Tuesday, June 17, 2008

The Democrats Cravenness on "Torture"

The Democrats and their cohorts on the political left have accused the Bush Administration of being pro-torture for waterboarding three al Qaida members, including Khalid Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

(See this edit in today's WSJ.)

The rough interrogation of these terrorists led to the prevention of other attacks and the saving of American lives. But Democrats want to punish the government officials who permitted these information gathering techniques.

The Democratic congress could move to outlaw waterboarding but it does not. Why? For fear that the public would blame them if there is another terrorist attack. In any case it would make them look soft on terrorism and national security, which they are.

The left boldly claims that America is "less safe" today than it was before 9/11. But there hasn't been another al Qaida-type terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland in 7 years, thanks, in part, to the aggressiveness with which the Bush Administration has attacked the terrorist havens overseas.

I think that success in prevention has led too many Americans to fall into a false sense of security. But we'll see this fall. If we elect a man as inexperienced and seemingly naive about foreign policy as Barack Obama (it took Hillary Clinton to expose him) I think we'll regret it.

In any case, the "torture" narrative put out there by Democrats is completely out of sync with common sense and common morality. It is perfectly justifiable to inflict pain on a terrorist to glean information of an imminent terrorist attack. Those who say such techniques don't work have to explain why they worked so well and so quickly in the cases of Khalid Mohammed and others.

NSA experts are on record saying that the information waterboarded out of these three "saved lives."

High ranking Democrats from Jay Rockefeller to Nancy Pelosi were informed that such techniques were being used to extract information and didn't object at the time. Only now that it is politically expedient do they wish to hold their political rivals' feet to the fire. It doesn't get much more craven than that.

Recall the book and the film "The Day of the Jackel," in which a member of anti-Charles de Gaulle group is captured and brutally tortured for information about a suspected assassination plot. All that his French interrogators get out of him is the whispered word "Jackel," the code-name of the assassin. But it leads to the saving of their president.

Granted that was fiction. But the use of very rough interrogation techniques even by democratic governments was (and is) not. They are only justifiable in the rarest and most extreme circumstances. But they are justifiable, experience and common sense tells us so.

Again, if the Democratic left thinks such techiques should be outlawed, let them propose legislation to that effect. Let them be specific about what torture is, why waterboarding is torture, and pass a law against it.

They won't. Watch and see.

22 Comments:

Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 17, 2008 at 10:23 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Oh brother. Now our President and Vice President etc are “war criminals”.
Note to treasonous Liberals: Despite your petty hurt feelings, the President of the United States is not the enemy, terrorists and their Liberal enablers are.

Classic Liberal misplaced sympathies here. This time predicated on their determination to aid our enemies and obstruct every effort to keep America safe, just to oppose Bush and exercise their hatred of him. That sure is some backward and petty, treasonous Libism.

They’re hypocrites too. Think we’d hear all this weeping from them had, say, their god Slick Willie authorized such interrogation techniques? Oh, that’s right, he did. And we never heard a weep peep from them. Just like when Willie said that Iraq had WMDs that need to be addressed -not that he did anything about it.

June 17, 2008 at 12:08 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Randal

So who you gonna vote for? McCain has come out strong against any form of torture, and again, I would recomend you view his You Tube video on waterboarding.

June 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Randal

Socialist libs, weeping libs, cry baby libs, treasonous libs. Libs libs libs. You sound like a broken record. I don't think you've had one post that didnt blame the libs for something. You're pretty damn liberal with the use of "liberals".

June 17, 2008 at 12:58 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

That is because Modern Liberalism is the problem. To ignore this would be to give it a pass. It’s not my fault that I have a talent for finding the Lying Libism in nearly every topic –and it is always there somewhere. Why, I’m cutting edge! Lol…

“Liberalism is second only to terrorism as the most harmful force ever inflicted on America …a close second at that.”
~Me

June 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Bob -
Watch your language.
BTW, I disagree with McCain on this. And I believe he is being disingenuous on the matter. I believe as commander-in-cheif he would do whatever he thought necessary to protect the country and that would include torturing terror suspects if the need arose to prevent an imminent attack.

Diano -
Once again you avoid the central question and resort to ad hominem attacks instead of argument, which is why I've pretty much given up responding to your comments. Notice, I haven't been responding to Randal's either.

June 17, 2008 at 3:30 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Diano and Bob:

I have to agree with Gil on this one. I don't want a commander in chief that is going to play footsie with our enemy. I want a commander in chief that will kick ass, period! There is nothing wrong with torture, and if we are torturing the enemy then good, maybe if it gets bad enough they will stop messing with the USA.

The way we do things now is sort of like having your football team play a team that is allowed to face mask and rough the passer, but you can't. This whole debate is completely silly.

Lift the ban on off shore drilling to remove fear from the commodities market - oil prices will come down.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

June 17, 2008 at 4:23 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Spencer and Scott

Spencer- sorry about the language. I'm new at this. Now I know the rules. It won't happen again. That said, I find it interesting that McCain campaigns as being the man of "straigt talk", and yet neither of you believe he's being "straight" on this issue.(Scott, when I say straight, I'm refering to honesty, not sexuality-hey!-just kidding). I also believe this is a major flaw in McCains character. I've been following his career for quite a while. He refused to take a stand on the flag issue in S.C., and then said he made that decission to win votes. He later referred to his own actions as an act of political cowardice.
Bush slandered McCain and his wife in the 2000 primary, and then he was kissing Bush's a** (see Gil. I'm a fast learner). Then there was the staged trip through the Baghdad market place. McCain claimed that he could walk through at his liesure. It was later revealed that the market was sweeped before his visit, and that McCain was heavily guarded. Lyons recently wrote a good column on McCains lack of straight talk. First he BS's us, and then he comes up with this groveling, humble apology, and some folks just eat it up. It goes all the way back to the Keating Five scandal.

