Those Republicans and Their Funny Ideas on Torture

Romney: It's not torture unless you admit it
Nick Langewis and David Edwards

Print This Email This

CNN's Wolf Blitzer assails GOP presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney over his lack of a definite opinion on whether the widely debated interrogation method known as "waterboarding" is torture.

Even as competitor and Arizona senator John McCain, along with United States Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, define "waterboarding" as torture, Romney remains strategically undecided.
**************************************************8
If the issue of torture wasn't so important, it would be funny to watch the numerous twisting twining contortions by republicans as to whether Bush's so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" are actually torture. From that basic question, flows a number of asinine hypothetical questions. Such as, if these techniques, especially waterboarding, are really torture is it still torture when we do it to foreigners. Also, if we render a suspect "with a wink and nod" to a foreign country known to routinely torture suspects, are we culpable for suborning torture. And finally, the tragically hilarious from the "Mittster". As the the article quote above says, the Mittster is staying wisely, or cowardly undecided --But consider this quote:
*******************************************************

"I just don't think it's productive for a president of the United States to lay out a list of what is specifically referred to as 'torture,'" he responds.

Citing "ticking time bomb" scenarios, Romney disagrees with the notion of admitting that a particular practice could violate the Geneva Convention, thereby preventing its utilization by the United States in the event of an urgent need to extract information to, for example, prevent a nuclear attack

******************************************************8
Aw yes, the old ticking time bomb argument. How many times has this happened in the history of the world Mitt? If you said none, then you are correct and win the dumbass of the day prize. But where you excel in wingnuttery, is the "hear no evil, see no evil" concept to state sponsored torture. It's no wonder your praise for King George-- you sound just like him too often.
****************************************************88

Says Romney, "We have found it wise in the past not to describe precisely the techniques of interrogation that are used here in this country--also, so that people who are captured don't know what might be used against them."

**************************************************8888
Uh, yes, but that was before the Bush administration repealed the Geneva Conventions by fiat, due to his omnipotent powers as the "Unitary Executive" of the former constitutional democracy we know as AMERICA.
*************************************************

The President, Romney concludes, is responsible for orders handed down to an interrogator, but also has the right to determine what is an appropriate interrogation technique to order an agent to perform.

*********************************************8888
Ok! now this is getting un-funny Mitt. It sounds like what your saying is the president had the power to order unlawful torture but the ordered interrogator is responsible if the crimes come to light. You are a useless vacuum of nothingness, Mitt. Not mention a spineless worm.

Powered by ScribeFire.