Today, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin came out and endorsed Dan Seals, over his Democratic primary opponent Jay Footlik. This endorsement was no shock, considering that Durbin backed Seals last election and the timing was likely geared to boost Seals' appearance at the local Dem convention today. Footlik's campaign has yet to get any traction (his inability to effectively emphasize Seals' negatives like professor-gate and millionaire-gate have torpedoed any chance he might have had), although based on my personal observation, and those of most objective observers who have attended the recent debates, most seem to think that Footlik is by far the smarter and more polished candidate. Of course, Seals may be more concerned about Footlik than he has publicly let on, which would also explain why Durbin's endorsement was solicited at this time.
Dick Durbin, as powerful a senator as he is, may not be doing Seals a favor when the general election comes around, however. The voters in the 10th District are a notoriously independent lot, and considering that Durbin is ranked as the #1 most liberal U.S. Senator, between accepting Durbin's endorsement and that of 9th District congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (ranked #18 among the House's most liberal representatives), Seals has wholeheartedly accepted the mantle of the Dem machine candidate and the lovechild of the left wing liberal party base.
While that will likely win Seals the primary (fueled by the left-wing liberal base of the Dem party), that may not go over all that well in the general, given that the 10th District has increasingly shown its collective desire for a moderate candidate, a role that Mark Kirk has successfully filled for four terms. Add to that Seals' affinity for equating himself with Barack Obama, who is rated the most liberal of the senators running for president, it's pretty clear what the voters would be getting if they place Seals in office. It'll be fun to watch Seals try to steer back towards the center after the primary is over. The many hours of video captured of Seals' positions will be coming back to haunt him, I would predict...
This endorsement also pretty much eliminates any illusions anyone may have had that the 10th Dems were not pulling for Seals all the way. At some point, someone must have convinced Lauren Beth Gash that the 10th Dems should at least give Footlik some space to promote his candidacy to 10th Dem members, but it is now pretty clear that this was just window-dressing. Could you imagine being poor Jay Footlik and showing up to the 10th Dem convention, only to learn that the keynote speaker, Dick Durbin, had just held a press conference to announce he'd endorsed Seals? I can't imagine a much worse slap in the face to Footlik, and then for him to have to go on stage to do his stump speech after that? Ugh.
Footlik's a big boy, with Washington D.C. experience, so I am sure he can take it, but this is another great example of the stranglehold the Dem power brokers try to keep on their party at all levels. Just try being a challenger like Footlik, or even an incumbent that has fallen out of favor with the Machine like Eddie Washington in the 60th District.
(YET ANOTHER) FOOTLIK-SEALS DEBATE EVENT: I keep forgetting to post something on the upcoming "Chicago Tonight" Candidate Forum that will be televised Monday, January 21st 2008, at 7:00 p.m. on Channel 11 (WTTW). Carol Marin moderates. At this point, unless Seals makes a complete ass of himself (would Ms. Marin dare to ask about Seals' claimed professorship?), it simply amounts to some extra free advertising. Even though I would say Footlik has "won" every debate, he simply hasn't been able to capitalize on his stronger attributes as a candidate. So, tune in if you like, but I will probably be re-arranging my sock drawer or doing something else more worthwhile.
JAY GRODNER UPDATE: Jay Grodner, a self-described "radical liberal" who was accused of "keying" the car of Marine Sgt. Michael McNulty, has pled guilty. El Rider over at Flying Debris has a good post up with relevant links, so check it out.
Dick Durbin, as powerful a senator as he is, may not be doing Seals a favor when the general election comes around, however. The voters in the 10th District are a notoriously independent lot, and considering that Durbin is ranked as the #1 most liberal U.S. Senator, between accepting Durbin's endorsement and that of 9th District congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (ranked #18 among the House's most liberal representatives), Seals has wholeheartedly accepted the mantle of the Dem machine candidate and the lovechild of the left wing liberal party base.
While that will likely win Seals the primary (fueled by the left-wing liberal base of the Dem party), that may not go over all that well in the general, given that the 10th District has increasingly shown its collective desire for a moderate candidate, a role that Mark Kirk has successfully filled for four terms. Add to that Seals' affinity for equating himself with Barack Obama, who is rated the most liberal of the senators running for president, it's pretty clear what the voters would be getting if they place Seals in office. It'll be fun to watch Seals try to steer back towards the center after the primary is over. The many hours of video captured of Seals' positions will be coming back to haunt him, I would predict...
