It’s curious how you often find reading matter that conforms to your own views. To whit, Thomas Sowell’s column at townhall.com (yes, a conservative site to those a bit squeamish) talking about the revisited (and remanufactured) anger over torture memos, torturing, and all the other evils that the W. Bush regime visited on the world. Specifically about how Obama’s administration has now left open the door for prosecution of US personnel over what has been alleged (and probably occurred) at Gitmo. The crux of the column:
“We have already turned loose dozens of captured terrorists, who have resumed their terrorism. Why? Because they have been given "rights" that exist neither in our laws nor under international law.”
Why do those voices (predominately coming from the Left) demand rights to those who do not operate under the Geneva Convention? Why is it so important to ensure that head-sawing barbarians have ‘human rights’ that they so explicitly deny anyone who gets in their way?
“These are not criminals in our society, entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United States. They are not prisoners of war entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. “
There was a time when people who violated the rules of war were not entitled to turn around and claim the protection of those rules. German soldiers who put on U.S. military uniforms, in order to infiltrate American lines during the Battle of the Bulge, were simply lined up against a wall and shot. “
Why was David Hicks, who was caught fighting with the Taliban, not shot on the spot? He wasn’t in uniform (the Taliban don’t have a “uniform” nor are recognized officially) and as I have previously argued, the Taliban are hardly the types to subscribe to Geneva Conventions or any other recognizably humane code of conduct, so therefore do not deserve to have such protections given to them.
“In his visit to CIA headquarters, President Obama pledged his support to the people working there and said that there would be no prosecutions of CIA agents for prior actions. Then he welshed on that in a matter of hours by leaving the door open for such prosecutions, which the left has been clamoring for, both inside and outside of Congress.”
The argument of whether to torture or not to torture is a larger topic than this particular post, however the politicization of CIA interrogations carried out in the last 7 years will have a very real impact on how the US (and by proxy the West) conducts itself in future conflicts. Guantanemo and tough interrogation techniques are not symptoms of the US and the West losing their moral bearings, more responding to extraordinary circumstances. Besides, is it so important to hold the "moral high ground" if your dead?
To politicise the governmental advice, because you feel that being the leader of the free world is not vindication enough, seems to be rather childish and spiteful. Clinton literally had crosshairs on Osama, but decided for whatever reason, not to pull the trigger. Fast forward 1 year, and there's a smoking crater in Manhattan and 3,000 dead people. There was never any question of pursuing Clinton or his administration for what could be argued as the worlds most obvious case of gross negligence. Allowing criminal charges to be brought up against lawyers who simply advised the prior administration is waste of time, money and resources that could be put to better use.
In this brand new era of Hope and Change™, I thought we were getting beyond the era of old school politics, but it seems like we're just repeating the same ol' same ol'.
1 comment:
That "Clinton ... crosshairs" link doesn't work for those of us not subscribed to right wing anonymous.
Post a Comment