Scott, it's interesing to see you on this Blog. I've written several rebuttles to your letters to the Times over the years. I rarely agree with you, but I always enjoy reading you. So, on to the torture issue. Using the Dershowitz argument, I could make just about anyone agree that torture can be justified. Example 1- someone kidnaps and burries your child alive. Time is running out. You have that person in custody but they refuse to talk. Would you torture them to get them to talk? I know I would.
Example 2- Someone kidnaps your X-wife-Ok. Now we're in a gray area.
But- you get the point. So yes. In extroadinary circumstances, it could be justified. The problem with this administration is that they have tried to make torture part of policy. Scott- you say thre is nothing wrong with torture, so are you saying that it would be OK for other nations to torture Americans soldiers, or Americans that they suspect of spying? Or is it just OK for the United Sataes to torture people?
Again, if you plan on voting for McCain, I would suggest you view his You Tube comments on torture.

June 17, 2008 at 5:48 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 17, 2008 at 7:14 PM 
Anonymous r said...

The end does not justify the means.

Wow. Lol... Only when the means help America, eh Dave.

June 17, 2008 at 10:09 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Oh, stuff it, G. You don’t always have to include me when you rightly bash Dave’s dishonest idiocy just so you appear fair and balanced.

June 17, 2008 at 10:47 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 18, 2008 at 1:20 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

hell, diano, 7 years between attacks means a lot to me. Why shouldn't it?

The information age is a killer, we shouldn't be having these debates about torture because this falls under the category of "Things we need not know about". Think about it, as we post those mock waterboarding torture protests on youtube, as we grill presidential candidates about what to do in debates, not only are citizens watching, but the world also. Our public info becomes international info. It's reaching the point where we need to rehang those WW-II-style Hitler posters reminding Americans that spies are everywhere.

Personally, I don't care if our government is using hot anal pokers to get the information they need, just as long as they are doing so. But at the same time, I don't need to know about it. I'm more concerned with our economy, and our overall well-being.

Thanks to some reporter at CNN or MSNBC who had to get their jollies off and make a name for themselves, we're debating an issue we should not know about. When do we start trading codes for Nukes?

June 18, 2008 at 9:19 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

hell, diano, 7 years between attacks means a lot to me. Why shouldn't it?

The information age is a killer, we shouldn't be having these debates about torture because this falls under the category of "Things we need not know about". Think about it, as we post those mock waterboarding torture protests on youtube, as we grill presidential candidates about what to do in debates, not only are citizens watching, but the world also. Our public info becomes international info. It's reaching the point where we need to rehang those WW-II-style Hitler posters reminding Americans that spies are everywhere.

Personally, I don't care if our government is using hot anal pokers to get the information they need, just as long as they are doing so. But at the same time, I don't need to know about it. I'm more concerned with our economy, and our overall well-being.

Thanks to some reporter at CNN or MSNBC who had to get their jollies off and make a name for themselves, we're debating an issue we should not know about. When do we start trading codes for Nukes?

June 18, 2008 at 9:20 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

oh, look, i repeated myself. stupid word verification program...

June 18, 2008 at 9:21 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Good post, S. I agree that the Anti-War/Bush/Military/America Left has been misusing the immediate media to undermine our war effort and to aid our enemies.
They do this under the guise of press freedom. I’m pretty sure that this sort of treason isn’t what our Founders had in mind.

June 18, 2008 at 11:20 AM 
Anonymous Gil said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

June 18, 2008 at 10:28 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Ok that was me. LMAO...

June 18, 2008 at 10:29 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 19, 2008 at 12:46 AM 
Anonymous r said...

I was just testing our blog Admin.


Get off my leg, Dave.

Btw, umm, do you happen to own a scooter?

June 19, 2008 at 11:28 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.chanelbagsoutleti.co.uk]chanel bags[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelbagsoutleti.co.uk]chanel bag[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelbagsoutleti.co.uk]chanel bags outlet[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelbagsoutleti.co.uk]chanel handbags[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelbagsoutleti.co.uk]chanel bags uk[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelbagsoutleti.co.uk]chanel handbags uk[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelbagsoutleti.co.uk]chanel outlet[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelbagsoutleti.co.uk]chanel outlet uk[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelbagsoutleti.co.uk]chanel online[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelbagsoutleti.co.uk]cheap chanel bags[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelbagsoutleti.co.uk]http://www.chanelbagsoutleti.co.uk[/url]

April 3, 2013 at 10:32 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.chanelsoutlets.co.uk]chanel bags[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelsoutlets.co.uk]chanel bag[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelsoutlets.co.uk]chanel bags outlet[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelsoutlets.co.uk]chanel handbags[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelsoutlets.co.uk]chanel bags uk[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelsoutlets.co.uk]chanel handbags uk[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelsoutlets.co.uk]chanel outlet[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelsoutlets.co.uk]chanel outlet uk[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelsoutlets.co.uk]chanel online[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelsoutlets.co.uk]cheap chanel bags[/url]
[url=http://www.chanelsoutlets.co.uk]http://www.chanelsoutlets.co.uk[/url]

April 10, 2013 at 10:16 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home