John Cornyn, repeatedly invoking the "ticking time bomb scenario," attempted to box Eric Holder into a corner on waterboarding. Cornyn's hypothetical relied on the false premise that the only way to stop an imminent terrorist attack would be torture, and Holder repeatedly rejected the premise. He pointed out that torture yields unreliable information and that waterboarding the suspect wouldn't necessarily yield information that saved lives. Cornyn came back, insisting that Holder answer what he would do if torture was "the only way to get the information." Holder again calmly pushed back:
"I can't answer your hypothetical without accepting your premise."
Holder refused, time and time again, to accept the fictional premise that the only way to protect the United States would be to violate our most cherished principles. I personally like what Holder said later in the hearing regarding consistency and the rule of law in the United States:
"Are we who we really say we are? I believe we are."-- A. Serwer
