A Torturer-in-Chief?

Democratic Daily reader Sam Osborne emailed me this LTTE, that I felt was worth sharing in light of the agreement reached yesterday by the GOP on Bush’s “detainee bill.” It’s still ugly no matter how we frame it.

Bush apologists have wheeled out a straw man: a detainee possessing knowledge which if forced from his evil lips will save millions of lives.

However, in recognition of the president’s infallible wisdom as great decider, Congress should enact legislation authorizing him to sanction the use of torture to secure information that will save these lives. To guarantee that torture is only used for such a purpose, the law should also provide that following the use of sanctioned torture the president will provide “slam-dunk” proof that millions of lives have been saved. If the president were unable beyond all doubt to provide such proof, he would immediately be subjected to the same methods of torture that he has authorized.

By establishing accountability right at the top, underlings would be protected from prosecution for doing the dastardly deeds. This is what George W. Bush is most concerned about, isn’t it?

This new torture law might also provide that on a voluntary basis avid Bush supporters would be permitted to demonstrate their undying faith in the president’s judgment by willingly sharing in the excruciating discomfort that ensues from an errant use of torture—but this is only offered as a comforting thought.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to A Torturer-in-Chief?

  1. battlebob says:

    This is from Joe Galloway..


    We’ve sunk to Osama’s level

  2. battlebob says:

    Project on Defense Alternatives.

    Lots of articles on the aftermath of Bush’s Iraq war..

  3. battlebob Says:
    September 22nd, 2006 at 2:05 pm


    Thanks for this link. What a screwed up mess – putting it midly. 🙄

  4. Ginny Cotts says:

    I guess anyone who was so comfortable with the death penalty – by an old electric chair – would have no problem with all this stuff.

    Makes me think of the chair that someone designed to contain jailed subjects who were threatening the guards, police, etc. The arms were tied in back and the feet to the front. Some people were put in one even though eyewitnesses agreed they were fully cooperating and offering no challenges (not even verbal).

    Eventually, more than one formed a leg clot and at least one died. They were cutting back the use and requiring more specific reasons for it to be used ever.

    These tactics could all cause death in some percentage of the population. Aside from the sheer unnecessary cruelty.