Cohen accepts that all these techniques are torture. I'm no so sure about that, but even if you agree with him - what if those techniques did gain us information that saved lives? Are you willing to say that using those techniques with the three Al Qaeda figures with whom they were used was not worth the American lives that were saved?
He says he knows of two CIA memos that support his contention that the harsh interrogation methods worked and that many lives were saved. "That's what's in those memos," he told Schieffer. They talk "specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped."And let's not forget Nancy Pelosi. If she is lying, which seems pretty clear, doesn't it demonstrate that opinions were different one year after 9/11 than they are today?
Cheney says he once had the memos in his files and has since asked that they be released. He's got a point. After all, this is not merely some political catfight conducted by bloggers, although it is a bit of that, too. Inescapably, it is about life and death -- not ideology, but people hurling themselves from the burning World Trade Center. If Cheney is right, then let the debate begin: What to do about enhanced interrogation methods? Should they be banned across the board, always and forever? Can we talk about what is and not just what ought to be?
In a similar vein, can we also find out what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it? If she did indeed know about waterboarding back in 2003, that would hardly make her a war criminal. But if she knew and insists otherwise, that would make her one those people who will not acknowledge that the immediate post-9/11 atmosphere allowed for methods that now seem abhorrent. Certain Democratic politicians remind me of what Oscar Levant supposedly said of Doris Day: "I knew (her) before she was a virgin." They have no memory of who they used to be.So let's reveal all the memos, not just the ones that the President finds politically helpful. And let's have a full debate. The fact that the Obama administration is resisting releasing the memos concerning the information we gained from those interrogations while easily releasing the Justice Department memos tells us more about the administration than it does about the whole question of how to treat such knowledgeable terrorists when captured. And then they're willing, without a fight, to release photos of those techniques even though they've been warned that the release of such photos would further endanger our troops overseas. So they are happy to release information that harms our image - and it is our image; those who seek to gin up anti-American actions across the globe don't care that one set of actions was done under Bush's administration and another under Obama's administration. Perhaps that matters in European salons, but not among those terror groups that search for volunteers for suicide missions.
So let's have this debate and let's have the full information. The elites might agree, but I bet that the American public won't be as distressed about waterboarding three Al Qaeda members a year after 9/11 if they find out that there actually were plots against the U.S. that were forestalled as a result. If we waterboarded and learned nothing, then those on my side of the debate might want to rethink our position.
7 comments:
Whether or not torture works is a legitimate discussion to have, but it would not be a simple yes or no. You'd have to weigh many other factors: Was the information obtainable by other means? Have we made the problem worse long-term by creating new terrorists through our actions? Are the benefits to torture worth the moral price our nation plays?
I don't think this is a winning situation for the dems. Besides their own involvement, I agree that the majority would be okay with three of the worst terrorists being tortured. Even I understand that in the aftermath of 9/11 some drastic measures might have been used. Formally making torture an acceptable tool demeans our great country.
I'd be fine with releasing Cheney's documents, but I'd like to see them all (including those "missing" e-mail. It seems that Bush and Cheney have already made absurd/grossly exaggerated claims about terrorist attacks that have been stopped. So let's at least try to have an honest discussion about the decions made to fight terrorism. Apparently it's too late for the destroyed tapes). The person who worked so hard to keep everything a secret (like his energy-policy meetings) doesn't get to dictate what gets released and what doesn't. I'm fairly certain that if everthing were made public, we'd know just how much he betrayed our country. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not.
mark,
Apply the real world to your comments.
If information is available by "other means", how much time do you think is "reasonable" to wait if American lives are on the line? Hours? Weeks? Years? Unless you are already intimately familiar with the terrorists' decision or planning cycles, understand his possible contingency plans, and have a firm grasp of his exact capabities and intentions everywhere he is present or you are vulnerable, then you are just guessing and gambling that your luck will last. Explain yourself to the survivors when your luck runs out.
Terrorists have been "created" for tens if not hundreds of years if the modern definition of the motivation, goals, skill sets, and application of terrorism is your criteria. Aside from the Clinton initiated policy of "Rendition", I can't see how you would ascribe torture as the recruiting tool that put nineteen terrorists in the air on 11 SEP 2001 or initiated, inspired or otherwise influenced previous attacks in Yemen, Tanzania, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Beirut, Athens, Berlin, onboard the Achille Lauro, or standing over Robert Stetham's body.
The "moral price". Please define that for us, mark. And do adjust for inflation. Mass casualties caused by nuclear, biological or chemical weapons or another densly packed building taken down by unconventional means will really skew your numbers though. What is the price YOU are willing to pay? Better yet, what should the rest of us be willing to pay? It's your call, so give us a number for which you are prepared to say that "these deaths are tolerable, they are the cost of doing business." If you cannot do that then admit to yourself that you would consider what others might say constitutes "torture". Be honest.
You said, "It SEEMS that Bush and Cheney have already made absurd/grossly exaggerated claims about terrorist attacks that have been stopped".
Well mark, you don't have the first clue as to the content of the messages yet you lable them "absurd" and "grossly exaggerated". You actually tried to slide "SEEMS" past because you clearly don't know what was averted but prefer to base your condemnation on simple partisan political grounds. This has always been the case for you and it is why you trash them at every opportunity.
Here is another example of the liberal partisan's one way street:
"The person who worked so hard to keep everything a secret (like his energy-policy meetings) doesn't get to dictate what gets released and what doesn't".
Fine, mark, but you need to demand the same transparency for the Obama administration regarding ever single closed door meeting held in the White House, Excutive Office Building, and all meetings held off site but then you can expect that nobody from any private or public sector will ever want to express an honest but controversial opinion in front of leadership again.
