You are naive. War has always been brutal. If you don't like what you see, politely thank the ones protecting your behind and avert your eyes.
But he does have a point. Some of the guys and gals we employed did things they shouldn't have and that is not allowed to happen. It would be bad to let that go.
But at least as important is to stand for what we did allow and to explain why it was the right thing to do.
BTW, anyone know if Frank Luntz poll tested 'enhanced interrogation?'
"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
What worries me, or is a problem IMO, is the attempts to whitewash it and pretend that it was something other than what it was. I don't favor prosecuting anyone for what happened, but I find it abhorrent to cheer it as something we should be proud of or ready to do again. This was torture, and we need to decide if we're a country where torture is accepted as a legitimate interrogation technique.
"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by rights to hand down to them."~ Theodore Roosevelt (Message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1907)
The very purpose of accords like the Geneva Conventions was to encourage belligerents to obey the laws of war by protecting only those who did. Combatants who have violated the laws of war--i.e. war criminals--have almost no rights. They may in some cases be executed right on the spot, after only the briefest hearing. During the Battle of the Bulge, for example, the U.S. Army captured a number of Germans who spoke English, wore American uniforms, and had gone behind U.S. lines to commit sabotage. They were taken to the nearest captain or lieutenant who could be found, and when they couldn't sell their stories, they were taken aside and shot. The Army even documented these executions, which were entirely legitimate, on film.
It is your statement of what was before the Court in Boumediene that is misleading, as is your statement of its holding. No one had even suggested that the U.S. could "operate without any restraints with regard to" the detainees. Although the detainees were unlawful combatants and not legitimate prisoners of war, the laws of war, as Congress has codified them, still imposed certain restraints. The majority cooked up a constitutional right to habeas under the unconvincing argument that a law Congress had passed regarding treatment of the detainees, the Military Commissions Act, violated the Suspension Clause. This was an outrageous, arrogant intrusion by the Supreme Court on both the Legislative and Executive branches in a matter of war, something almost unprecedented in this country's history and itself unconstitutional. President Bush should have ignored it.
In the end, the government complied with the habeas requirement the Court imposed not by giving the detainees access to U.S. courts, but rather through Combatant Status Review Tribunals. These are held at Guantanamo, and the transcripts of at least some have been published. I have read parts of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's, for example, on the internet. He and the others have gotten far better treatment than they deserved. The bastards should long ago have been marched onto a gallows, had their filthy necks stretched, and their stinking carcases thrown to the sharks. If, that is, a self-respecting shark would eat such rotten stuff.
Last edited by matchlight; 12-12-14 at 06:56 PM.