Too blinking right

President George W appeared a tad dissembling when he advised today "This government does not torture people." You can see his performance on CNN here.

As soon as he said it, he went blink, ... blink, ... blink, blink.

The US Defense Department suggests the following:

"Interpreting Nonverbal Messages. You must interpret nonverbal messages as part of the overall communication system.

* Typically, an individual nonverbal message is difficult to accurately interpret in isolation because most messages have several possible meanings. For example:

o A yawn might indicate a lack of interest, physical fatigue, or both.
o Rapid eye blinking might indicate deceit or just poor fitting contact lenses.

* A nonverbal message is easiest to interpret when it is consistent with other communications that you are receiving at the same time. For example, you might be more likely to interpret rapid eye blinking as indicative of dishonesty if the person also avoids eye contact while speaking.

* An inconsistent nonverbal message may be impossible to interpret. However, an apparently negative nonverbal message should raise a red flag indicating that you should look more carefully for related verbal or nonverbal clues. Look for messages that correlate with each other so that you can make a more accurate interpretation."

Guambat is not absolutely against torture, per se, conceding that there may possibly be some circumstance when it might be used to yield a higher good. But Guambat is too fuddled to articulate what that circumstance might be.

One of the many problems with Bush's attempt to support its use is that he suggests it is ok to use on terrorists and extremists. That certainly begs a question if the purpose of the interrogation is determine if the person is a terrorist or extremist, at the very least.

He justifies use of torture if the detainee "may have information ..." without any proof the person does have information, so if they don't he's torturing an innocent person.

He then shifts the paradigm away from the torturous aspects, saying that it is merely trained professionals "questioning" individuals. No issue has ever arisen over mere questioning. The issue is one of torture, and he tries to sidestep it as simple Socratic dialog.

Lastly, Guambat is suspicious that this simple denial of the use of torture is perhaps a semantic slight of hand, along the lines of "I did not have sex with that woman".

Guambat is not convinced that this administration very well balances the conflicting interests of truth and liberty.