The political war over the CIA’s waterboarding of terrorist detainees continues. It can only end if President Obama reverses course and deals honestly with the question of whether waterboarding -- performed on three out of hundreds of terrorist detainees since 9-11, and stopped in late summer 2003 -- resulted in our obtaining valuable intelligence that led to the interdiction of terrorist attacks and saved American lives. |
05/22/09
by Victor Davis Hanson
Big Brother comes not with jack boots and May Day parades, but with a kindly therapeutic smile — inviting all of us to accept hope and change and forget what we were.
That Was Then, This is Now…
The Strange Case of Eric Holder
All We Need Now is Joe McCarthy
Moveon…
05/22/09
by Rep. Louie Gohmert
Just so you understand the allegedly brutal conditions at Gitmo, every day the detainees are given prayer rugs, Korans with special holders so that they’re never touched by Americans, and even an arrow on the floor that points toward Mecca so that they can offer their daily prayers to Allah. They’re granted outdoor activity time and hours to watch movies. And it’s extremely important to note that no waterboarding has ever taken place at Guantanamo. Guantanamo Bay is the most humane facility where these terrorists can be held, but President Obama is convinced that our nation needs an image makeover to make some other countries happy.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Look at the torture statute (Sections 2340 and 2340A of the federal penal code) and try to find a “training” exception. There isn’t one. What removes an act from the ambit of torture (besides lack of severe pain) is intent. Lungren pressed this point, and Holder admitted that the training was “not torture in the legal sense because we’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally.” Intent, he acknowledged, was the key question.
Thoughts on Torture
05/02/09
Matt Schwartz
John Stewart leads a significant chorus in the culture war that is presently waged to determine the future courses of our country. During his recent on-air debate with Cliff May about torture, May logically invoked Harry Truman's decision to use weapons of mass destruction against the Japanese empire. May was demonstrating how, under certain circumstances, the use of unspeakable force which kills and maims even innocent people cannot be shunned and criticized as immoral. May then asked Stewart if Stewart believed Truman was a "war criminal" for using weapons of mass destruction on Japan.
Remarkably, Stewart said yes without hesitation.
Why should we be concerned about what John Stewart says in light of the fact that he is a comedian with a show on Comedy Central? Because he is a very clever comedian, and though his stock and trade are jokes and gags, he infuses his formidable voting audience with a poisonous political philosophy that promises our nation's undoing. For a funny man, he is a very skilled debater, and he knows precisely when to put the clown nose on and when to take it off. Of course, it doesn't hurt his cause to have a live audience cheering and applauding no matter what dangerous drivel emanates from his mouth. It is no exaggeration to say that Stewart is one of many powerful media personalities competing for the ideological soul of this country.
A day or two later, Stewart was forced to apologize for having called Truman a war criminal. He even went as far as to call his own statement stupid. In fact, all of Stewart's commentary about Truman during that debate were monumentally stupid. One has to ask that if it was so stupid, how could he have even made the remark to begin with? (Probably for the same reason that Liberals have earned the moniker "Knee-jerk"). Anyone remotely interested in this subject matter should immediately view this excellent video from Pajamas Media to see why Stewart's doltish commentary was not only historically inaccurate, but pretty damned insulting, too.
Stewart did the right thing by apologizing. However, what was completely ignored by his apology was the larger point at issue in his debate with Cliff May. Stewart now says that it was not just wrong, but "stupid" to call Truman a war criminal. That's great, but the issue was not whether Truman was a war criminal -- we all know Truman was not a war criminal for having saved millions of Americans and millions more Japanese!! -- The real issue is whether given that Truman was not a war criminal, is there is an argument that the use of force (that some would even classify as "torture") can be morally justified under narrow circumstances? And the answer is, of course, yes. Stewart conveniently evaded that issue altogether by not conceding the point about Truman to Cliff May during the debate. All he did was make himself look less like a jackasss by making that limited concession a day or two later, but the ultimate point remains obscured from his impressive demographics -- Millions of 18 to 35 year olds who, research shows, get their news from Stewart instead of bonafide sources of journalism.
If anyone is not convinced that the Truman argument proves this ultimate point, here it is clarified logically: Assume the ticking time bomb scenario everyone always uses to flesh out this point... If one believes that it is immoral to inflict pain and suffering on one guilty person for the purpose of saving hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, then surely one would have to believe that it is even more immoral to inflict, pain, suffering and death on hundreds of thousands of (arguably) innocent people to save hundreds of thousands of other innocent people. Truman essentially committed the latter act as his orders directly caused the deaths of over one hundred thousand Japanese people and caused horrific injuries to probably as many other Japanes people. And because of that, the United States won WWII, he saved a million American lives, he preserved freedom for our country and saved the world from Nazi fascism. This is why even John Jackass Stewart acknowledges that it is stupid to call Truman a war criminal. It has been a while since I read David McCullough's biography of Truman, but I seem to recall that dropping A-bombs on Japan was not a painstaking decision for Truman to make. It was a "no-brainer" for him and, in fact, he was eager to have the mission carried out. And there was much celebrating upon its success. He and the rest of America were completely justified in feeling that way.
