In its lead editorial for tomorrow's February 10th edition, (link will be inserted when it becomes available,) the Chicago Tribune addresses CIA director Michael Hayden's admission of the use of waterboarding in interrogations.
In a lengthy editorial so filled with falsehoods, idiocy, and immorality that it is difficult to know where to begin a response, the paper of the "Party Of Lincoln" declares that we are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of men, and that such a situation is perfectly acceptable, provided, we may assume, that the men involved have an (R) next to their name.
Follow me below the fold and down the rabbit hole:
Without violating fair use doctrine, I'll attempt to share with the readers of this site some of the Tribune's "reasoning," along with some of my response.
There has been a loud, emotional debate over the interrogation technique known as waterboarding. There's been so much talk, and so many angry accusations, that it would be easy for most Americans to believe that waterboarding is commonly used against terror suspects.
Yes, easy indeed.
Not so. CIA Director Michael Hayden set the record straight on Tuesday. He said that the agency used waterboarding three times in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks, each time against suspected Al Queda leaders.
And if George W. Bush's hand-picked CIA Director says it, then it must be true, right? Because we all know that this administration always tells the truth, don't we? And how exactly does Hayden's claim regarding the CIA have any relation to the other government entities, military and non-military, that may have used this technique, or may still be using it?
Interrogators used the technique....on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, described as the "driving force" behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
Described by whom, exactly? I know he's also been described as a mentally unstable individual who, in his panic to end his torture coughed up a boatload of bogus information, sending our intelligence agencies off on an assortment of wild goose chases, wasting valuable resources that could have been applied elsewhere.
The CIA, Hayden said, has not employed waterboarding in "just a few weeks short of" five years.
Once again, if the administration says it, it must be true. Just as George W. Bush has repeatedly said that "the United States does not torture." Oh but wait, Hayden just exposed that as a lie, didn't he?
According to members of Congress, the practice is illegal under the 2005 law promoted by Sen. John McCain (R-Arizo.) and signed by President Bush...
Hey Tribune editorial board! How 'bout mentioning that immediately after signing that act into law Bush issued a signing statement saying that he had no intention of obeying it. Anyone? Anyone?
There is an answer to this. Waterboarding is illegal under U.S. law, and it will not and should not be employed in the normal course of U.S. interrogations of terrorosim suspects.
Oh, really?
But it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it could come into use in a case of extreme and imminent threat to the nation.
Oh, so I guess it depends on what the definition of "normal" is, huh? As well as the definition of "extreme." And "imminent."
"The president may very well have constitutional authority to take extraordinary actions to protect the integrity and welfare of the U.S.-end of story," said Northwestern University law professor Ron Allen. "Most likely, that power, like the power to defend against imminent attack, simply can't be curtailed by any other branch of government."
Hey professor, if you're using qualifiers such as "may" and "most likely" then it seems to me you have no business saying "End of story." Besides, I know of a boatload of Constitutional scholars who would regard you as being full of shit.
It is possible that a president under the most extreme circumstances would authorize extraordinary steps to protect the nation. And if what was at stake was the prevention of a terrorist attack on the scale of Septl 11, the nation would more than understand.
So there you have it folks. According to the Chicago Tribune, we are to accept as gospel truth anything the Bush administration says regarding this matter, despite the fact that Bush and his administration have already been caught in numerous lies regarding this matter, as well as countless others.
According to the Trib, our President is not the head of the executive branch, one of three equally powerful branches of our federal government. He is a king, able to do whatever he wishes, even if it is against the law, if the circumstances warrant it. And who is to decide if the circumstances warrant it? Why, none other than the king himself.
I weep for my nation.