Mukasey Withholds Opinion on Waterboarding

Philosophers such as Wittgenstein believed that many of the problems we encounter in philosophy are compounded—perhaps even caused by—redundancies and inconsistencies in language. These ‘problems’ certainly abound in politics, one of the five branches of philosophy.

I caught the following piece on NPR this morning; If you have four minutes, you can listen to the entire report by Nina Totenberg, Mukasey Withholds Opinion on Waterboarding. (click Listen) featuring our very own senator from RI, Sheldon Whitehouse. (You can read more about waterboarding [here].

“Hearings for President Bush's nomination for Attorney General (Michael Mukasey) became a forum to question techniques on the war on terror..."

Totenberg: “…in his [Mulkasey’s] view, the constitution prohibits torture, but yesterday when the committee’s democrats pressed for a definition of torture, Mukasey demurred, saying that the comment would be irresponsible and put in legal jeopardy, “… people who are being authorized to use coercive techniques.””

Whitehouse: “So is waterboarding constitutional?”

Mukasey: “If, if waterboarding is, is torture, torture is not constitutional.”

Whitehouse: “That’s a massive hedge. I mean, it either is, or it isn’t. Do you have an opinion?”

Mukasey: If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.”

Whitehouse: “I’m very disappointed in that answer. I think it is purely semantic.”

Reactions? Is language to blame for all of this (and other) confusion of terms?