Pro-Terrorist Lobby and Waterboarding
The Senate Judiciary Committee will probably vote on Tuesday on the nomination of Michael Mukasey for U.S. Attorney General. The pro-terrorist, liberal extremists have made much of Mr. Mukasey's refusal to declare waterboarding torture, something the cowards in the United States Senate (which includes Sens. Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama) explicitly refused to legislate twice in the last three years.
Anyway, if Mr. Mukasey is not confirmed, I'll have more on this.
In the meantime, here's a letter the New York Times received after they published about 6 letters condemning Mr. Mukasey and none supporting him:
Editor,
I wonder if the moderator at the next Democratic presidential debate, or a "journalist" covering the Democratic candidates, would ask each if they would ever condone waterboarding as President of the United States (The Issue is Torture; Voices of Outrage; November 2).
And, I wonder of the liberal extremists, especially those who wrote letters to the New York Times, would be as outraged if a Democratic presidential candidate said they could not assure us they would never allow waterboarding. (End of first letter.)
And, here's one the Boston Globe received:
Editor,
Of course, it would never occur to the liberal media to ask the Democratic Presidential candidates if they would ever condone waterboarding if they were elected President (Torture issue could threaten Mukasey Senate confirmation, November 1, A10).
And, if asked, we can be sure Sen. Clinton, after her dreadful performance in Tuesday night's debate, would not answer the question (Clinton careful to preserve options, November 1, A1).
That Sen. Clinton will vote against Mr. Michael Mukasey for U.S. Attorney General is the mother of all irony. (End of second letter.)
The Senate Judiciary Committee will probably vote on Tuesday on the nomination of Michael Mukasey for U.S. Attorney General. The pro-terrorist, liberal extremists have made much of Mr. Mukasey's refusal to declare waterboarding torture, something the cowards in the United States Senate (which includes Sens. Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama) explicitly refused to legislate twice in the last three years.
Anyway, if Mr. Mukasey is not confirmed, I'll have more on this.
In the meantime, here's a letter the New York Times received after they published about 6 letters condemning Mr. Mukasey and none supporting him:
Editor,
I wonder if the moderator at the next Democratic presidential debate, or a "journalist" covering the Democratic candidates, would ask each if they would ever condone waterboarding as President of the United States (The Issue is Torture; Voices of Outrage; November 2).
And, I wonder of the liberal extremists, especially those who wrote letters to the New York Times, would be as outraged if a Democratic presidential candidate said they could not assure us they would never allow waterboarding. (End of first letter.)
And, here's one the Boston Globe received:
Editor,
Of course, it would never occur to the liberal media to ask the Democratic Presidential candidates if they would ever condone waterboarding if they were elected President (Torture issue could threaten Mukasey Senate confirmation, November 1, A10).
And, if asked, we can be sure Sen. Clinton, after her dreadful performance in Tuesday night's debate, would not answer the question (Clinton careful to preserve options, November 1, A1).
That Sen. Clinton will vote against Mr. Michael Mukasey for U.S. Attorney General is the mother of all irony. (End of second letter.)
posted by Zack at 7:58 PM
3 Comments:
I,too, would love to hear where all those currently seeking the Presidency(Democrats and Republicans alike) stand on waterboarding. Personally, I'm ok with it when necessary to save American lives. Zacklyright, what is your position on this tactic and why?
Anonymous,
Thank you for the question.
First, let me say, I’m a wuss. If I was a prisoner of war, I’d sing like a bird. They would roll an empty cardboard box that once housed a refrigerator covered in a black sheet into the interrogation room and I’d tell them whatever they wanted to know. “What’s under the blanket?” “Don’t tell us what we want to know and you’re going to find out.”
Second, I simply cannot properly recognize the heroics of men whose OBLIGATION was to resist until they truly could not take it anymore. Sen. John McCain says everyone talked. Well, if that is the eventual outcome, why resist? And, yes, I get it. The remorse for relenting must have been unbearable. I cannot even imagine. Men committed suicide because they thought they failed for talking? Are you kidding me? I cannot even imagine. Teammate doesn’t even begin to describe.
Third, waterboarding to gain information is not torture and I would authorize it in far more instances than it has been reportedly used by President Bush (twice!, and not since 2003!). I have not been briefed on our Country’s use but based on everything I’ve read, the interviewee is never in danger and suffers no physical injury. The technique is a mind-mess (see rolling in a large black-sheeted object above). If I can find two willing friends to administer to me, I’d subject myself to being slightly inverted on a flat surface, face covered with a towel, and water poured over the towel just to experience the sensation so I can better write about it.
Fourth, waterboarding for the sole purpose of making someone miserable IS torture. But, so is forcing someone to listen to Katie Couric deliver the nightly news. I’d not subject any enemy combatant to either form of torture if I already got the actionable information I NEEDED.
Thank you for the very thoughtful and candid answer I'd knew you'd provide. Does anyone else out there have an opinion on this subject?
Post a Comment
<< Home