.
For the first time, a member of the administration has publicly acknowledged that the CIA used waterboarding on three detainees since 9/11, and that such measures had to be (and continue to be) authorized by the President himself with the okay of the Attorney General.
What else is needed to start the hearings? That's all we're talking about right now. My colleague LMD03 continuously rails against the impeachment effort by saying, "For what crime?" Well, look no further; it's been admitted.
I certainly hope we don't have to hear any of this "waterboarding isn't necessarily torture" business. It's really a damn shame that Mukasey was confirmed. People wondered why he would never directly answer if waterboarding is torture. It seemed pretty obvious to me..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Borrowing a line from you, at least you could spell "misdemeanors" properly... Yes, I read the article, and no, I'm not of the same mind.
Waterboarding is a convenient political football used by (mostly) Democrats not in tune with the real world. If you want to doubt the administration's word that only three detainees received the procedure, no problem with that.
If you can stand their admitted smugness, read the WSJ op-ed the other day for another perspective, if you can slip away from your cocoon. Waterboarding makes people, understandably, queasy. Yet, if we are not to use this technique, allegedly proven to work, what then? Like the AG before his swear-in, I don't know enough about how it has worked to adequately comment. I do know, however, that we are threatening to expand the definition of torture too broadly: torture is sustained act, if it takes mere seconds to "break" someone via simulated drowning, is that sustained?
Therefore, am I to infer that you find the US Constitution to at times resemble a "suicide pact"? It's not that far of a leap to go from criticizing the Bush regime's tactics to caring more about the alleged rights of alleged murderers then US national security.
So does the Democratic Party not have the spine to stand behind its liberal class, knowing it is a political loser? So were a lot of other worthy issues before people stepped up. Or does the party truly lack coherence and thus shouldn't be trusted with national security to begin with?
I will take "waterboarding as torture" seriously as soon as the Democratic Party does, not before.
Post a Comment