The nuance of the pro-torture Left (HRW edition).

Because it’s different when THEY do it, you see.

Good term, Wizbang: I like it. Anyway, via Dissenting Justice (via Instapundit) we can see in miniature the… ah, evolution of the Left’s stance on Obama’s reversion to rendition. Our hypocrites for the day are Human Rights Watch*:

April 7, 2008 to at least January 19, 2009:

The US government should:

┬ĚRepudiate the use of rendition to torture as a counterterrorism tactic and permanently discontinue the CIA’s rendition program;

Some time after January 20, 2009:

“Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place” for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. “What I heard loud and clear from the president’s order was that they want to design a system that doesn’t result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured — but that designing that system is going to take some time.”

Translation: all that stuff about the need to end rendition? “Oh, that’s just what we call pillow talk, baby, that’s all.”

Moe Lane

PS: Remember. Eastasia. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

*Notice that the name is Human Rights Watch: not, say, Human Rights Defense. Betcha they’ll be doing a lot of watching over the next four years, let me tell you.

Crossposted at RedState.

4 thoughts on “The nuance of the pro-torture Left (HRW edition).”

  1. I’m not surprised at the hypocrisy. Never mind the fact that the MSM feels uncomfortable at the idea of noting the penalties, turnovers and incompletions on the Obama box score. When your team commits the 15-yard ‘unnecessary roughness’ penalty, you forgive and forget.

    I say give President Obama a month. If he manages to change his mind only an odd number of times on this issue, you can bet we’ll condemn Bush in print for not interrogating enough. 1984 indeed.

Comments are closed.