Home › Blogs › TX Politico's blog ›

Noonan on Obama v. Terrorists

Submitted by TX Politico on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 10:19
in

I don't always agree with her, but this time Peggy Noonan offers the best version I have seen of the questions facing President Obama et al. regarding terrorists, detention, and interrogation:

The question for the Obama administration: Do they think Mr. Cheney is essentially correct, that bad men are coming with evil and deadly intent, but that America can afford to, must for moral reasons, change its stance regarding interrogation and detention of terrorists? Or, deep down, do the president and those around him think Mr. Cheney is wrong, that people who make such warnings are hyping the threat for political purposes? And, therefore, that interrogation techniques, etc., can of course be relaxed? I don't know the precise answer to this question. Do they know exactly what they think? Or are they reading raw threat files each day trying to figure out what they think?

 

4.5
Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

Comments

yet a third alternative, that sere folks keep advancing

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:39.

torture is an ineffectual way to gain information, and should be banned as counterproductive.

Except that...

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:48.

...some people deserve to be tortured.

deserve? is this being done for intelligence purposes

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:52.

or for preventitative maintenance?

because I think we understand something about cruel and unusual punishment...

I long for the day...

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 20:31.

...that our government and its officials are so entirely miniscule that I might drown Grover Norquist in a bathtub with impunity.

That's what I call "Doing the country a favor." 

Maybe so

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:53.

But it doesn't mean that it should be enshrined in the rule of law. I personally would probably want to torture someone if they murdered my wife; I'm not advocating for it to be law.

Distinction without a difference.

Submitted by artigiano on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 17:44.

Peggy doesn 't quite get it. The difference in administrations is, before, Cheney thought boogie men were coming, so that justified torture. Didn't much matter if he was right or wrong. We were going to torture, just in case he was right. We made a choice to add "torturers" to the list of approved words to accurately describe Americans. Put it on the official list right next to "free" and "brave."

Now Cheney still thinks the boogie men are coming. And whether he is right or wrong we are not going to toture anyone. He may be right. But we are still not going to torture. Many may die in terrorist attacks. We will bury and mourn them. And still we will not torture. We may even capture someone who we are 100% sure has information we need to avert an imminent attack that will cost many American lives. And we will still not torture. That word no longer applies in any way, under any circumstance to Americans. We simply are not any longer.

It's called moral courage and conviction. Why am I surprised this is a very difficult concept for Peggy and many others on the right? 

Please Define Torture

Submitted by TX Politico on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 21:28.

artigiano -- please define torture.

 

No need to anymore.

Submitted by artigiano on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 22:25.

Boy, its a shame you didn't ask me that a few months back when it was a matter of some importance. But now things are different. Actually, things have returned to the way they were for my entire life prior to about 2001. Which should make conservatives happy. They always want us to go back to the way things were in the good old days.

I have had thousand of political discusions and not once prior to 2001did anyone have the need to define torture, or ask his fellow American to do so. Our country simply did not and would not ever engage in such a heinous practice. So it was a matter of no importance to anyone. Now we live in the same way we once did. It's nice.

Ask Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or anyone else in danger of being tried as a war criminal. I'm sure such definitions are still critically important to them. I really can't be bothered to devote any thought to it. My president took care of all that last week. 

 

Wow

Submitted by TX Politico on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 23:13.

Just wow.

Your world must be so interesting.

I certainly hope you get to continue to live in it and never have to wake up to the harsh reality of thousands of innocent civilians dead in a terrorist attack.

I honestly hope you get to stay in that world.

I just don't have any faith that you will. =(

Back to the original post premise again.

Submitted by artigiano on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 08:41.

Tex, even if another attack results in thousands of civilian deaths, we still won't be torturing any prisoners. At least for the next eight years. That's what a torture ban means. I understood that prior to the election and it is one of many reasons I voted for Obama.

To be fair, McCain (especially given his personal history) would probably have instituted a similar ban. He seemed to imply as much, but was never as clear on the subject as Obama.

And to give you my best guess at a good, but probably not air tight comprehensive, definition of torture:

"Exposing an individual prisoner to unique conditions that cause physical or psychological harm for the purposes of motivating the prisoner to reveal information."

That definition would exclude deprevations suffered by all prisoners alike, which would be a different class of war crime. Also, a prisoner might indeed be punished or put in solitary after the fact for behavior that endangered the safety or well being of other prisoners or guards, including escape attempts. That would not be torture if the punishment were in keeping with what criminal convicts are commonly exposed to. And if the prisoner was clearly informed prior to of the rule violations which would lead to such harsh treatment.

My best guess, but I'm no JAG attorney.

america about the least likely to get hit.

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 09:20.

figure on pakistan or England.

harsh realities will not make me compromise my morality.

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 09:21.

I am no Israeli.

beginning of American torture

Submitted by chemjeff on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 01:19.

I have had thousand of political discusions and not once prior to 2001did anyone have the need to define torture, or ask his fellow American to do so. Our country simply did not and would not ever engage in such a heinous practice.

BWAHAHA.  Do you really believe torture began with George Bush?  Honestly truly really?  Let's see...there's the My Lai massacre, "extraordinary rendition" begun by CLINTON in 1995, CIA's complicity in Pinochet's torture of his opponents in Chile, are the first three that immediately spring to mind.  I'm sure a more thorough study of history would turn up dozens more examples.  The only difference between then and now is that now it is a topic of public discussion.  And why?  Largely because Democrats forced the issue for purposes of political gain.

indeed it does.

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 09:22.

everyone involved was/should have been prosecuted. and NOT by the ICC

illegal is illegal, and will continue to be illegal.

Some Perspective

Submitted by TX Politico on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 13:10.

IMO, this counts as torture.  This is what we are fighting against.

Threatening, cold rooms, stress positions, etc. do not.