Some writers on the other blog I write for, no quarter, are absolutely against any type of enhanced interrogation techniques and consider water boarding torture. Others not. But what I find utterly unbelievable is an argument in support of air raids, that kill hundreds of innocent civilians, by people who are against water boarding the mastermind of 9/11.
Ellis Henican just makes absolutely no sense to me with this argument. Waterboarding is a big moral failure, but air raids are ok?
U.S.-led airstrikes killed dozens of Afghans, including women and children, the Red Cross said on Wednesday, appearing to confirm an incident that could overshadow a meeting between U.S. and Afghan leaders.
Rohul Amin, governor of Western Farah province where the bombing took place during a battle on Monday and Tuesday, said he feared 100 civilians had been killed. Provincial police chief Abdul Ghafar Watandar said the death toll could be even higher.
Obama ordered these attacks, with the knowledge that innocent civilians would be killed, but the Left argues that Bush is basically a war criminal for water boarding a handful of terrorist suspects, in order to save American lives.
Keith Olbermann has led the charge for the left, screaming for the prosecution of Bush and Cheney for the waterboarding of KSM, a terrorist, and matermind responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans.
Will KO call for the prosecution of Obama for the bombing and killing of hundreds of innocent women and children because he had a tip that there might be a terrorist living in the area?
"Mr Obama has increased the rate of drone attacks operated by the CIA after his predecessor George W Bush approved a previous escalation last summer.
The agency has carried out at least 16 Predator strikes in Pakistan in the first four months of this year, compared with 36 strikes in 2008, killing about 161 people since Mr Obama was inaugurated on Jan 20."
I can't wrap my head around this twisted logic. How is air raid bombing, killing hundreds of innocent people, more acceptable than water boarding a few terrorists in order to save hundreds/thousands of lives?
I can't fathom the idea that ANYONE would condone air bombing and killing innocent people instead of using enhanced interrogation techniques on suspects, in order to find Taliban leaders, and uncover potential future terrorist plots. It just doesn't register in my brain.
"Steve Coll, president of the New America Foundation said the Obama administration decided to intensify the attacks in the hope they would reach the top of al-Qaeda quickly."
I find it so much more humane to interrogate a few suspected terrorists, seeking information as to the location and plans of terrorist leaders, than to drop bombs from the air. Obama said, "America lost its ‘moral bearings’ over its torture of terrorist suspects."
Obama said water boarding violated American ideals and was not appropriate even if it made getting information from suspected enemies easier. Pressed on whether that meant former President George W. Bush's administration had sanctioned torture, Obama said:
"I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that ... whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake."Air raid bombings aren't considered short cuts? Killings hundreds of innocent civilians doesn't undermine who we are? How is killing innocent civilians going to make us safer, and make us a beacon in the world?
"We could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are," he said. "In some cases it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy."
"Ultimately I will be judged as commander-in-chief on how safe I'm keeping the American people," he said. "So I will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe. But I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking short cuts that undermine who we are."
From Pajamas Media:
I’ve raised this example twice now. But, really, how is waterboarding a known detained terrorist like Khalid Sheik Mohammed (who confessed to cutting off Daniel Pearl’s head [with two knives after the first went dull], and to planning the 9/11 mass murder) at Guantanamo considered a war crime, while blowing up with a Predator drone suspected terrorists (and all those, including women and children, in their general vicinity) not?Allahpundit from Hot Air replied: It’s the Jon Stewart/Harry Truman dilemma again: When is it wrong to inflict suffering on captives in hopes of averting greater suffering later? Why do we need a Nuremberg for waterboarders but not one for drone operators who occasionally incinerate Pakistani families based on bad intel?
The latter victims were not given habeas corpus, and Miranda rights, and there is a greater doubt about their guilt from 10,000 feet than is the case with the much studied psychopath KSM in Guantanamo. Most suspects would prefer to be water-boarded than vaporized? Ditto the Somali pirates, whose heads were blown off during their apparent attempts at negotiating extortion, again a bit more drastic than waterboarding. Would a future President Sanford or Giuliani be right to bring charges against those in the Obama administration who green lighted assassinations of suspected terrorists—something akin to the Phoenix program in Vietnam?
This post is not about what tactics are right or wrong in a war. This is about the sheer hypocritical partisan politicizing of a war.
Obama attacked Bush and Cheney and used the liberal anger over how they handled the war to win an election. He has even opened Bush and Cheney up to prosecution by releasing the memos.
But how can you be against one method of fighting a war (the waterboarding of three terrorists), but utilize another (drone air raid bombings) which kills innocent civilians? I just don't see how you can, unless you are just playing politics.
I just don't know how you can place more value in the life of one or two terrorists, than the lives of hundreds of civilians, American, Pakistani, or Afghani.