Again with the "betrayal" meme. You don't agree with something you haven't even seen the details on yet you speculate that betrayal of one's own countrymen is what lies at the heart of the matter. You're not just wrong, you're a mud slinging idiot, mark.
Nice rant, tfhr.
Strange that you would bring up the "betrayal" meme given you and others turning any criticism of Bush/Cheney into support for bin Laden/Hussein and or "spitting" on the troops. I have never criticized the troops, just those who have abused their dedication and service. You, on the other hand, have accused soldiers of lying about tainted water and food, and shoddy electrical work that has lead to the electrocution of several soldiers. You even defended Rumsfeld when it is obvious to just about anyone else that he was a disaster (did you notice Obama/Gates replacing the general in Afghanistan? It's called accountability and making changes when called for?) When it comes to defending the Bush administration, contractors and soldiers, you never fail to put soldiers third.
There are many questions that we may never have answers to: Could 9/11 have been stopped had Bush/Cheney been more focused on terrorism instead of on tax cuts? How would the Middle East look today if we had focused on winning Afghanistan instead of going into Iraq? But if there are some answers we can uncover, I'm all for trying to find them, even if they validate Bush/Cheney.
I'm not interested in "deciding" what number of deaths is "tolerable". As a society, we make all kinds of decisions regarding the value of life. We could save thousands of lives a year by changing our behavior and giving up certain products. Just lowering the speed limit to 55 mph nationally would save tens of thousands of lives. But that would involve sacrifice that most of us aren't willing to make. Don't confuse your willingness to allow others to be tortured as some kind of virtue and respect for human (American) life. It's cowardly and un-American. We are better than that.
With the Left now in control, there will be no investigation. Too many radioactive Democrat skeletons hang in closets that would inevitably be opened. When all the Bush-Cheney bashing that can be garnered through their MSM flacks has been gained, the issue will be dropped. After all, Lord Obama did say during his inauguration that it was time to "put away childish things." He just didn't say he was kind of recreating the movie "Groundhog Day." A new crisis every day, and a new "it's Bush's fault" every day.
The folks who murder doctors who perform abortions do so "to save lives", too. It's a MIGHTY slipperly slope to do something immoral "because it saves lives".
And just because something has a good outcome doesn't always make it right--otherwise we'd all be lauding and emulating Robin Hood.
I appreciate a well thought out column in support of Mr. Cheney. The problem we have as a country is that your column will be viewed as ‘support’ for Mr. Cheney rather than support for rationale consideration of facts.
Consider the question lingering from WWII. Should Truman have dropped the bomb on Japan? The innocent civilians that were incinerated were merely killed, not tortured. Tens of thousands would suffer from radiation poisoning and birth defects for generations – torturous? Would Americans today prefer that we ‘fight it out’, dying by the thousands on Japanese beaches to kills thousands of Japanese?
This is a moral question where neither choice is a reasonable choice. There is no choice that holds up the best ideals of America – of course other than what should be the primary ideal of America which would be to maintain our existence in prosperity and freedom.
Perhaps the leadership during Vietnam could have asked a similar question were the horrors of WWII’s end not so fresh. Perhaps we should have bombed the damns above Honoi, flooding the city and killing tens of thousands of civilians and end the war faster with less suffering for all. Again a choice without a reasonable answer. But our ‘ideals’ blinded us from options that were practical and certainly not ideal.
There are many similar decisions throughout American history of the same sort of difficult choice. Storm the beaches of Normandy? Bomb Dresden? Allow the south to succede from the Union? Put nuclear missiles in Europe to stop the Soviets in their tracks? Install the missile defense shield in Europe? The fact is history has a way of picking winners and losers in these decisions. Obama may keep the results of the interrogations under wraps for a year or two but if Cheney is right the facts will be in the public domain eventually and the stakes are higher for Obama to prevent attacks given his position. I believe this to be Cheneys objective – putting Obama in a position whereby he must defend his position so vociferously that history will be cruel to Obama when (if) we are attacked – especially by those released from Gitmo which will certainly be an objective of Al Qiada.
Cheney is an old Washington hand, a creature of the Washington political climate. Obama may be smooth and articulate but Obama may want to consider that maybe Cheney is playing chess and Obama only knows how to play checkers.
The question I asked during the election is whether Obama was up to making Presidential decisions, the kind of decision where our ‘ideal ideals’ cannot be upheld. The questions that are moral equivalents are those that true leaders are able to make. Torture two men that are immoral or risk the lives of thousands of innocents and/or military servicemen to uphold our ideals. We know how Bush answered that question – Obama will have to answer it soon enough.
Well, the Arab world is sitting back smiling as the US twists in the wind while they take a hostage here, a decapitation there and the confortable armchair left wingers debate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It beats me how stupid liberals and Obama et all actually are. How many times are we told that OBAMA is smart? That he is intelligent? You confuse intelligence with charissma. You confuse competence with political expediency. He is delightfully charismatic... a really cool young guy...hot even. BUT and it is a huge BUT...his so called foreign policy is a disaster. His handling of the economy shows some promise but he is really out of his depth when it comes to the rest. Is Cheney correct? Of course he is and the proof is that you are still safely walking around. If you believe him to be wrong and Obama moves to undo the entire intelligence efforts of the last 8 years then you had better start trying to figure out where the Islamic terrorists, (those loveable misguided folks you love to champion and will soon be taking up residence in your state courtesy of Obama) will hit next and plan not to be there. People who do not believe that another attack will come are the same ones who actually believe that it probably will but just that it won't hit them. Given their reaction to the Obama admin's little joy ride over the city recently, New Yorkers apparently do not believe that another attack on their city is out of the question. I guess if you are living in the back woods of Kansas or the comfort of Palm Springs why worry? Right?
Post a Comment