Posted on 04/21/2009 12:09:30 PM PDT by zaphod3000
.....Having been the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, I'm aware of what some of these captives did....[T]he evidence against most -- if not all -- of the high-value detainees remains damning. But the issue is not about who or what they are. It is about who or what we are.
With the release of these OLC memos, I can add three .....comments.....
1. The focus on water-boarding misses the main point of the program.
Which is that it was a program. Unlike the image of using intense physical coercion as a quick, desperate expedient, the program developed "interrogation plans" to disorient, abuse, dehumanize, and torment individuals over time.....
2. Measuring the value of such methods should be done professionally and morally before turning to lawyers.
A professional analysis would not simply ask: Did they tell us important information? Congress is apparently now preparing to parse the various claims on this score -- and that would be quite valuable.
But the argument that they gave us vital information....is based on a fallacy. The real question is: What is the unique value of these methods?.....
3. The legal opinions have grave weaknesses.
Weakest of all is the May 30 opinion, just because it had to get over the lowest standard -- "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" in Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture.....I believed that the OLC opinions.... presented the U.S. government with a distorted rendering of relevant U.S. law.....
In other words [under the OLC standards], Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest -- if the alleged national security justification was compelling. I did not believe our federal courts could reasonably be expected to agree with such a reading of the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at shadow.foreignpolicy.com ...
Since when does an international convention override the Constitution? The latter of course is designed to protect Americans, not our enemies.
Written by a former State Department factotum and uber-liberal.
The author, and the rest of the “progressives” keep coming at this issue from a standpoint of “moral absolutism”. In their minds there is NO justification for EVER going against ones basic “moral compass”.
The Jihadi’s, on the other hand, don’t operate on that wavelength. The have no recognizable morals and want nothing more than to inflict as much death and destruction on “infidels” as they can. One simply cannot continue to play by one set of rules and expect to win when their opponent plays by a completely different set of rules.
On no other issue in life does a liberal want to view through the lense of moral absolutism. Why is torture that issue? But in reality it is still moral relevancy as it is the interpretation which they demand to control. I fully believe the courts will find in favor of the Bush Administration if it goes that far.
Ironic, isn't it? The same people who scream about all morality being relative, and asking me not to judge their perverted lifestyles (and yes, I acknowledge that my own lifestyle is often sinful and perverted before God) are now demanding that I recognize their version of absolute truth and morality.
Treaties do not overrule the Constitution, but have the same standing as the Constitution under the Supremancy Clause:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . . . .” U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.