It’s not torture unless your first objective IS to hurt, maim or kill them

CNN–Previously secret torture memo released
“WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Bush administration told the CIA in 2002 that its interrogators working abroad would not violate U.S. prohibitions against torture unless they ‘have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering,’ according to a previously secret Justice Department memo released Thursday.

“The interrogator’s ‘good faith’ and ‘honest belief’ that the interrogation will not cause such suffering protects the interrogator, the memo adds.

“‘Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture,’ Jay Bybee, then the assistant attorney general, wrote in the memo.”

Oh yeah, and Tinkerbell will be saved if everyone says, I DO believe in fairies. Basically, what the memo is saying is that intent is more important than what you actually do. Like if you shoot someone, but don’t intend to kill them, it’s not murder if they die. After all, you didn’t think they would die, did you? So, if your superior tells you, don’t worry, it isn’t really gonna hurt them, you’re fine. Or if you’re a Pollyanna or think that these people you’re torturing are just characters in a Warner Brothers cartoon.

Coleen Rowley and Ray McGovern have a good discussion on the lies the administration told us and itself to justify its use of torture in ConsortiumNews: <A href=”http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/071808e.html”>’Justifying’ Torture: Two Big Lies.</A> They make the interesting point that torture does NOT get us any real information, but it CAN be used to get “confirmation” of misinformation we want to spread. Say WMDs. Ordinary questioning reveals that the WMDs had been destroyed in the 1990s. Torture gets the prisoner to “admit” knowing about secret caches of them and continuing programs. Now you have “plausible evidence” to accuse Iraq of a WMD program. Is it true? WTF cares, the tanks have to roll by March…

Stand up and sing the National Anthem, Mr. Ashcroft.

Alberto’s Bedside Manner? Needs Improvement…

(Bloomberg) Gonzales Pressured Ashcroft on Program, Comey Says

(AP) No-confidence vote looms for Gonzales

(AP) White House: Anti-Gonzales vote a stunt

Who would’ve thought that John Ashcroft would have been the protector of American liberty? Didn’t do any good, the little bootlicker Alberto VO5 just waited until he could ram it through later. Is a vote of No Confidence a stunt? Yes. WE SHOULD IMPEACH THE LITTLE BASTARD. Votes of no confidence have no legal standing. All it says is, “Naughty, naughty.” When are the Democrats going to get some BALLS?