This is correct – I think it’s because they believe the synoptic gospels were actually accounts at least passed down from first-hand observers, i.e. the apostles. I believe Mark is supposed to be Peter’s account. But that’s just from memory.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
FYI, it looks as if the lawmakers are going to address the issue, at least partially:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWY0NTJhOGVjMGRkNTBkZGY1NTZkYTg4MGViY2I1ZTE=
Varqanir wrote:
So…just to make sure I’m understanding this:
Putting an illegal combatant in serious mental pain would be a grave breach of the Geneva Convention, and therefore a crime, while putting him in severe mental pain would be a nongrave breach, and therefore a noncrime.
But waterboarding is a nonissue because the President, who is authorized to interpret treaties, will define the breaches by Executive Order, and the public will likely know about it.
Clearly this is a doubleplusgood development, crimethinkwise.[/quote]
Again, I think you’ve got it. Though I believe the result will be a more thorough definition of the law, which will be good. Waterboarding, when actually addressed, will be on one side of the line or the other – I’m guessing it will be “nongrave”.