The self-righteous ingrates on the left who claim we lose our moral authority if we torture our enemies under such indisputably dire circumstances stake their claim on both confusion and hypocrisy. First, they are confused because they don't understand how to discern the morality of a country that uses violence and force in conflicts. A country's moral character is not determined by how it fights a war, it is determined by why it fights a war. A country that uses violence to oppress, enslave and exterminate other people is evil, and any use of force or violence towards these ends is obviously immoral. But a country that fights a war to protect their people's freedom of speech, their freedom of religion, their very lives and liberty is morally justified in using any force reasonably necessary to achieve that objective. In fact, it would be immoral for that country not to use any force reasonably necessary to defend itself. These same Lefties would argue that Iran has as much right to acquire nuclear weapons as we do, and that we do not have any right to prevent them from acquiring nuclear bombs. (But would they also argue that criminals have as much right to acquire firearms as the police? Seems so...) Again, it's not the weapons that render a country or a person immoral; It's their objectives.
Second, the Lefties are hypocritical because they come from a position of moral relativism. These are the same multiculturalists who cannot impugn other cultures despite the latter's embrace of honor killings, homicide bombing, religiously endorsed child molestation, involuntary clitorectomies, and vicious persecution of Jews, Christians, homosexuals and basically anyone else who does not subscribe to their convicitons. Moral relativist multiculturalists refuse to pass moral judgment on such barbaric creatures because of their inane egalitarian brainwashing. To them, no culture is any better than any other culture -- just different. And so they believe that there is no distinction between moral & immoral and that good & evil are just fictions. Therefore, they have completely forfeited their ability to make any moral judgments on anything, and they certainly cannot pass judgement on anyone who implements torture on guilty people to save the lives of their innocent citizenry.
One may attempt to stigmatize my argument by characterizing it as Machiavellian because it is essentially the "ends justifying the means." However, it would be inaccurate to paint my argument with that broad brush. I would agree that in most cases the ends cannot justify the means (and that's why I qualified my argument by using the words "any force that is reasonably necessary") But when we are confronted with threats that are existential by nature, there can be no question that any means are justified by the favored end. If you don't exist, you have nothing to bitch about. And with respect to torture, I think it's an abomination to use it for revenge or punishment, but not if it is used to save lives. Moreover, the notion of "torture" itself is such a slippery slope of a spectrum anyway that Liberals can talk themselves out of imprisoning hardened criminals because they suffer from isolation. There is a continuum of harshness for various techniques. Some should be deemed appropriate under some circumstances, and others not. But nothing should be off the table in the ticking time bomb scenario.
"Torture" has been effectively demonized in our national psyche because 99.9% of the time it has been used by evil people for evil purposes. But we can't let that sway our opinions about its implementation in the other .1% of the time when it has been used justifiably (e.g., Harry Truman) Liberals are so adept at double-speak obfuscation -- such as when they recently morphed "terrorism" into "man-made disasters." Why can't they come up with a different word for torture that makes them feel better about it. Maybe something a little more heartening like, "Life-Saving Force." ...There now, doesn't that feel better? You see, with Liberals, it's all about how they feel -- never about what's right. Let's all agree that Life Saving Force is morally justifiable under the right circumstances.
My friend Mitch Baxter put it best when he recently wrote: "To be a liberal is to enjoy and abuse the benefits of freedom while expressing a fashionable disdain and derision for those who do what's necessary to stop the dark ages from returning."
I did something today that I’ve never done before. The Department of Justice, which I proudly served for a quarter century as an assistant U.S. attorney and a deputy U.S. marshal, asked me for help, and I declined. Actually, what I declined to do was attend a meeting. My hope is that the dissent I am registering — to the administration’s disastrous policies of releasing trained terrorists and threatening prosecution against government lawyers — will help the department and the Obama administration, even if they don’t want to hear it.
Defining torture is not easy. A simple legal definition is that it “shocks the conscience.” Cutting off Daniel Pearl’s head on videotape — that shocks my conscience. Sending a child out as a suicide bomber — that shocks my conscience. People jumping off the World Trade Towers because they’d rather die that way than by burning — that shocks my conscience. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 atrocities, gagging for a few minutes and, as a result, providing information that saves lives, then going back to his cell for dinner and a movie — no, my conscience is not shocked by that.