This endorsement also pretty much eliminates any illusions anyone may have had that the 10th Dems were not pulling for Seals all the way. At some point, someone must have convinced Lauren Beth Gash that the 10th Dems should at least give Footlik some space to promote his candidacy to 10th Dem members, but it is now pretty clear that this was just window-dressing. Could you imagine being poor Jay Footlik and showing up to the 10th Dem convention, only to learn that the keynote speaker, Dick Durbin, had just held a press conference to announce he'd endorsed Seals? I can't imagine a much worse slap in the face to Footlik, and then for him to have to go on stage to do his stump speech after that? Ugh.
Footlik's a big boy, with Washington D.C. experience, so I am sure he can take it, but this is another great example of the stranglehold the Dem power brokers try to keep on their party at all levels. Just try being a challenger like Footlik, or even an incumbent that has fallen out of favor with the Machine like Eddie Washington in the 60th District.
(YET ANOTHER) FOOTLIK-SEALS DEBATE EVENT: I keep forgetting to post something on the upcoming "Chicago Tonight" Candidate Forum that will be televised Monday, January 21st 2008, at 7:00 p.m. on Channel 11 (WTTW). Carol Marin moderates. At this point, unless Seals makes a complete ass of himself (would Ms. Marin dare to ask about Seals' claimed professorship?), it simply amounts to some extra free advertising. Even though I would say Footlik has "won" every debate, he simply hasn't been able to capitalize on his stronger attributes as a candidate. So, tune in if you like, but I will probably be re-arranging my sock drawer or doing something else more worthwhile.
JAY GRODNER UPDATE: Jay Grodner, a self-described "radical liberal" who was accused of "keying" the car of Marine Sgt. Michael McNulty, has pled guilty. El Rider over at Flying Debris has a good post up with relevant links, so check it out.
UPDATED 01/21/08: Here's the additional newsfeed re the Durbin endorsement from the Sun-Times, the Daily Herald, and the News-Sun (see first link for the Tribune article). As expected, all of the articles reported the buzz, but no one really caught on to the insult made to Jay Footlik by timing the Durbin endorsement of Seals to occur just before the event where Durbin was the keynote speaker. Democrats, take note of exactly who is running your party (hint: it's not you, it's the Machine).
Posts
40 comments:
Way to go Pup! Now you can shoot for The Daily Kos and Al Franken endorsements. Your support is right in line with regular folks in the 10th District.
Keep lining up the loony left, I'm sure it will pay off in November...for our current Congressman.
TA writes... "we note, though, that Seals did not face a contested primary last time"
Ya might want to ask Zane Smith about that.
Look it up.
Ypu're right, of course, Rob, I'd forgotten that (but it's fixed now), which is interesting, considering Smith for some reason was tapped as the emcee for the Dem convention today.
Maybe he was asked to be there to remind the 10th Dems that Seals crushed Smith 70-30 last time. Wonder if the margin over Footlik will be greater or lesser.
Thanks again for bird-dogging me, Rob, you've increased quality control since you've been lurking here lately. May you ought to go over to Ellen's and correct some of her inaccuracies as well.
TA,
Do you think Dan agrees with Senator Durbin's comparison of U.S. troops to Nazis? Someone should ask him.
Sparty
Kirk just got the endorsesment of Planned Parenthood.
Sorry Dan - even you lefty friends are divided this time.
Where is the picture of Seals with indicted felon Robert Creamer?
Sparticus,
Apparently Team America isn't the only one so blinded by partisanship on this blog that he needs constant fact-checking.
Look up Durbin's actual Senate speech from that day. Nowhere in it does he ever compare our brave troops to Nazis. Nowhere. Not once.
Maybe you should ask yourself why you think it necessary to provide cover for a president who would ask the men and women pledged to defend our great nation to commit acts that are indeed reminiscent of past evil, despotic regimes...
Even Pres. Bush's current Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, agrees the tactics Pres. Bush authorized at Gitmo are unAmerican.
Or do you not consider torture to be unAmerican?
I think we as a nation are better than that. It appears you may disagree.
