When Barry came out to announce his new interrogation standards he said the the US "lost its moral bearings" under President Bush. This coming from a man who thinks it is moral not to torture a self confessed terrorist who also admitted to being responsible for the planning of the deaths of thousands of innocents. On the other hand he doesn't have any problems with the morality of allowing women to terminate the lives of the unborn even during late term. This is a man who learned a lot of his moralistic beliefs from an extreme anti-American preacher in Reverend Wright.
In making the statement about the US losing it's moral bearings Barry is saying that aggressive interrogation is immoral and that they are a major departure from American past policy. I believe it is frivolous for Barry to claim that it was an immoral decision to subject three self confessed terrorists to waterboarding for the purpose of obtaining information that could potentially save innocent lives, where the decision is made with the good faith belief that the information cannot be obtained through less harsh means given the time constraints of KSM's statement "soon you will know". The word soon has a pretty clear meaning. Webster defines it as "in the near future". If it is immoral to balance the safety and lives of Americans with the use of methods that might trouble some than I believe it is safe to say that almost every President who has ever held the office is immoral.
The other part of the statement about "bearings" refers to past American policy being very different that the policy followed under the Bush Administration. There is a new piece in the Yale Law Review which points out that this part of Barry's statement is also false. I will post the conclusion of the article in the comment section. I will leave here by just pointing out that our President makes false statements every single day. This is certainly a big change from the Bush administration. This administration is about a transparent as the lead shield that Superman used to block the effects of kryptonite.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"This Note has shown that in times of national insecurity since World War II, the law has been interpreted to permit the authorization of highly coercive interrogation methods. The current debate over interrogation law and policy is not served by the erroneous historical framework to which even the opposing parties to this debate have subscribed, namely, that a dramatic break with the past occurred in the aftermath of 2001.
Interrogation's law -- the absolute bans on vaguely defined abuse -- has provided the latitude that has, in turn, permitted the authorization of coercive interrogation since World War II. To declare that the law's mandates were clear before 9/11 but grossly misconstrued -- even repudiated -- in its aftermath, and that if only properly acknowledged will be clear yet again, is to delegate the tough questions in future interrogation dramas to the executive branch agencies discussed in this Note.
This Note has shown how, prior to 9/11, responsible officials who wished to obey the law's uncertain boundaries found sufficient latitude to authorize highly coercive interrogation techniques. In light of the past, there is little reason to expect different practicies in times of future fear. If this is troubling, then a rethinking of interrogation law and policy is necessary."
Mark - you bring up some good points. That said, I do not understand why you + Jim are so quick to support torture. It's effectiveness is in dispute and even if used is a minuscule part of our anti-terrorism efforts.
Next topic.
Post a Comment