Lieberman says some waterboarding OK but...
He does not believe the president could authorize having hot coals pressed on someone's flesh to obtain that information.Good to know, Joe. But there's more:
The difference, he said, is that waterboarding is mostly psychological and there is no permanent physical damage. "It is not like putting burning coals on people's bodies. The person is in no real danger. The impact is psychological," Lieberman said.So I'm to understand that because "the impact is is psychological" that "the person is in no real danger." What college did Joe get his medical degree from? What's that? You say he has a law degree from Yale? Never mind.
Despite torture memo co-author/co-conspirator and DOJ official Steven Bradbury's claims, waterboarding of any kind is nothing more than a fancy way of choking someone until they tell you not the truth but what they think you want to hear.
The Bush Administration now claims that their version of waterboarding, which was "only" used on three "subjects", was done so as to avoid "prolonged mental harm." That's supposed to make it OK. So just who defines what "prolonged mental harm" is? We the torturers, natch. If you asked anyone who was repeatedly waterboarded methinks their opinion would differ drastically. Anyone who thinks waterboarding cannot lead to permanent psychological damage is starkers. Thalassophobia immediately comes to mind.
Oh and we're supposed to believe we "only" water-boarded "three" individuals. That's right with:
- The check is in the mail.
- I won't cum in your mouth.
- Kids, I never did drugs.
- Dead stripper? What dead stripper? No siree, Bob. There's no dead stripper here.
I'm sorry, George, but that counts too.
-AF
0 comments:
Post a Comment