Rob,
I re-read Durbin's remarks. It's clear he compares the tactics of Americans to Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags and Pol Pot's killing fields. He compared our brave men and women in uniform fighting to defend your freedom to murderous tyrants and genocidal dictators. Does Dan Seals agree with that assessment?
Meanwhile, TA, did you read today's Sun Times? http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/750924,CST-NWS-10th21.article
Maybe you need to let the reporter know about Seals' "instructor" status.
Sparty
Sparty- I found it interesting that Seals has morphed from an "adjunct professor" (Seals' website claim) to a "lecturer" (Seals' claim at the Stevenson debate) to an "instructor". What's next? Chief Bottle Washer?
The Sun Times article also stated that Seals never really stopped running for the 10th District seat. I beg to differ; in fact, I believe running again was only his second (third or fourth) choice of things to do after he lost in 2006. Watch for more on this very soon.
Nice flub Sparticus.
Tell me, which Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces authorized those very tactics?
(And, it's rather odd that you've ignored the fact these tactics were described by FBI inspectors and Sen. Durbin was simply reading from their report.)
So, ultimately, you're saying that not just Sen. Durbin, but also Atty. Gen. Mukasey and the FBI have "compared our troops to Nazis".
Again, how can you not consider torture to be unAmerican?
--
And TA, Dan Seals' job as an adjunct professor was described in detail to you over at Rich Miller's Cap Fax as late as last week. That you continue to misrepresent that information must mean you choose to continue to fib, now that you know the truth.
Rob- in no way was the debate between TA and Archpundit over at CapFax Blog any exoneration of Dan Seals and his claim to "currently" be a professor when his one schedule night class does not begin for some months.
Archpundit may have his opinion, and I have mine as to whether Seals mislead (and is misleading) the voters of the 10th District. We will let the voters decide if Seals is misrepresenting himself, since neither you nor I will convince each other that he is right.
And, while we're on it, it occurs to me that once again, Seals relies on outside the District support to argue his case (Seals' defender in the case, Archpundit, comes from the St. Louis area), which may be fitting, since he is an out-of-district candidate.
Rob -- That link you provided to Rich Miller requires a subscription. Perhaps you can copy and paste for us regular voters who aren't paid consultants for Dan Seals.
It's also clear to me Rob that you agree with Durbin/Seals and believe America is the real human rights violator in the world when we lead the world in human rights. You believe Americans are the torturers when the terrorists we interrogate are the ones cutting off Daniel Pearl's head. You believe terrorists should have more rights than the Americans they seek to murder.
Like the Palestinian sympathizers who blame Israel for all suffering and castigate them alone in the world as the violators of human rights, as torturers, as reckless occupiers, you blame America instead of the terrorists who murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
All I can say to you, Rob (and Seals/Durbin), is that I'm proud to support Mark Kirk who continues to put on the uniform to defend your freedom to espouse those views.
how can Dan Seals claim to be the "change" candidate while accepting the endorsement of an entrenched political machine veteran like Durbin? Durbin promotes Obama and now Seals as the "change" candidates, but Durbin is the last person who wants change in washington. he's part of the problem not the solution.
Calling Durbin "left wing" is fair game, but I agree with Rob_N, the spin that Durbin was analogizing us to the Nazis was completely unfounded. Just like the thought that if we criticize the Bush Administration for condoning torture we're equating ourselves to world human rights abusers -- boy, the Republicans better think twice about nominating John McCain because if the base is this rabididly pro-waterboarding, he's toast.
In 2006 I repeatedly contacted Mark Kirk's office to ask if he was endorsing Alan Keyes for senate, who I thought was a completely irresponsible selection of the Illinois GOP. I couldn't root canal an answer -- they kept saying they'd check and get back to me and never did. To me, that's not honest and I lost a lot of respect for Kirk, who I had voted for in the past. TA, if you can't disown someone as lothesome as Alan Keyes, imho you lose the right to make snarky comments about leftists, let alone call yourself a moderate.
Rusty- so far, no one ever called ME and asked me to disown Keyes, but I am happy to go on record as stating that the party made a huge mistake in nominating Keyes, and I personally undervoted him, since I wasn't going to vote for Obama either. Hopefully that makes you feel better and restores my "moderate" creds in your eyes.
