![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Torture and a fitting successor to Bush
Oct. 26th, 2007 11:07 amAlong the way, I have thought from time to time that a Giuliani presidency might be tenable. Yeah, I don't care for lots of things he has said, but "compared to Bush, he's a liberal" is how the mantra has gone.
He has helped to clarify for me exactly who he is.
Mr. Giuliani said on Wednesday night at a forum in Davenport, Iowa, that he favored “aggressive questioning” of terrorism suspects and using “means that are a little tougher” with terrorists but that the United States should not torture people. On the question of whether waterboarding is torture, however, Mr. Giuliani said he was unsure.
“It depends on how it’s done,” he said, adding that he was unsure whether descriptions of the practice by the “liberal media” were accurate. “It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it.”
This is the crux of the matter, from a Bush administration perspective. "The United States does not torture." Therefore, if we waterboard, it is not torturing. If "they" waterboard our people, THEN it is torture!
This is a process that causes the victim to have the sensation of drowning, and it includes the potential for triggering a heart attack. How is there any doubt? The only candidate for President who has been a prisoner of war, McCain, says “All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today.” Why do I think his opinion might have more weight than Giuliani's?
Giuliani also dismissed claims that sleep deprivation is or can be torture, noting that "on that theory, I’m getting tortured running for president of the United States. That’s plain silly. That’s silly."
I honestly believe that in this sort of instance, the candidate should have the experience before shooting his fool mouth off.
He has helped to clarify for me exactly who he is.
Mr. Giuliani said on Wednesday night at a forum in Davenport, Iowa, that he favored “aggressive questioning” of terrorism suspects and using “means that are a little tougher” with terrorists but that the United States should not torture people. On the question of whether waterboarding is torture, however, Mr. Giuliani said he was unsure.
“It depends on how it’s done,” he said, adding that he was unsure whether descriptions of the practice by the “liberal media” were accurate. “It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it.”
This is the crux of the matter, from a Bush administration perspective. "The United States does not torture." Therefore, if we waterboard, it is not torturing. If "they" waterboard our people, THEN it is torture!
This is a process that causes the victim to have the sensation of drowning, and it includes the potential for triggering a heart attack. How is there any doubt? The only candidate for President who has been a prisoner of war, McCain, says “All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today.” Why do I think his opinion might have more weight than Giuliani's?
Giuliani also dismissed claims that sleep deprivation is or can be torture, noting that "on that theory, I’m getting tortured running for president of the United States. That’s plain silly. That’s silly."
I honestly believe that in this sort of instance, the candidate should have the experience before shooting his fool mouth off.
