This shows that Feinstein (who lives in a nice house) approves Alberto Gonzales’ policies and sees Mukasey as a pro who can implement them without scaring the horses.
At issue, Mukasey says that waterboarding is ok, maybe, sometimes.
If waterboarding is not torture, Ms Feinstein should have a go at it—there would be a doctor nearby, there would be no permanent damage.
Come to think of it, the willingness of legislators to undergo a particular “interrogation technique” is one way to judge if it’s torture. Electric shock to the genitals, for instance–most lawmakers would just agree to put that on the torture list without experiencing it themselves. If they have a question about waterboarding, they should try it.
Anyway, it has fallen to SFWILLIE’S BLOG to enunciate a consistent moral stance about waterboarding and other torture techniques:
Torture is always immoral. It may never be employed under any circumstances.
Regarding the what-if scenarios (nuke about to explode, etc,):
It is better that the entire planet explode than for one human to intentionally torture another. One moment of kindness is preferable to an eternity of torture.
Our current administration considers it ok to start a war, under the“do unto them before they do unto us” principle.
The Bush administration considers torture to be one of many legitimate weapons in its war against "enemies." The above photo shows an aggressive interrogation technique called “stress position.”
It seems that the majority of the government and punditry agree: aggression is ok, torture is ok.
This blog does not agree.