Letting Americans die is a leftist value
May 13, 2009At the Washington post Richard Cohen, asked a simple question: What if Cheney is right and waterboarding produced intelligence that saved American lives? Even asking the question resulted in most of his liberal readers having fits. Here is a portion of a representative comment.
The recent national debate has been about whether we should prosecute those who authorized torture. If Cheney succeeds, yet again, in manipulating the American people and politicians (who are protecting their own skin), then Cheney and Bush win. The US and the American people lose.
Whether torture works or not is irrelevant. It’s ILLEGAL! It was illegal when Cheney and Bush authorized it & when they ordered the rewriting of laws – after the fact – to avoid prosecution.
The debate needs to be focused on how to hold those responsible, for violating our laws and Constitution, not whether torture works (and the Bush administration was ‘justified’ in breaking laws they swore to uphold).
This really represents the liberal view on this issue. Liberals believe that saving American lives is subordinate to their political sensibilities. The idea that waterboarding is unequivocally illegal is nothing more than leftist wishful thinking. There were plenty of Justice Department attorneys who argued persuasively that it was, in fact, legal. There are plenty who would argue that today. Anyone who believes that there can be no principled disagreement regarding what is legal and illegal need only look at the many dozens of 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decisions to see the error of that thinking. If we believe prosecuting or disbarring Justice Department attorneys who opined that waterboarding was legal is appropriate, perhaps we should also prosecute and disbar the dissent in the next non-unanimous SCOTUS case.
That, of course, is absurd. Reasonable and principled attorneys and jurists can come to contradictory conclusions about the legality of just about any issue. To punish them for opining in good faith on a topic after the winds of political change blow into Washington is just plain wrong.
That is exactly what the correspondent above is calling for. She wants to retroactively declare that the enhanced interrogation techniques used during the Bush Administration were illegal and that those who claimed they were not be punished. She isn’t interested in the principled arguments of those who reasonably dissent from her view. She cares even less if the interrogation methods were useful in saving American lives. Her purpose has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of the methods or their efficacy. Her goal is to extract political revenge. Ultimately, she holds that her firm belief in one side of a topic on which reasonable people can disagree is more important than preventing this:
It is really that simple. Liberals would rather see unimaginable horror visited upon their fellow citizens than see those who plan the terror and death be made uncomfortable. Now they want to make those who made Khalid Sheikh Mohammad uncomfortable pay. It is a deeply ugly view.
AW Mens :
Date: May 13, 2009
The arguments of the left, as always, are baffling to the rational mind.
I suppose if the winds of change once again blow over Washington DC and abortion becomes illegal, we should plan on the vigorous prosecution of every judge, legislator, lawyer and citizen that was a party to murdering the unborn.
Why in the world the monumental hypocrisy of the left doesn’t jump out and bite every citizen squarely in the ass is beyond me.
R.D. Walker :
Date: May 13, 2009
You are right AW. I implied that they want to punish the dissent in the interrogation case. That is incorrect. They want to punish the majority opinion holders years after the fact when political considerations and social pressure has put them in the minority position. Prosecuting those who held the majority view following 9/11 in an era in which is horror has been dimished is exactly like your abortion scenario.
I can honestly say that I have never seen conservatives try to retroactively punish liberals in a similar manner. These people are scary.
AW Mens :
Date: May 13, 2009
Exactly RD.
I’m hoping the left doesn’t someday declare past participation in disco a crime. As a child of the 70′s I would be unfortunately (and shamefully) guilty.
If I have to take a walk to the wall for a cigarette and blindfold I’d much rather it be for something truly heinous like loud Bee Gees music and flashing lights than for trying to keep my country safe.
Although…I did look pretty damn cool in that lime green leisure suit.
R.D. Walker :
Date: May 13, 2009
I am absolutely certain to get, at minimum, a life sentance for my “urban cowboy” phase.
By the way, I am still nursing a crush on Sissy (Debra Winger) from Urban Cowboy and I don’t care who knows it.
