Joe loves waterboarding
The man of darkness has made his full transition to the GOP.
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman reluctantly acknowledged Thursday he does not believe waterboarding is torture, but he thinks the interrogation technique should be used only under the most extreme circumstances.Yeah, like the permanent physical damage to this man's brain...
Lieberman was one of 45 senators who voted Wednesday in opposition to a bill that would limit the CIA to the 19 interrogation techniques outlined in the Army field manual. That manual prohibits waterboarding, a method in which detainees are typically strapped to a bench and have water poured into their mouth and nose, making them feel as if they will drown.
"We are at war," Lieberman said. "I know enough from public statements made by Osama bin Laden and others, as well as classified information I see, to know the terrorists are actively planning, plotting to attack us again. I want our government to be able to gather information again within both the law and Geneva Convention."
In the worst-case scenario -- when there is an imminent threat of a nuclear attack on American soil -- Lieberman said the president should be able to certify the use of waterboarding on a detainee suspected of knowing vital details of the plot.
"You want to be able to use emergency tech to try to get the information out of that person," Lieberman said.
But Lieberman believes such authority has limits. He does not believe the president could authorize having hot coals pressed on someone's flesh to obtain information.
The difference, he said, is that waterboarding is mostly psychological and there is no permanent physical damage.
Since DINOBoy thinks waterboarding is cool and it's not like the military is using hot coals on someone, someone should pose this question to Lieberman, McCain, or our President.
Q: Mr. President, Sen. McCain, Sen. Lieberman, you’ve all recently made clear your support for waterboarding as an interrogation technique. Since, in your estimation, waterboarding is a legal, effective and harmless tool, is it therefore your belief that it would be acceptable and appropriate for enemy nations and organizations to waterboard captured American servicemen and women? If so, can you explain how this stance is consistent with your frequently stated “support” for our nation’s troops?Don't hold your breath on an answer...