Flip Floppers like Romney are Scariest When They Won’t Talk

Governor Mitt "Flip" Romney says he doesn't believe the USA should torture people during interrogations, but he won't say if water boarding is torture:

Cooper: Governor Romney?

Romney: ... I oppose torture. I would not be in favor of torture in any way, shape or form.

Cooper: Is waterboarding torture?

Romney: And as I just said, as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use.

The exchange came in response to a YouTube questioner during last night's Republican Presidential debate. Romney continues:

And there are people who, for many, many years get the information we need to make sure that we protect our country.

And, by the way, I want to make sure these folks are kept at Guantanamo. I don't want the people that are carrying out attacks on this country to be brought into our jail system and be given legal representation in this country. I want to make sure that what happened ...

(Applause)

... to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed happens to other people who are terrorists. He was captured. He was the so-called mastermind of the 9/11 tragedy. And he turned to his captors and he said, "I'll see you in New York with my lawyers." I presume ACLU lawyers.

The cheap shot at the ACLU received the predictable result from the Republican audience:

(Laughter)

Well, that's not what happened. He went to Guantanamo and he met G.I.s and CIA interrogators. And that's just exactly how it ought to be.

(Applause)

So Governor Flip wants to make sure the prisoners at Guantanamo don't get lawyers---in short, no one who can raise issues in a court of law about their treatment or any human rights violations they might experience (e.g., habeas corpus). But Gov. Flip won't say water boarding is torture, although it certainly is. Why won't he?

Romney: I'm not going to specify the specific means of what is and what is not torture so that the people that we capture will know what things we're able to do and what things we're not able to do.

I guess if the question had been "Would you let our enemies know if as President you will allow their US interrogators to cut off their fingers and toes, electrocute their genitals, castrate them, drill holes into their heads like our ally the Iraqi government does, etc., etc.," Mitt Romney would be compelled to render the same answer.

Senator John McCain, who slapped Romney soundly on the issue during the debate, was quick to point out that Romney is effectively claiming that, as a candidate for the President of the USA, he is not obligated to reassure the American people and the world the US will keep its treaty obligations or its own laws:

McCain: Well, then you would have to advocate that we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, which were for the treatment of people who were held prisoners, whether they be illegal combatants or regular prisoners of war. Because it's clear the definition of torture. It's in violation of laws we have passed.

The Geneva Conventions do not clearly exemplify why the US should not engage in water boarding nearly as much as the the UN Convention On Torture, of which the US is a signatory:

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. (link)

It's impossible to find a clearer statement prohibiting the use of water boarding. Therefore, the question naturally arises how can Romney honestly vow to protect and defend the constitution of the US if he won't publicly declare that he will honor its requirement that the US operate on the principle that its treaty obligations are the "Supreme law of the land" (Article 6)?

There can be little doubt Romney is one of the most opportunistic politicians ever to run for the presidency, one who conveniently experiences multiple position conversions depending on the next office he intends to run for.

The transition from the candidate for Governor of Massachusetts to the candidate for President of the United States saw him flip his stands on abortion rights and immigration reform and gun laws and minimum wage and cutting social security, among others. To adapt a famous statement by the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, you can't find the same Mitt Romney twice, a fact that should make every voter realize there is no predicting the positions he'll hold should he govern as the President of the USA.

That is frightening enough. But it's more frightening when a flip flopper won't even state a position on an issue. If political opportunity won't guide his sentiment on the matter, who can predict what he'll do with it should he become elected?