As to Kirk, if you are that worried that elected officials take a stand on endorsing or not endorsing candidates, maybe you ought to call Seals, Garrett, Ryg and the other Dems and ask if they are standing behind Terry Link after all of his petition fraud issues. So far it's been dead silence from all of them.
Interesting, though, I did not see a mention that Terry Link was at the 10th Dem convention yesterday. Is he persona non gratis among the grassroots Dems? Anyone know?
Rusty, I don't know what Alan Keyes has to do with Durbin/Seals/Rob blaming America first.
TA, I'm dying to know if anyone saw Creamer there...the guy who mentored Seals and recruited him to run.
Sparty
Sparty, the last sighting I heard of Creamer was in the VIP section of Obama's supporters on the night he won in Iowa.
Mr. Weewee writes, "It's also clear to me Rob that you agree with Durbin/Seals and believe America is the real human rights violator in the world when we lead the world in human rights. You believe Americans are the torturers when the terrorists we interrogate are the ones cutting off Daniel Pearl's head. You believe terrorists should have more rights than the Americans they seek to murder."
...Every country on this planet has its fair share of abuses so no one is innocent there.
That said, why do you agree with stooping to the despicable level of the zealots who would behead innocent people simply out of spite?
I won't hold my breath waiting for a rational answer, and I've already stated quite clearly that I think America is better than that and that torture is unAmerican.
You apparently agree more with the terrorists that would commit such evil acts.
As for "having more rights" -- I believe everyone ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The fact that Bush's Pentagon has had to release people from Gitmo and Abu Ghraib because they were innocent cab drivers and aid workers bears that out.
Or do you also think that justice is unAmerican?
PS: TA can copy and paste the comment threads if he chooses.
ArchPundit may be from St. Louis, but at least he knows what he's talking about given that he works for a college. TA, who has a pattern of erroneous statements (not opinions, errors), has to do semantic gymnastics in order to justify calling someone who is a lecturer not a lecturer.
Besides, if having support solely from within the district is a prereq, Rep. Kirk will need to be returning quite a bit of that warchest he's built up, so I don't think any of his supporters are seriously trying to make a point of that matter.
Sorry TA but "undervoting" doesn't quite do it for me. Keyes was (and is) a radical -- I don't think he can at all be equated to Obama. Obama is like a left counterpart of Barry Goldwater, Keyes is like a right counterpart to Noam Chomsky.
"Moderate cred" would also be helped by what I think is pretty inarguable: waterboarding is torture under every objective definition of the term (you didn't comment one way or the other). I'd throw in some other issues I think moderates should agree on, but that'd be a tangent.
For the record, I reluctantly supported Bill Clinton's impeachment even though I voted for him twice.
Anyway, the point was Kirk: I'm saying it's legit to judge him on the dodge, especially as senators are among the most ultra-powerful men/women on the planet. I've also noticed that since Seals/2006 put a scare in him, he's been e-mailing me these ridiculous push-polls, often with disingenous questions (he says he wants to know what the district thinks about Chuck Rangell's suggestion to bring back the draft, but has no interest in what we think of Iraq War policy itself??!!) Also, Kirk has been in office for a while now, most of GOP control of either Congress or the entire federal government. He may have a voting record, but he hasn't shown much leadership on anything. Lake Michigan polution from Wisconsin maybe...
As for Terry Link, the story has time to develop and I plan to follow it. But I'm puzzled by your passion for the Footlik/Seals race. The two are ideologically pretty close. You're obviously going to back Kirk. This doesn't seem like your fight.
Finally, re: planned parenthood -- I have a friend who once said "Republican moderates" mean rich white people who want to be sure their daughters can get an abortion if necessary.
TA,
Did you know that YouTube has taken down the Seals video on Iran? Dan Seals is trying to cover up his statement that he would not defend Israel if attacked by Iran. I think that deserves a post on its own. Does anyone have the video elsewhere?
BD
BD- yes, I think wenoted alittle while ago that YouTube took it down at the request of Lee "failed candidate" Goodman, who claimed copyright. You can still view the video at Lee's site, the AtCenter Network. I'm pretty sure this is the video that has the Iran comment, but I can't view it where I'm at right now, so I am doing this from memory.
Everyone reading and leaving comments on this blog should take note of the difference in perspective between it and the wacky-left blog covering the 10th District race. Here, all comments, left, right, and center remain up and alive for all to see.
