Anybody seen Kirk?

Dear Confused,

If want to know what Kirk says about the hottest constitutional issue of recent days – at least since Fredo Gonzalez skipped D.C. – here’s the link to his radio interview on WGN. http://wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38265&Itemid=1

It seems to indicate that Kirk is offering an excuse that even the CIA didn’t offer, although it does sound suspiciously like the words that have come out of the mouth of Carl Rove.

As for Kirks’ first position: Destroying the tapes because the bad guys might recognize CIA agents if they saw on these tapes is a crimson herring of the largest order Every document, every photo showing anyone in the CIA would have to be destroyed on the fear it would be leaked to the terrorist.

Plus, as we all know, the Bush administration doesn’t seem to care about leaking IDs of CIA agents, especially if they disagree with Bush policy (Remember Valerie Plame?)

But more to the point, there are no reputable references to U.S. legal precedence or international treaties – or even five centuries of history and practice – that overrides the clearly obvious: Waterboarding was torture then and it’s torture now.

Even if the victim isn’t being killed, the technique clearly violates the Geneva Convention prohibition against cruel and dehumanizing treatment. Why do so many Republicans think torture by government agents is acceptable?

So if torture is OK, it's only rationale becomes “the ends justify the means.” We must be able to show that we got such good evidence from waterboarding that we can overcome out entire history as a nation, hold our nose, and carry it out as if it’s just another episode of “24.”

Problems?

Well, there’s not even any clear hints (not more than a wink-wink from the usual apologists who don’t know any particular facts) that the practice has produced real results. Everyone who has undergone even simulated waterboarding cracks in about 30 seconds and tell the questioners anything they want to hear. But can any of that info be verified? Is any of it true? And how would we verify that a terrorist plot that hasn’t taken place and might never take place was foiled by information that might be true, or might be false.

Are all of “Ifs” in torture enough to overcome national principles and carry it out?

In the middle of our local conversation, we have Rep. Kirk.

Swami will inquire. In the meantime, doesn’t it make you a little queasy that you’re not sure what your U.S. representative really thinks about torture as a necessary tool of national policy?.

Wonder what Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln would think.