So here's the thing. This whole conversation, discussion, whatever, about torture, enhanced interrogation, has become totally polarized. Never mind the Geneva Conventions and other treaties that the United States is a signatory to. Never mind federal legislation that regardless of treaty, makes the use of torture illegal. Never mind our Constitution, that regards torture as out of bounds (cruel and unusual punishment anyone?).
But, we have The Right saying that sometimes, depending, if necessary, it's okay. We have some on the right saying that some techniques - regardless of hundreds of years of precedent - aren't really torture. We have some on the right saying that the definitions commonly accepted aren't really good definitions, and that they get to decide what torture really means - and waterboarding ain't it.
Then, we have those on The Left who are adamant that as a country of law, there are no situations, ever, in which torture is legal. That no matter how you try to dress it up or change the verbiage, enhanced interrogation is just another term for torture, and torture is illegal.
It has become a left/right issue. Or so it seems. But it's not. When did law become political? When did enforcement of the law become an issue of left or right rather than right or wrong? When did enforcement of treaties and law become an issue of who was currently resident in the White House?
What is totally awe inspiring - and not in a good way - is the total misunderstanding of what exactly is meant by waterboarding when used in the context of Dick Cheney and the total snowjob that he is in the process of perpetrating on his party and this country.
Cheney just might succeed, even though the Bush Administration and all those currently riding on this bandwagon of "waterboarding good" have completely and entirely missed the point. Waterboarding, their chosen technique, was reverse engineered from the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) Program used to train some of our service men and women.
Please stop for a moment and consider this.
If waterboarding is so necessary to the continued safety of this country, why then, was it not used during the second term of the Bush Administration? Why then, is President Obama's decision to cancel the "enhanced interrogation" program largely, at this point, symbolic? Granted, it is also necessary to ensure that it is not re-instituted at some future point, however; if it must be done, and works, and provided useful, actionable information essential to the safety and security of the United States, why was it used so infrequently?
It is becoming more clear every day that the waterboarding that was done was initiated by Cheney, was used not just on "detainees," but also on prisoners of war. One prisoner in particular was a close aide to Saddam Hussein. Why was he waterboarded? Despite providing useful, cooperative information, he failed to provide information about the link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that was necessary to justify going to war against Iraq. If this suggestion currently beginning to percolate turns out to be supported by fact, (and I would suggest that we all remember Saddam Hussein's attempt to have Bush I assassinated and Bush II's desire to avenge daddy),not to mention the Project for a New American Century which you can read about here, then that would make President Bush and Vice President Cheney not only guilty of war crimes, but guilty of conspiracy to start a totally unnecessary war which to date has killed over 2,000 American soldiers and how many tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians?
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.