I'm sure TA and most posters here don't agree with any of the Daily Kos, America-hating propaganda and liberal cry-me-a-river crap that many on leaving on this blog. But, it makes for good discussion and a laugh or two everytime the looneys come out to play.
Bottom line here is that no one is being deleted, blocked or banned, because of a particular view point.
In stark contrast, the left-wing Catwoman, aka, Ellen Beth Shrill, would never allow this type of discussion on her electronic tribute diary to Dan Seals.
Believe it or not, the Republican Party has become the party of free speech.
Something I forgot to mention earlier is that in the Sun-Times article today, the part about Seals' background states:
Seals, son of Chicago Bears guard George Seals, was marketing director at GE Commercial Finance and is set to start teaching at Northwestern this spring.
Is this what Seals or his staff told the reporter about his background for the purposes of the article? Hmmm, anyone notice any significant difference from what Seals has stated before?
Yes, kids, that's right, Seals has gone from being a CURRENT adjunct "professor" to someone who plans to start teaching this spring.
To everyone who took the position that Seals' assumed contract to teach in the spring gave him the right as early as last October to begin calling himself a "current" "adjunct professor", why change your story now if you were right all along?
Or did the Sun-Times reporter just make up that Seals description after reading Team America?
TA: You forgot where Seals talks about his deep foreign policy experience from the Suntimes article:
"Half of every month I spent working with emerging leaders in Ramallah, in Gaza, in Amman, Jordan . . . in the trenches, I mean bullets flying overhead," said Footlik.
Seals says his foreign policy expertise also stacks up well against Kirk's. Seals lived in Japan teaching English, is married to a Japanese immigrant and holds a master's degree in International Economics and Japan Studies from Johns Hopkins University.
TA, just to clarify -- do you consider waterboarding a form of torture?
Yea, the funny thing is, I keep expecting some reporter to start calling Seals on some of this crap, and every day I open my newspapers to dead silence.
I guess maybe on Feb 6th when we know who the candidate is on the Dem side, the Kirk machine will start steamrolling over Seals (oops, I mean the Dem candidate) and make an issue out of this stuff. It's the only way it'll get any play in the papers, apparently (if then).
TA, have you stopped to consider the reason "some of this stuff" doesn't make it into the papers is because it's so easily debunked?
For an attorney you sure are pretty far off base quite regularly.
--
Prof. Peabody,
You can kiss my lily white behind with your "America hater" BS.
I believe in standing up for truth, justice and the American Way. You stand up for torture tactics that are unAmerican and run counter to our nation's great spirit.
If you can't handle the truth why take out your feelings of inadequacy on your fellow Americans? (And gee, since you so despise your fellow Americans it would seem it is you who is the "America hater" here.)
The Washington Times today had an editorial about Congressional elections:
"Most strikingly, of the 13 open seats rated competitive last week by the nonpartisan election-watchers at the Cook Political Report, all but one are held by Republicans. Having so many open seats to defend in competitive districts — which are the softest of targets and the likeliest to swing in the event of a "wave" or "consolidation" year — spells a problem for the GOP, since it spreads money and resources thinner on the margin."
Further on it says:
"Illinois 10th: Four-term Rep. Mark Kirk won re-election by a 53-47 percent margin in 2006 in a Democratic-leaning district in Chicago's north suburbs. Watch for a coattail effect if Sen. Barack Obama wins the Democratic presidential nomination."
Maybe we'll be lucky (and the country unlucky) and Hillary will win the nomination.
TA:
EVERYONE has copies of Seals's anti-Israel statements.
No doubt you will see them a great deal - nothing like seeing what he actually said.
Anyone seeking to supress the videos please call Tom Cruise -- he just lost a similar battle.
Ain't the First Amendment grand?
Let me get this straight.
Mark Kirk = Commander/Congressman
Dan Seals = Speaks Japanese
TA I know you said that you wouldn't be watching WTTW tonight because your sock drawer was in disarry. You chose wisely. I watched the pathetic exchange between these jokers. Carol Marin was a total disappointment in the puff questions she asked them. The arrogance of Seals was apparent as never before. Footlik is the brighter of the two but I don't see it translating into a victory on 2/5. The funniest question was about what newspapers are delivered to their doorsteps. Neither said the Sun Times! I wonder if they know that Carol Marin's column is IN the Sun Times!