Roy Ryder :
Date: May 13, 2009
This is an extension of the liberal adolescent mindset. One of the hallmarks of an adult is the ability to see that two intelligent and well-meaning people can differ widly on opinions. Here, we see a liberal who is not only incapable of seeing that someone who holds an opposing viewpoint is still rational and intelligent, but she also has to believe that they are morally corrupt. This viewpoint isn’t limited to those actively involved in the actions, but to those people who support them, those people who voted for them, and those people who didn’t vote or voice against them. It goes back to the author’s root belief that she is better than others and that she, and those who share her opinions, should be in charge and make choices for the rest of us until we can be “re-educated” and “made better.”
As frightening as the liberal mindset it, the real nightmare is that it’s only a hair’s breadth away from from “they don’t love their children like we do” and an “ultimate solution.” I suspect that if the author was presented with a full plan for re-education concentration camps, she’d recoil in horror. However, if it were to happen piecemeal over time, as it usually does, she wouldn’t raise an eyebrow.
R.D. Walker :
Date: May 13, 2009
The Democrats don’t really need Pelosi anymore. She was an important tool to beat up Bush with but now that Obama is the ultimate Democratic weapon, she is obsolete. In fact, this rather unintelligent dingbat of a politician is even somewhat of a liability in the Obamanation.
It is clear now that she was complicit in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. She can expect no air cover from the adminstration or the party. By throwing her under the bus, the Democrats are able to pretend the issue is larger than politics and they are rid of the speaker who is increasingly an albatross around the neck of the administration.
Pelosi better be watching her back. President Machiavelli is sharpening his dagger.
McLaren :
Date: May 13, 2009
Hey AW, did that suit have the beautiful contrast stitching?
AW Mens :
Date: May 13, 2009
No contrast stitching Mc but as I recall the white belt and silk shirt with colorfully embroidered birds on it set me apart from the crowd. I fell off my 6 inch platform shoes once and damn near broke my leg!
Ahhhhh…….the good ole days…..
R.D. Walker :
Date: May 13, 2009
The wheels on the bus go round and round…
Mark :
Date: May 13, 2009
I would pay cash money for a reporter to ask a Congressional member just what the hell ‘oversight’ is supposed to mean when they inevitably try to pass the buck about being briefed on something and doing nothing about it. It will never happen (at least to a Democrat), but it would be sublime. Just why do you think you’re getting briefed Nancy? For your own piece of mind?
UpNorth :
Date: May 13, 2009
RD, there’s a complication for the 0 out there. Rep. Pete Hoekstra has said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller D-WV was also briefed in early on EIT’s, possibly as early as summer of 2002. And does anyone, other than the left, believe that Sen. Leahy of the Judiciary Committee wasn’t briefed in on it too?
McLaren :
Date: May 14, 2009
Keep in mind, this is the party that recoils in horror that the Bush (and Clinton) administrations tapped the phones of foreign terrorists but sees nothing wrong with tapping the phones of John Boehner and Newt Gingrich.
“When I’m king, you will be fast against the wall….”
ron :
Date: July 5, 2009
War is a racket, used by rich to gain wealth, power. Little people have to fight them or risk jail. Its time we all resisted the rich assholes in office and said NO to war-period.
leonard hall :
Date: September 10, 2009
whoa i guess that laws were made for the proles if you don’t like a law and are an elitist conservative rep. just say “i don’t think that’s really illegal !”and yes you can get a laywer to to giva a dissenting opinion about the legality of slavery if you pay him enough we’ll just ignore the Geneva convention and how upset all you people get when our soldiers are tortured.i hate terrorists of any stripe.
but if we decide that any means to accomplish our goals are acceptable
then do we also use terror?
thats what the fear of torture is
a terrorist tool.
if we are the good guys then we must hold ourselves to a higher standard .
BART :
Date: September 10, 2009
Grow the fuck up Leonard. It is dangerous world and pouring water on the face of a terrorist doesn’t even register of the Richter scale of terror. Your weak, loser moral equivalency makes me want to puke. You could never survive in this world as a free man but for the actions of men far braver and dedicated to freedom than you. Tell you “good guys” story walking….