by Chris Bodenner
He tells Chris Matthews: "I don't believe that we should limit waterboarding - or, quite frankly, any other alternative torture technique - if it means saving Americans' lives." Schock doesn't even bother to say "enhanced interrogation techniques," or maybe he just flubs the Orwellian talking point. Either way, it's Republicanism at its worst, and Matthews at his best - and worth watching in full:
Congressman Hare does a solid job of making the case for the Thomson transfer, but fails to mention at several points the paramount practical reason for closing Gitmo: its use as a propaganda tool for terrorist recruitment.
Before this interview, I only knew two things about Aaron Schock: he was the youngest person in Congress and people gossiped about his great abs. Now, we learn that he thinks Americans are not strong enough or moral enough to refrain from torturing human beings in the face of a perceived threat. And note the degree to which he would treat detainees: "waterboarding - or, quite frankly, any other alternative torture technique." So, by his own words, Schock must subscribe to the Yoo standard:
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.