Meanwhile, over at the RNC, waterboarding is described as "mostly a political sideshow"...

[Sparkly]

The RNC website has excerpts from a Wall Street Journal editorial (the whole thing would be too long for them, I guess). It sure illustrates why Republicans are so misinformed.

For example:

Could there be a clearer demonstration of why voters don't trust Democrats with national security? In the war against al Qaeda, interrogation and electronic surveillance are our most effective weapons. Yet Democrats have for years waged a guerrilla war against both of these tools, trying to impose procedural and legal limits that can only reduce their effectiveness. Judge Mukasey is merely collateral damage in this larger effort. ...

What's really at stake here is whether U.S. officials are going to have the basic tools required to extract information from America's enemies. ...

As for waterboarding, it is mostly a political sideshow. The CIA's view seems to be that some version of waterboarding is effective in breaking especially tough cases quickly. Press reports say it has been used only against a few high-value al Qaeda operatives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Zubaydah. As former CIA Director George Tenet points out in his book "At the Center of the Storm," KSM and others never would have talked about "imminent threats against the American people" had they not been dealt with harshly. "I believe that none of these success would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal," he writes.

(snip)

The political calculation here is clear: Democrats want to pander to the antiwar war base of their party that doubts we are even in a war, and in any case wants to treat terrorist detainees no differently than a common street felon. Yet they don't want to be responsible for passing a statute that blocks CIA attempts to gain information that could prevent an imminent terrorist attack. So they dodge and employ ambiguous language that the Justice Department must then interpret. And then they try to run Judge Mukasey out of town because he won't do their political work for them. ...

If the Democrats reject Mr. Mukasey, it will tell us they simply aren't serious about the realities of the war on terror.

That's what we're up against.

Edited for the link: http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=7356 (You'll want to take a shower afterwards!)

[NewJeffCT]

1. didn't one of them call it a "swimming lesson" the other day?

on one of the talking head shows?

[Vickers]

2. "Democrats want to pander to the antiwar war base of their party"

OMG, I *wish*!!!!!

[PurityOfEssence]

3. That's just 'cuz they haven't learned what good spectator sport it is.

That'd keep a conservative tuned...

[calimary]

4. Well, if it's no big deal - who's in then? bush? cheney? rice? mcconnell?

Any of 'em wanna give it a spin to find out what a lark it is?







I didn't think so.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. All these good "Christians" should read the Easter Sunday sermon

delivered by the poet and Anglican priest John Donne in 1625, called "Against the Abomination of Torture":

They therefore oppose God in his purpose of dignifying the body of man, first who violate, and mangle this body, which is the organ in which God breathes, and they also which pollute and defile this body, in which Christ Jesus is apparelled; and they likewise who prophane this body, which is the Holy Ghost, and the high Priest, inhabits, and consecrates.

Transgressors that put God’s organ out of tune, that discompose and tear the body of man with violence, are those inhuman persecutors who with racks and tortures and prisons and fires and exquisite inquisitions throw down the bodies of the true God’s servants to the idolatrous worship of their imaginary gods, that torture men into Hell and carry them through the inquisition into damnation. St Augustine moves a question, and institutes a disputation, and carries it somewhat problematically, whether torture be to be admitted at all, or no. That presents a fair probability which he says against it. We presume, says he, that an innocent man should accuse himself, by confession, in torture. And if an innocent man be able to do so, why should we not think that a guilty man, who shall save his life by holding his tongue in torture, should be able to do so?

And then, where is the use of torture? It is a slippery trial and uncertain (says Ulpian) to convince by torture. For many says (says St Augustine again) he that is yet but questioned, whether he be guilty or no, before that be known, is, without all question, miserably tortured. And whereas, many time, the passion of the Judge, and the covetousness of the Judge, and the ambition of the Judge, are calamities heavy enough upon a man that is accused. If the Judge knew that he were innocent, he should suffer nothing. If he knew he were guilty, he should not suffer torture. But because the Judge is ignorant and knows nothing, therefore the prisoner must be racked and tortured and mangled.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000902

But then, I suppose objecting to torture as opposing God's will is SO seventeenth-century. After all, Nine-Eleven Changed Everything, and Donne didn't have to deal with Islamofascist Terr'ists.
:sarcasm: