diet coke for breakfast
Monday, June 21, 2004
Posted by Tanstaafl
If only we had treated prisoners at Gitmo humanely....:
... we might have had the "ability to demand decent treatment" of Mr. Johnson.
Johnson was working for Lockheed Martin on June 12, when he was kidnapped. After a 72-hour deadline passed without the demanded release of all al Qaeda prisoners and the departure of all Westerners from the kingdom, photographs of Johnson's head and body were posted on the Web site.
Sorry, but protecting captured Americans abroad is not why we have rules about torture. Anyone who's willing to torture an American is more concerned with how credible we are in our threat to track them down and end them. Not, how gentle we are ourselves.
I'm also not clear that what is being described at Gitmo should be called torture. I admit, I'm conflicted about it. I'm not fond of keeping people locked-up indefinitley or using rough interrogation techniques, but I wonder what you'd rather we do. The war we are fighting is against religious extremists. They are willing to die for their cause because they believe that the afterlife will reward them for the evil they've perpetrated here. In order to stop their comarades in arms who are still at large, we need information. How can we get them to give it to us? Ask them niceley? Have Detectives Curtis and Briscoe interrogate them based on NYPD rules? Ya know, these guys are fighting without uniforms, which if I'm not mistaken, gives them status as spies under the Geneva Convention, and spies can be hanged.
I'm also not one to believe in the "permissive atmosphere" argument. Some techniques were allowed others were not. Anyone who used the unapproved techniques should be punished. Furthermore, interrogation and what went on at Abu Ghraib are somewhat separate issues. The guys at Abu Ghraib were MPs, not interrogators, and were getting their jollies, not information. They should be court martialed, and punished to the fullest extent of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We allow abortion in the US, but we don't allow parents to kill their 2 month old child. Allowing one does not make the other more permissible.
Finally, are we REALLY back to demanding Rumsfeld's resignation because you don't like his policy? Go goolge "Rumsfeld's Rules". He doesn't set the policy, the White House does, he implements it. If the White House decides that Rumsfeld's decisions do not accurately reflect its desired policy, then President Bush should request his resignation. Rumsfeld should not resign because you want him to, because the Economist wants him to, or because the John McCain wants him to. The only acceptable reason for him to resign is because the President wants him to. He serves at the pleasure of the President. So, my feeling is, that if you don't like the fact the White House still supports Rumsfeld and his decisions, then vote for the other guy. I'm sure President Kerry will use our military to effectively prosecute the War on Terror.