Oboma's Morals Don't Trump Our Safety

I had to read this twice and then double check it was actually in the Washington Post. But indeed it was one of two lead stories on torture, above the fold in the newly revamped Outlook section, which combines opinion with book reviews. The author, Michael Scheuer, headed the CIA's Osama Bin Laden unit from 1996-1999.

Quote:

---

Americans should be clear on what Obomo has done. In a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance, the president told Americans that his personal beliefs are more important than protecting their homes and their families. The interrogation techniques in question, the president asserted, are a sign that Americans have lost their "moral compass," a compliment similar to Attorney General Eric Holder's identifying them as "moral cowards." Mulling Obomo's claim, one can wonder what could be more moral for a president than doing all that is needed to defend America and its citizens? Or, asked another way, is it moral for the president of the United States to abandon intelligence tools that have saved the lives and property of Americans and their allies in favor of his own ideological beliefs?

---

The entire article is here in case you thought I was making it up....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042403459.html

Note that the comments are the author's interpretation of Obama's decision not to permit torture, not something Obama actually said. That aside, I do not believe that torture is justified. Clearly there have been times and places where torture was considered acceptable as a method of questioning and as a form of punishment. Our founding fathers were reacting against such policies when they included the fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments in our Constitution. Our continued rejection of torture was at the foundation of our ratification of the Geneva Conventions, which have the force of law in the US, and of our prosecution of Japanese officers following WWII for war crimes.

The rejection of torture is a statement about our own moral values -- not the moral values of our enemies -- and is not based on an assessment of the efficacy of torture techniques. However, it has been clear for centuries that persons being tortured are likely to say whatever they believe will end the torture, whether it is true or not.

I believe that those who condone torture are undermining the moral fabric of our country. I am a child of the post WWII period. I grew up believing that what distinguished us as a country were the moral values to which we committed ourselves as a country. Foremost among these are the beliefs that the ends, however noble, do not justify the the use of immoral means, and that we must act as a nation of laws even when we are dealing with the lawless.

My personal dislike of the Bush administration, and especially the high priests Cheney and Rove, was that it abandoned these values in the name of expediency. The fact that it never even questioned whether or not this abandonment was actually effective is just one more example of the administration's overall incompetence. It has nothing to do with the morality of the actions taken.

Jeff, I might agree with you if the torture methods used were really torture and not just trumped up media fascination with anything that's not sweet-talking and providing creature comforts to criminals. I agree there are some things that have been done were improper and those, I believe, are best dealt with internally, not judged in the court of public opinion on the internet and on the pages of the mainstream media. I also believe that our military and defense agencies should have some tools at their disposal to use to extract vital national security information from captured enemy combatants that the general public does not need to know about or pass judgment on. I'm not advocating dragging bloated, beheaded corpses down Pennsylvania Avenue. But if waterboarding would've prevented the events of Sept. 11 the ends would've justified the means.

Julie, I will admit that there are circumstances in which I would personally do something completely illegal and still feel morally justified. This could include circumstances in which I might kill another person that I believed to be a threat to those I loved even if the circumstances would not support a "self defense" claim. However, I would fully expect to be prosecuted in those circumstances and would assume that I would pay the price of my decision. I can envision circumstances where a member of our armed forces or CIA, or even a police officer, might make a similar decision. I might agree with their judgment, but I would still prosecute the action if it were illegal.

With respect to the tactics allowed by the administration memos, they seem to suffer from a case of "tortured" logic in their efforts to convince. In my mind, the test of whether or not an activity is "torture" is whether you would consider it torture if done to a member of your family without regard for "guilt" or "innocence".

Personally, I would consider waterboarding someone several times per day for a month to be torture. But then, I'm an asthmatic, and have nightmares about asphyxiation that sometimes turn out to be real. It's like the old joke that if you would sleep with someone for $1 million, we already know what you are. After that it's only a matter of negotiating the price.:rolleyes:

Among your many talents, Jeff, is your incredible ability to promote falsehoods, and continue to drink the BHO,Pelosi,Reed,socialistic koolaid. This comment is total proof of your complete brain-washing by your Democrat/socialistic leaders.

"My personal dislike of the Bush administration, and especially the high priests Cheney and Rove, was that it abandoned these values in the name of expediency. The fact that it never even questioned whether or not this abandonment was actually effective is just one more example of the administration's overall incompetence. It has nothing to do with the morality of the actions taken."

Your continued bashing of the previous administration, despite all the facts pointing to your beloved leaders were just as privy to all that was happening, is making your posts as laughable as many of your sycophantic suck-up followers. I used to think you were at a slightly higher intelligence level, but it doesn't seem to matter. Will the discovery that Soros is pulling all the strings that makes Obama dance have any dissapointment for you? Doubt it.

UB

"abandoned these values in the name of expediency"
Yeah Jeff, Towel Heads kill over 3000 in downtown
New York and "EXPEDIENCY" is the the last thing our
government would be interested in.:mad:


Jumper Cable Regards;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uncle Bill

Among your many talents, Jeff, is your incredible ability to promote falsehoods, and continue to drink the BHO,Pelosi,Reed,socialistic koolaid. This comment is total proof of your complete brain-washing by your Democrat/socialistic leaders.

"My personal dislike of the Bush administration, and especially the high priests Cheney and Rove, was that it abandoned these values in the name of expediency. The fact that it never even questioned whether or not this abandonment was actually effective is just one more example of the administration's overall incompetence. It has nothing to do with the morality of the actions taken."

Your continued bashing of the previous administration, despite all the facts pointing to your beloved leaders were just as privy to all that was happening, is making your posts as laughable as many of your sycophantic suck-up followers. I used to think you were at a slightly higher intelligence level, but it doesn't seem to matter. Will the discovery that Soros is pulling all the strings that makes Obama dance have any dissapointment for you? Doubt it.

UB

---

We have all known about the administration's use of "harsh" interrogation techniques long before the memos were published and, to his credit, McCain actively opposed those tactics. That's one of the things that makes the attacks on Obama for publishing the administration memos so laughable.

Everyone already knew. All he added were the actual rationales used. Many in Congress presumably knew about the tactics earlier than the rest of us. Nothing I have said excuses them from any responsibility. However, in singling out Cheney for his special role, I am doing no more than he did himself. He has championed an "anything goes" morality that disgusts me and that I believe violates everything that makes America great.

BTW, I actually like Soros and admire many of his activites, just as I admire the activities of Bill Gates' father who has played a strong role campaigning to preserve estate taxes. Are only conservatives allowed to use their money to suport their politics, or is Soros somehow more insidious than that other immigrant, Rupert Murdoch?

Jeff did you do alot of drugs as a young man???


confused,


Kevin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kb27_99

Jeff did you do alot of drugs as a young man???


confused,


Kevin

---

What's "a lot"?:):)

I can say honestly that I have not been stoned from drugs or alcohol since 1973. Can you say the same? If not, maybe that's why you're confused.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs

What's "a lot"?:):)

I can say honestly that I have not been stoned from drugs or alcohol since 1973. Can you say the same? If not, maybe that's why you're confused.:rolleyes:

---

Jeff i disagree with you on alot of things but that one did put a huge smile on my face. I was born in 72, didnt get stoned until the 90s.


cheers,

Kevin