The panel's ranking Republican, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, said continuing controversy over interrogation and detention practices was being stoked by those opposed to military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"Every time you're in a conflict, the antiwar groups always find something to complain about," he said.
Talk about painting with a broad brush.
Quite a lot of us who oppose torture are not in any sense of the word "antiwar." For instance, I'm against unjust wars, in favor of just ones, and inclined to listen to many different people as I determine which are which. I'm not automatically in favor of any war my country decides to get involved in; history alone ought to show us that's not a safe "default" position for a sincere Christian to take, as not all American involvement in war has been just.
What's really depressing, to me, is Sen. Sessions' idea that torture is just "something to complain about," something that's not really worth discussing unless you really are one of those antiwar zealots carrying protests signs and tattooing the peace symbol on your forehead, or something. America went almost overnight from being a nation too honorable ever to consider torture, to being a nation where having the gumption to support "enhanced interrogation" was somehow a test of one's red-blooded patriotic American bona fides; the question "Ought we do any such thing?" was brushed aside in favor of a rhetorical plastic bracelet which reads WWJBD--or "What would Jack Bauer Do?"
I've never been antiwar, I've never voted for a Democrat, I've voted for Republicans for president except when they ran Bob Dole (and I voted for an independent that year)--but somehow my objection to making our troops inflict the pains of drowning on prisoners to get them to talk makes me, in Senator Sessions' way of thinking, a hippie peacenik who just wants to stoke controversy to mask opposition to war. Because it couldn't be that there's actually anything wrong with torture, now, could it?