- Politics and Social Issues»
Here We Go Again Debating The Efficacy Of Water-Boarding
Here We Go Again Debating the Efficacy of Water-Boarding
Since the death of Bin Laden, the pundits on the Left and Right have rekindled the protracted debate on the efficacy of water boarding or enhanced interrogation. I have written about this topic before, but it seems warranted again due to its dominance in the halls of power. Like the discussion before, I see nothing wrong with so called “enhanced interrogation” or water boarding; I do not have the time to luxuriate in theories because such musings are akin to poetry… where idealism is only appropriate on the pages. It is true that Senator John McCain is adamantly opposed to enhanced interrogation and we give his opinion much credence because of the torture the Arizona Senator suffered, while being a prisoner of war in Vietnam. But with all the due respect we give to McCain’s opinion on the subject matter, that opinion is not dispositive.
The problem with McCain and many on the left (dad, I left you out) is that they speak in absolutes on enhanced interrogation. Yes, it is true that “torture’ may not work on you, but it might work on others. And what is the objective in using water boarding – is it not to save lives, including those of my Liberal brothers and sisters? I find it ironic that the travails I went through down in Alabama when I went through Army Basic Training… many on the Left would deem as torture were the Jihadists forced to do so… even if it were to glean important information that could save ten of thousands of lives. What persons on the Left, including our current Commander-in-Chief, would not ‘torture’ someone to get information on weapons of mass destruction?
For those of you who read this blog and are privy to the inner workings of those intelligence field operatives – why is it that some supposedly carry cyanide pills or would prefer to give their lives if captured… if they thought that they might compromise secrets? Isn't it because these operatives are afraid that they might break under extreme torture? Why is it that I can say that I might break under such intense interrogation methods… is it because I am so different from many of my Liberal friends? This debate is like the Pacifist who bemoans the taking of a life under Capital punishment, but cannot answer the question what if a killer came in the night to do grave harm to his person or his wife and children....
I, for one, equate the killer in my bedroom, who came to harm my family, to that of the would-be terrorist (s), who has information that could potentially slaughter many. Just how I would feel no guilt in taking the killer’s life, who had violated the sanctity of my home; likewise, to procure the pertinent, life-saving information, I would undertake ‘torture’ against those whose sole aim is to murder the innocents. With all the bloviating done in the previous paragraphs, one gentleman on the evening news put it succinctly and better when he asked rhetorically: why is it that most Far-Left-Liberals find no fault in shooting an unarmed Usama Bin Laden in the chest and face, but waste their time waxing poetic about so called “torture.” Those of us who find no fault with enhanced interrogation realized why the character in Jack Bauer’s ’24,’ superbly played by Keither Sutherland on TV, was so popular.