Since when is torture an "abstruse legal issue...?"

hadley is a weenie, and a not very nice one either... the mere fact that this discussion is even happening is simply another black mark on the already blackest of presidential administrations...

Senator Lindsey Graham, left, with
Stephen J. Hadley, the president’s
national security adviser

The adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, is negotiating with Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and other Senate leaders over the administration’s proposal, which would give the C.I.A. permission to use “alternative” techniques when interrogating terrorism suspects.

[...]

Asked if he believed compromise was possible, Mr. Hadley said, “I do.” He said it was essential that “we continue to have this terribly important program for protecting the country, as the president requires, that gives the men and women who carry out this program clear guidance and clear Congressional support, and also achieves Senator McCain’s requirement that we don’t amend or change Common Article 3,” referring to the Geneva Conventions.

but here's the snip that i find most astounding...

“I don’t think anyone anticipated the avalanche of opinion that would be assembled on the other side of what seemed like a pretty abstruse legal issue,” one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to discuss the issue with a reporter.

i'm sorry, but TORTURE is NOT AN "ABSTRUSE LEGAL ISSUE..."

Main Entry: ab·struse
Pronunciation: &b-'strüs, ab-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin abstrusus, from past participle of abstrudere to conceal, from abs-, ab- + trudere to push -- more at THREAT
: difficult to comprehend : RECONDITE < the abstruse calculations of mathematicians >

Submit To Propeller
Tweet