What King says there is pretty obviously factually inaccurate. When even Rumsfeld, who's got as big a dog as anyone in this fight, and is an obscene liar, admits that it wasn't torture that generated the intel, then the case is closed as fuck.
But let's assume that King was not making a total assclown of himself when it comes to basic familiarity with reality. Let's assume this was an open debate on the facts. This issue is anything but an open debate as a matter of law. The US has domestic laws and ratified treaties that make torture and waterboarding and degrading and inhuman treatment illegal. No one seriously disputes this that I've heard.
So what exactly is King saying here? What is this debate that has suposedly been "re-awakened" in the aftermath of this incident? The only thing of value in this discussion is how it affects our policy going forward, and yet I don't hear anyone saying that our laws should be changed and that we should withdraw from these treaties. Funny thing, that.
No comments:
Post a Comment