May 15, 2007
Debate: Torture
Brit Hume offered a hypothetical involving nuclear weapons, the loss of thousands of American lives, and the potential of more nukes, more devastation -- the classic ticking time-bomb scenario.
John McCain categorically rejected all forms of "torture," and said he found it interesting that everyone who served in the military agrees with him that torture is a bad idea, that it never produces good intel.
Setting aside the efficacy of waterboarding -- not to mention whether or not it is torture -- there's something else about McCain's answer that bothered me.
It's essentially a chickenhawk argument, one that imparts greater moral authority to those who have worn the uniform, and one that is antithetical to our civilian control of the military.
I don't give a damn whether the person opposing torture served or not; make the argument on the merits, darn it, not by telling civilians their opinions carry less weight.
Proving that his military service doesn't prove that he understand our enemy, McCain also said that we shouldn't use "torture" because it would result in the jihadis abusing American POWs.
Ahem.
Because their record with regards to the treatment of non-Muslim prisoners is so gentle. Not.
And if we want to look to McCain's own experience, he was tortured by the North Vietnamese, despite the fact that the U.S. made every effort to obey the Geneva Conventions. His injuries -- which cause him pain even today -- should be a daily reminder that our enemies don't follow international law, don't hesitate to abuse our POWs, and view our adherence to Marquess of Queensbury rules with contempt.
Rudy Giuliani had a good response, provoked by a post-debate question from the always-infuriating Alan Colmes.
If Americans are facing a WMD attack, the president should tell the head of the CIA to get the information, use your best judgement, do what it takes, and the president will take responsibility.
Giuliani (paraphrasing), "If you can't make those tough decisions and be willing to take responsibility for them, you have no business running for the presidency."
Posted by Mike Lief at May 15, 2007 07:44 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
The naivete of believing they won't torture us if we don't torture them . . . what we need to do is kill so many of them so ruthlessly that the ones left alive would rather wear mini-skirts than engage in terrorist acts. If we don't have the national will to engage in serious killing now, we will never beat the menace.
Posted by: The Little Coach at May 15, 2007 08:22 PM
By not torturing our adversaries, we show the world that we are decent and law abiding. This is what separates them from us.
Posted by: Alicia at May 15, 2007 11:08 PM
And that is what separates our heads from our necks: jihadis who aren't impressed by our decent, law-abiding nature.
Posted by: Mike Lief at May 15, 2007 11:12 PM
We are more afraid of their beheadings than they are of our courts. Your understanding of the radical islamic culture is dwarfed only by the prescription of your rose colored glasses.
Posted by: Trickish Knave at May 16, 2007 03:32 PM