We need to have an honest debate on interrogation techniques and securing America against attack from radical, committed terrorists. Conservatives should stop pretending that waterboarding isn’t a form of torture that the US has opposed for decades when used abroad, especially against our own citizens. But everyone else should stop pretending that it doesn’t work, and that we would have been safer without its use. The real question — the one Obama wanted to avoid in his cover-up of Blair’s memo — is how many American lives is it worth to say we don’t waterboard? Ten? A hundred? Three thousand? Fifty thousand, the intended result of 9/11 and presumably the Second Wave waterboarding stopped?In other words, "It's torture, yes. But it works. So just how many Americans are you willing to allow to die preserve your precious honor, liberals?"
And the answer to this, as always, is "When presented with two options are equally unacceptable, you must find another option."
Yes, we were not attacked after 9/11. No, it wasn't because of our torture program. Yes, Bush gets credit for us not being attacked again. No, the ends do not justify the means.
What I find funny on the "Bush credit" angle is:
ReplyDeletePeople are always so quick to point out that he deserves credit for no attacks since 9/11. But no one ever looks at the flip-side of that - What about *before* 9/11? You'll never hear any flack towards Bush on that from the Village. It's always as if terrorists suddenly sprang, fully formed, from Zeus's forehead on 9/10.
I also want to say that I am tired of hearing about the "torture debate". THERE SHOULD BE NO DEBATE! TORTURE IS TORTURE!! PERIOD!!! Our policy, as a country should be to not use torture. If someone in the heat of the moment, or in an exceptional situation resorts to it, then that person needs to be prepared to accept the consequences. It's like a police department: anytime a weapon is fired, there are reports and investigations. A lot of the time, those show that the proper action was taken. Why is it *so hard* for people to understand the need for an "internal affairs" investigation into our interrogation policies. If it was all "legal" like the right-wing says, then they will have nothing to fear. The investigation will bear that out, and there will be no punishments.
ReplyDelete*sigh*
On a lighter note, maybe what we needed was for one of the interrogators to have had sex with an intern. *Then* we would have gotten some frakkin' investigations!
You're right of course, but then again, how many people remember the first time the WTC was bombed during the Clinton years?
ReplyDelete