From David Horowitz, as quoted by Andrew Sullivan:
Waterboarding is fleeting in duration with the actual discomfort lasting seldom more than a couple of minutes. And since a man can be safely deprived of oxygen for at least twice as long, there is almost no risk of long-term harm. The possibility of injury is further reduced by the fact that the procedure calls for no direct physical contact between the subject and his interrogators. Not even as much as pushing or chest slapping is required at any time, making waterboarding one of the safest and least confrontational among interrogation methods. Involving the lowest risk of long-term harm and the least amount of cumulative discomfort, it is also the most humane.
Moral vacuum, anyone?
And from The Onion:
Led by a bipartisan group of senators critical of White House policy on suspected terrorists, the Senate passed a bill Thursday that prohibits interrogators from exceeding 100 amps per testicle when questioning detainees. "Even in times of war, it is counterproductive and wrong to employ certain inhumane interrogation techniques, and using three-digit amperage levels on the testicles of captives constitutes torture," said Sen. John Warner (R-VA), who has also supported reducing the size of attack dogs and the height of nude pyramids.
So much for the "maverick" Republicans.
2 comments:
Hmmmm. So limiting the degree to which a torture method is applied makes torture okay?
Sadly, this perfectly fit the image that American politicians have abroad - rampant, moralist hyprocrites.
Well, that's the reputation a lot of them have at home, if that's any comfort.
I wish I could be confident that they would all be tossed out of office next month, but given the way recent elections have gone, and that people actually are willing to consider the relative merits of various forms of torture, I'm not even sure of that, which should be a no-brainer.
Post a Comment