Torture: White House uses 9-11 non-sense to 'justify' human rights violations

The White House is desperate. They must rely on greater absurdity to rationalize war crimes.

Even their hypothetical examples, used to "justify torture" are flawed. This is evidence of a warped leadership that needs the rule of law imposed.

Self-evidently, the "best" this leadership can offer as a defense is non-sense, arguably easily defeated in any court room.

Where is the impeachment?



You know your Commander in Chief and White House staff are in trouble when they start throwing around hypothetical’s to justify human rights violations.

But you know they're about to face a war crimes indictment when their hypotheticals don't stack up to what actually happened.

If you're in real trouble, your convoluted hypoteheticals not only don't make sense, but they don't match what happened.

Let's consider what happened prior to 9-11: Many warnings were ignored.

This week, NSC Advisory Hadley dropped a hypothetical to justify torture.

However, notice in the following comment the following problems:

A. They're talking about "hypothetical warnings prior to 9-11"

B. They're using the risk of pre-warnings and the excuse to later commit abuses

C. They're proposing the scenario in hindsight as if it justifies torture

D. The scenario is not hypo ethical in that there were warnings and these were ignored.

This one really takes the cake:

"But... you see the dilemma. What happens if on September 7th of 2001, we had gotten one of the hijackers and based on information associated with that arrest, believed that within four days, there's going to be a devastating attack on the United States?"Ref

Let's consider the warnings prior to 9-11: More than 52 FAA warnings.

If Handley's reasoning is valid [which isn't, but forget that for the moment], then after the US received the 52 FAA warnings, the US "should have" tortured someone to find out what was going on.

Self-evidently, the torture never occurre; and despite the many warnings, 9-11 happened.

Hadley's argument is meaningless and no justification for anything.

We judge that the above argument is not only flawed, but at odds with the official US policies.

The argument also suffers from the defect of creating a hypoethical which is crafted to justify lawlessness.

But the facts prior to 9-11 show that despite the many warnings, no torture was used, and that the US despite the imminent threat of a known, specific attack, failed to take any action.

* * *

The White House is desperate. It is using non-sense to rationalize abuses.

The new excuses would ask the public to embrace non-sense so that lawlessness could be justified.

This is absurd. And absurdity is the only defense this White House has to war crimes.