Dems Wary of Bush CIA Counsel Choice
It seems that the Democrats do not like the idea of John Rizzo being the top torturer, I mean CIA lawyer...
John Rizzo is the CIA's top lawyer, and has served for over thirty years, but is seems Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin, feel they could do the job better.
The real issue here is torture, for or against. It is very clear that Rizzo is not totally against what people would call "torture" after all Rizzo testified that he personally issued guidance in 2002 declaring the CIA's interrogation guidelines legal under international law. The question is what is torture? In a August 2002 memo, written by a senior Justice Department lawyer, said that for an interrogation technique to be torture, it must inflict physical pain that is difficult to endure. I find many things in life to be "difficult to endure" but I do not find it unethical to force people to undergo such "pains." If "torture" saves lives, then what is the big issue? We are not physically damaging a person, by putting them through trying experiences, the person WILL live. Torture has been used for centuries as a way of getting information. If people would just tell the truth, there would be no torture involved, and if you want torture, what America does is nothing in comparison. Just check out the practices of some other countries. I am not advocating that we go around murdering people, cause well dead people don't talk, I am not even saying shoot them, but causing non-physically damaging pain, will make you talk, have you ever played mercy? The stronger person "tortures" you till you talk, and cry out "mercy." Same thing, just the stakes are MUCH higher! Read more!