Because Dan didn't expect a question on the stimulus package he couldn't jabber away from his Democratic talking points. Perhaps that part hasn't been written. They weren't on for a very long time tonight. That was the best part of the program - it's brevity!
Oh yes, TA, I almost forgot. Carol Marin made NO mention of our sometime 'professor" - lecturer - or whatever. No mention at all of Northwestern University. I wonder if someone finally got the attention of the president of NU and asked HIM about the class and the "prof" come April, 08. Let's continue to see how this plays out after the Primary. When you read the faculty handbook given to NU professors it's clear that what Dan is planning might just get the attention of the IRS as it relates to the 501 (C) 3 of the university and what's allowed as "outside" activiites for staff.
Um, Mr. T.A., Mr. Attorney, Mr. "Moderate," did you miss my question about whether you believe waterboarding constitutes torture? To quote that great debate moderator Wolf Blitzer, "the question avails itself to a yes or no answer."
Rusty- actually, it doesn't necessarily equate to a yes or no answer at all. First of all, I'm not running for anything, and you are not my constituent, you are just a visitor on MY blog. I don't owe you an answer, and I don't have to defend my "moderate" credentials against you or anyone else.
But, I will say this. If "waterboarding" did not make the subject uncomfortable, there would be no point to it. Whether that degree of "uncomfortableness" equates to "torture" is a matter of semantics, depending on what your definition of torture is (no offense, Bill Clinton). For example, under the Geneva Convention (and this is just an example, not a debate over whether the Geneva Convention applies to prisoners at Gitmo, for example), I believe torture has a pretty specific meaning. On the other hand, you could say that ANY pain or unpleasantness that is inflicted by one person on another, where the subject is unwilling to endure it but cannot get away or cause it to stop can easily be called "torture." Part of the psychological effectiveness of torture is that it conflicts with our basic "flight or fight" mechanism, in that because one cannot get away from the pain, it affects you on a whole different level than pain that one voluntarily endures (for example, getting a tatoo).
By a very loose definition, waterboarding probably constitutes torture, as does so-called "stress positions," deprivation of sleep or food, or any of a lot of other interrogation techiques. But whether such techniques ought to be used by the U.S. in questioning terrorists (which, of course, is the basis for the whole waterbaording controversy) cannot be answered simply by saying waterboarding constitutes "torture" in common parlance or not.
Let that inner-attorney out, TA. It's just screaming for more rhetorical tap dancing.
When so much as in the aforementioned structure of words combined into a sentence appears that is.
ROFLMAO.
A lot of fundamental, values-based questions going completely unanswered (or "non-answered") on this blog by the cons even though they should be easy to answer... Gee, I wonder why that is?
Funny, did I say you owed me a definition? No, I asked if you missed my question -- obviously this is your blog and you are free to say "I'm not answering" as you please.
In any event, while I get where Rob's "inner lawyer" comment is coming from, you're answer isn't lawyer-ish at all -- you pretend like we don't have a definiton of torture. We do: 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340. I presume you are aware that waterboarding is designed to make the subject think he/she is drowning. I'd love to hear your explanation why people such as Teddy Roosevelt were wrong and that doesn't fit section 2(a). But hey, it's your blog.
A quote from Ayn Rand comes to mind: there's no more destructive force in the world than non-objective law.
Rusty- that's precisely my point. If you want to cite a statute like 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, or international law, or whatever definition you like, and then ask me the question, that's fine, but don't ask me if I agree with an undefined term that could have many interpretations.
As set forth in the statute:
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
Given that definition, and what I know about waterboarding, I would have to say that if it isn't torture, it certainly comes close. I personally would be very unhappy to have that inflicted on me. While it may produce the "sensation" of drowning, if the subject/victim knows that the technique won't actually kill him, but it's very uncomfortable, does that count? Not sure. But if I agree it's torture, will that make you happy? I'm not an expert on the controversy, but as far as I know, they stopped using this technique years ago and many people in Congress (including Dems) knew about this and did nothing until it became politically inexpedient.
Rob_n:
Sticks and stones, sticks and stones.
Your loony left blathering is not even worth a response.
Go back to hanging out on the Al Franken fan club site.
"Professor" Peabody,
How a propos that you would refer to a kindergarten taunt to explain away your childish lack of reason and rationale.
Post a Comment