Now that Bush is no longer in office and Obama is in line to be blamed for any attacks on the country, the same people who defined waterboarding as torture (how many people have been permanently scarred by waterboarding?) are now busy re-defining torture again.
These same people are now saying that nothing that the Obama administration allows in interrogation is torture, by definition.
How convenient.
Via Glenn Reynolds: ACTUALLY, I THINK THAT’S PRETTY MUCH THE POLICY: “Is he also going to end torture, except where it might yield useful information?”
The MSM leads with the headline (from Knowxnews)
Sources: Obama ready to end harsh interrogations
Except for
Still under debate is whether to include a loophole that would allow exceptions in extraordinary cases.
Oh, did the AP writers think that harsh interrogations were the first thing that the Bush administration did? The writers for the paper are such dicks. In their imagination, Dick Cheney gave instructions to the CIA “Before you question them, don’t ask if they know anything; tear out their nails and teeth first.”
And how about this for the anti-"harsh interrogation" crowd?
The proposed loophole, which could come in the form of a classified annex to the manual, is designed to satisfy intelligence experts who fear that an outright ban of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques would limit the government in obtaining threat information that could save American lives. It would also preserve Obama's flexibility to authorize any interrogation tactics he might deem necessary for national security.
But the Obama administration is adamant. No torture. Nothing we do is torture. No way, no how.
No comments:
Post a Comment