Reason to oppose torture legislation

Paul asks why anyone would oppose torture legislation.

I can think of a simple reason: It's not needed, the existing laws already prohibit it.



If you really want to know why a Senator voted, you sometimes have to look deeper into other issues:

What are their private arguments;

Do they believe the real problem is with enforcement;

Will the existing bill really solve the problem?

* * *

I'm not giving anyone a broad sweep of the brush if they voted against this bill. They may have some good reasons.

Ironically, it would be interesting to really hear the "honest reasons" of those who have voted for it, but have reservations.

I suspect, in the long run, we'll learn of an interesting switch: "Oh, I voted it, but Gosh darn, this bill just isn't getting enforced."

* * *

Strange, the existing Geneva Conventions barring torture are ignored; why should we believe that a "minor US statute" will have greater deference?

People who say, "No one specifically restricted a contractor from doing it," are missing the point about contracts: No one can be given immunity to commit unlawful acts.

Those are called illegal contracts and are not enforceable.

* * *

Why should a Senator oppose the torture legislation? If they are willing to call it what it is: An excuse to distract attention from the failed enforcement and adherence to the laws of the land through Article VI.

Yes, I do mean an impeachable offense.