Two days ago, Mike Mathias points out that even the people that did the waterboarding of an al Qaeda leader admitted it was torture. Not only does Mathias show a prescient quality with this post, but enhances his uncanny ability by saying:
McIlheran and other torture advocates get upset when anyone points out that by torturing its detainees the United States is aligning itself with countries like Iraq, Syria, and Egypt of recent years and dictatorial governments of the past from the Soviet Union and Germany. Yet no one’s upset that a mentally ill man was tortured until he provided information about imaginary plots?
Long term, is it Al-Qaeda or people like McIlheran posing a threat to our democracy?
Today, McIlheran proves that he suffers from selective myopia, with a post using someone else's distortion of the story. Not only is McIlheran two days late, he still gets it wrong.
And I would be remiss, if I did not point out the comment on McIlheran's post, who points out the true definition of torture:
The U.S. government, in 1947, convicted a Japanese military officer of torture for waterboarding a U.S. citizen...and sentenced him to 15 years hard labor. Even if it gets these Islamic nihilists to talk, waterboarding is inhumane regardless of whether or not it "leaves a mark."
And what do you mean by "traditional understanding of torture?" Sixty years ago our government prosecuted a waterboarding case, calling it torture. Today there is supposedly a "debate" about whether this sadistic tactic constitutes torture? The real torture is trying to follow the logic of this argument that somehow we can behave like Huns while calling ourselves Americans.