The "Bush Legacy Tour" (as MSNBC has been referring to Bush's appearances since the elections) has been working really hard at the "we never tortured anyone" rhetoric. "We don't torture, we don't condone torture, waterboarding isn't torture…" we've heard all of it for years, but it's a more concentrated message in these waning days of the Bush Administration. (That and "you may not agree with us, but…" and "we're safer now then we were" and "no new terrorist attacks since 9/11!". All of these statements equally debatable — at best — if not outright fallacies.)
The Tour got a kick to the groin on Wednesday when the Washington Post ran this story:
Then in yesterday's Senate confirmation hearings, Eric Holder, Obama's pick for Attorney General, unequivocally stated that waterboarding is torture (and, presumably, will not be tolerated by the new administration).
But here's what I'm wondering. All semantics and legal pussyfooting aside, does it matter whether it's torture or not?
If I may:
Hardly the first, nor perhaps, even the most egregious example of the Bush Administration's contempt for the Constitution. But maybe we can stop arguing about where or not it matters if waterboarding is torture now, huh?
The Tour got a kick to the groin on Wednesday when the Washington Post ran this story:
Detainee Tortured, Says U.S. OfficialThe real kicker here, of course, is who this US official is:
The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial…So this wasn't one of those damn 'lefty' liberals that Mr. Cheney loves to single out… this was "one of the team" putting the exiting Administration on notice.
Then in yesterday's Senate confirmation hearings, Eric Holder, Obama's pick for Attorney General, unequivocally stated that waterboarding is torture (and, presumably, will not be tolerated by the new administration).
But here's what I'm wondering. All semantics and legal pussyfooting aside, does it matter whether it's torture or not?
If I may:
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to have to argue that, torture or not, waterboarding sure as hell sounds like "cruel and unusual punishment" to me. Making it decidedly, I would think, unconstitutional.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Hardly the first, nor perhaps, even the most egregious example of the Bush Administration's contempt for the Constitution. But maybe we can stop arguing about where or not it matters if waterboarding is torture now, huh?
Comments
Semantics aside? Honestly, I'm glad I don't have to make the call.
You and I have no idea what that office deals with every day. We are not privvy to the information they have.
Do I condone waterboarding? No. But, I'm not going to attempt to judge their call. They had to make the call. They talked to many, many people before they made it. It's done.
I will say this - Amendment 8 and the Constitution does not apply. These are not citizens, they are captured abroad or within America illegally. They are wartime enemy combatants. If you want to make an argument, you can make a moral one or you can use the Geneve Conventions. But, not the Constitution.
I'm just glad I'm safe and I'm glad I don't have to make the call. Whatever call Obama makes, I hope I'm still safe.
I'm glad you feel safe. I'm sure we're all meant to feel safe. I wish I shared that feeling of safety, but I don't. I think if we're any safer today than we were on 9/11, it's because we're aware of the evil that's out there, and no longer naive enough to think "it can't happen here."
For me, it's simple. Torture is a crime, an international crime. We've tortured people, to little or no effect, if the stories I've seen are to be trusted. And I don't believe that torturing people can ever accomplish such a thing as making us safe.
And, I agree. But, all I'm saying is that what is simple to us most assuredly is NOT simple for the people making these calls. I'm just glad I'm in a position where things are simple.
And, while I'm glad we're all aware that there is evil in the world, that does NOT make us any safer than when/if we were naive.
The President had a line in his speech yesterday about security: "our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."
All due respect, Mr. President, but...no. History is full of examples of 'just' causes being wiped out. Humble restraint being crushed. Security comes from strength. Our security comes from having the strongest armed forces on the planet and a strong populous and economy. We should definitely strive to be just and humble. But, that is not where strength comes from and it will not make us safe.
If you think it will, you need to join us in the real world.