If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives.

Waterboarding is torture. Period. It is a disgrace that Michael Mukasey refuses to confirm that he believes waterboarding constitutes torture and would therefore prevent the Bush administration from using it on captured terror suspects or suspected insurgents. This is one issue on which there is no room for compromise or nuance. It is abominable that this is even a debate and a sad reminder of how far we have fallen from the moral high ground that we once held in this country.

As Malcolm Nance argues in his protestation against the use of waterboarding, if Americans engage in this activity we allow our enemies to use it without any hesitation or consideration of the negative impacts it might have on their cause (except, perhaps, being compared to America). To quote Mr. Nance:

Waterboarding will be one our future enemy’s go-to techniques because we took the gloves off to brutal interrogation. Now our enemies will take the gloves off and thank us for it.

I generally think that calls to impeach George W. Bush are ridiculous and distracting from real issues. However, this is one charge I could stand behind proudly (if I didn’t think that Cheney would be far worse). The use of torture is a violation not only of the Geneva Conventions but also of our Constitution and of general human decency. The is no room for this in civilized society or in America. Perhaps we would be better off if someone reminded our government of that.

Bollinger’s Remarks Embarrass Columbia University

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, spoke today at Columbia University. (The transcript can be found here.) His speech was nothing unexpected: calling for more “research” into the facts of the holocaust, defending the subjagation of women as a cultural “respect”, denying the existence of homosexuality in Iran, asserting the peacefulness of his country’s nuclear program, and hypocritically calling out the Bush Administration for violating civil liberties. But what was unexpected was the level of rudeness to an invited speaker shown by Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia University.

Everyone who attended or has shown interest in this event knows Mr. Ahmadinejad’s background, political views, and religious leanings. However, Mr. Bollinger found it necessary to insult his invited guest for many minutes in lieu of a proper introduction. The content of the insults was accurate, but entirely uncalled for and an insult to the intelligence of all watching. The introduction, which takes up three and a half pages of the 14 page transcript framed the entire message and all questions posed in a manner so unfavorable to the Iranian President as to completely remove any notion that his speech was “free”. That the questions were posed in such a biased fashion as to invoke emotional responses among listeners betrayed any sense of fairness that should have been allowed to an invited guest.

Mr. Bollinger may have been reacting to the negative reactions surrounding his invitation, but to show such disrespect for a man invited to speak at Columbia University is appalling. Mr. Ahamdinejad is not due respect for his words or his actions. But he is entitled to the respect afforded an invited speaker at Columbia University. To invite a man to speak only to berate him instead of introducing him is dishonest and disgraceful. If you invite the President of a nation to speak at your University you should show him respect, not because his actions deserve it, but because your invitation warrants it.