Posted on 04/28/2009 6:20:48 AM PDT by kellynla
Any human being with a functioning conscience or a decent heart loathes torture. Its exercise has been a blight on humanity. With this in mind, those who oppose what the Bush administration did to some terror suspects may be justified. But in order to ascertain whether they are, they need to respond to some questions:
1. Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did -- all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.
2. Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.
3. Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time -- even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives -- wrong? If there is no question about the identity of a terror suspect , and he can provide information on al-Qaida -- for the sake of clarity, let us imagine that Osama Bin Laden himself were captured -- could America do any form of enhanced interrogation involving pain and/or deprivation to him that you would consider moral and therefore support?
4. If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area? They will, after all, know that if the next administration disapproves of their work, they will be vilified by the media and prosecuted by the government.
5. Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos. Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?
6. Many members of the intelligence community now feel betrayed and believe that the intelligence community will be weakened in their ability to fight the most vicious organized groups in the world. As reported in the Washington Post, former intelligence officer “(Mark) Lowenthal said that fear has paralyzed agents on the ground. Apparently, many of those in the know are certain that life-saving information was gleaned from high level terror suspects who were waterboarded. As Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA unit in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden, said, ”We were very certain that the interrogation procedures procured information that was worth having.” If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?
7. Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?
8. Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world? Would you agree to photos -- or at least photo re-enactments -- of, let us say, Iraqi children whose faces were torn off with piano wire by Islamists in Iraq? If not, why not? Isn’t context of some significance here?
9. You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? Did America’s far more moral treatment of Japanese prisoners than Japan’s treatment of American prisoners in World War II have any impact on how the Japanese treated American and other prisoners of war? Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?
If you do not address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration.
Now that can't be natural.
Good questions. Wow. He outdid himself.
....and reason #10: Alan Dershowitz has written approvingly of using it....and he’s an esteemed Lefty on the faculty of Harvard Law school.
Bingo.
Panties on the head is NOT torture.
bump
And the flip side:
And if waterboarding IS torture, and if waterboarding works, then we have to admit that torture works, and then we have to justify not using something that we know works even when millions of lives may be at risk.
To a certain extent we are faced with a choice: To be alive or to be so squeamish that we end up dead.
I'm not squeamish.
Great article.
Pity no one will ever read it.
“Pity no one will ever read it?”
well, you & I and many other FReepers have...
and I’ve emailed it to others...hopefully you & many other FReepers will follow suit...
Dennis Prager, one of the most thoughful, civilized people in any medium. No one addresses morality and ethics as well as he.
“Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?
“
More importantly, as a member of Congress, she voted to FUND those activities.
Spot on quetions.
All of the bellyaching about “torture” by the Left leaves unanswered a few other questions, which even Prager didn’t ask:
10) If you refuse to condone the use of waterboarding or other forms of enhanced pressure, what manner of obtaining information that may be vital to saving the lives of hundreds, thousands or more people will you use on a known member of a terrorist organization that you believe has knowledge of the next attack? What are you going to do, invite them to Starbucks for a latte and hope to convince them in an hour to give up a lifetime of beliefs?
11) How would you justify to the families of the victims of the next terror attack your preventing of the use of a method of extracting information that would have been uncomfortable for the murdering terrorist, but which would have had a high likelihood of preventing the attack?
11A) How would you like to spend 5 minutes in a closed room with a few of them, especially when all are made aware that there will be complete privacy, no cameras and no microphones or other recording/transmitting devices?
That's always the question in politics--where is the line? Abortion is a good example--some say never while others say right up to birth.
I saw Shep Smith throwing a tantrum on a video--"We're America and we don't f$%#$g torture!". That's not true at all--a fighting American is vicious. Talk to a vet that saw any combat--we're mean SOB's when it comes to fighting the good fight.
“Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?”
How about THIS: Will you also seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. who lie under oath (i.e. obstruct justice) about their recollection of the CIA briefings concerning waterboarding of high-level suspects, in an attempt to cover up their knowledge of, and involvement in, approving and funding waterboarding?
Enduring 4 years of this destructive administration...
“More importantly, as a member of Congress, she voted to FUND those activities”
Pelousy and many others!!!
Shep Smith is a huge disappointment. I used to think that he had some sense in his head, that he actually analyzed the question of the day. Turns out that he usually has decent instincts, but when it is crunch time on tough issues, he “goes wobbly” (as the Brits like to say).
Shep, THESE things are torture:
1) pulling out someone’s fingernails;
2) breaking multiple bones and not only not giving them medical treatment, but hitting the broken bones with bricks and rifle butts in an effort to force a confession;
3) forcing tens of thousands of people to walk hundreds of miles in high temperature, high humidity conditions, while not giving them water or food, and then shooting anyone who can’t keep up;
4) hooking someone’s testicles up to a car battery, dousing them with water, and then turning on the current;
5) pulling someone’s tongue out with a pair of pliers; and
6) cutting someone’s head off with a rusty and dull knife, all the while filming the event so that you can show the world how proud you are of it, and preferably to traumatize the family of the victim - just for the fun of it.
Shep, you freaking moron, you emotional little girl, we DON’T do those things. Jack Bauer isn’t real, you jackass.
Since there are pictures of of waterboarding all over the net, a commercial should be prepared for when Leaky Leahy starts his investigation and hearings. Entitle it “Nancy Knew”, and show a picture of waterboarding in the corner of the screen faded in and out over 911 video with faded of pictures of people jumping from the towers. The announcer can say, “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques prevented another 911 in Los Angeles. Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democrat leaders were in the briefings, and didn’t object. In fact, several asked if we were doing enough.”
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.