Remember how I said in my last post that I was concluding the series on torture? Not really. I have one more thing to add. It’s a bit of an aside, but it is something worth mentioning.
I’ve noticed that many of those that oppose torture (waterboarding specifically) are usually not as squeamish when it comes to abortion. They loudly rail against Bush policies of allowing waterboarding, but there’s nary a peep about our nation’s practice of dismembering and chemically burning human beings.
Now, despite decades of its use on American service members, President Obama declares that waterboarding is torture when used on terrorists. Is it? Reasonable people cannot disagree whether scalding a person’s skin, dismembering him, or beheading him constitutes torture. Those are undeniably torturous acts that our enemies have inflicted on Americans. But since waterboarding leaves no permanent physical damage, reasonable people can disagree over whether or not it’s actually torture and should be used on terrorists.
Despite being against waterboarding, President Obama does not seem to think that scalding, dismembering, or beheading is torture in all circumstances. In some circumstances, the President actually approves of such treatment, so much so that he is now exporting it to other countries with our tax dollars. He’s even thinking of forcing certain Americans to inflict it on the innocent.
In fact, the President along with most in his party and some in the Republican Party, think that such brutality is a Constitutional right, which they cleverly disguise with the word “choice.” Choice in these circumstances actually means scalding, dismembering, or de-braining a living human being—which is literally what saline, D&C, and partial birth abortions respectively accomplish.
Many of those who are against waterboarding are either pro-choice or they are against legislation that outlaws abortion (or they think attempts to make abortion illegal are useless). I wish they’d be more consistent in their thinking.