HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Wow. I know that Andrew Sullivan has been out in front on the issue f torture for quite some time, but nevertheless... this is impressive:

There is already clarity in the law, the Geneva Convention, and the McCain Amendment. What the Bush administration wants is to introduce vagueness to get away with exactly the same barabarism they have deploying illegally for the past five years. They must be stopped. And eventually, they must be prosecuted for war crimes.

I really don't have much to add on this, except to reiterate what I said earlier this week. Few things in politics are black and white, but this is most certainly one of them. A society willing to torture others in its own defense is not a moral society, and is not an honorable society.

We have been told time and time again that this is a war being fought to defend our values and our way of life. In this debate, we are determining whether or not torture is to be one of those values for which young American men and women in uniform give their lives. It really is that simple.

UPDATE: Guestposting over at TPM, reader DK adds:

Only the weak, scared, and evil torture. Those who order and sanction torture, but leave the dirty work to others, are an order of magnitude more culpable morally. (A special place is reserved for the lawyers who give legal cover for such orders.) In their fear and their weakness and their smallness, the President and those around him stepped over the line. To do so in the heated days after 9/11 is understandable to a point, though not justifiable. Yet they persisted, first in saying that they did not step over the line and now in seeking to redraw the line. So which is it?

They are descending from the morally reprehensible to the morally cowardly.