Originally Posted by ratbastid

It's SO interesting that now the morality is debatable. It never was, before this "is waterboarding torture" argument got headed toward being settled. The whole point of having that argument is, we're America, we're a country of laws, and we don't torture. So waterboarding (which we've done, nobody denies--although they used to) can't be torture. QED.

Now that waterboarding appears to preeeeetty much be torture, and some way right-wing folks are agreeing about that, NOW we get people saying, well, maybe it is torture but maybe torture is okay. Ooh, ooh, if American Lives are at risk, then sure, fuck the laws, let's cut off fingers! Which, by the way Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld NEVER claimed. They always said that torture is wrong, it's illegal and immoral, we don't torture, and waterboarding isn't torture. Even now, with Cheney doing a fucking media tour to attack the current administration (which has been a MASSIVE no-no for every administration prior to his), he's not changing his tune about that.

The new shifting "24 morality" is all transparently and cynically about a post-facto justification for the actions we've already taken.

Look: news came out this week about a man--a man who hasn't even been charged with anything, and against whom there are no charges planned, who under our law IS INNOCENT until proven guilty--whose genitals were routinely and systematically mutilated by Guantanamo interrogators and guards. Is that torture? If not... how do you figure? If so... how can you stand by that?