In reference Bill Clinton's statement "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is", it was clear that he was making the distinction of whether there was at present a relationship or whether there had ever been a relationship between he and Lewinsky. Of course righties pretended not to understand that distinction. I'm not defending that distinction, just that it was a real distinction.
Obviously, in the context of the use of the word torture we are talking about the use of physical or psycological mistreatment of prisoners, both of which are prohibited by the US Constitution (no cruel or unusual punishment) and US treaties and law. And of course now righties are pretending that there is some distinction to make even though the practice of waterboarding has been consideed torture in the civilized world since the Spanish Inquisition. There is no doubt that waterboarding is both cruel and unusual as well as illegal.
This is not about whether the word torture can be used in a casual 'figure of speach way' but whether the President of the United States authorized the illegal use of torture.
We need a special prosecuter to fully vet all information in regards to this. We must have the truth if we are to put this disgraceful episode behind us.
