Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Mukasey wades around the waterboarding issue

Mukasey refrained from qualifying waterboarding as torture--actually, he defended it without explicitly calling it legal.

Worse, he claimed that labeling waterboarding as torture would give "our adversaries the limits and contours of generally worded laws that define the limits of a highly classified interrogation program."

Hate to break it to you, but I think the adjectives "cruel" and "unusual" are descriptive and self-explanatory, and anyone with a (WHATEVER LANGUAGE) to English dictionary can put a round peg in a round hole and understand what contours our Constitution was meaning to hit.

be torture if it was done to you?", our attorney general still felt the need to say in a letter on Tuesday evening that And although Mucasy answered "I would feel that it was" in response to "Would waterboardingwaterboarding is not clearly illegal and that perhaps it could be used again against terrorism suspects if requested by the White House.

By the way, it is funny that "perhaps" it could be used again when dear old Jeff Sessions of Alabama said that it is “an embarrassment” to imply that American interrogators use this method often.

Scotty take it down a notch--sounds like your buddy is clearing the way for future pseudo-drowning, because YES, we use it that often.

No comments: