One of the lies told most often by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is that of the Bush Administration's policy on torture. Critics got a lot of mileage from this and it unified the left, helping them to regain political power. Then-candidate Barack Obama rode the tide of this criticism. It was a wave that helped take him all the way to the White House.
Had jihadists been successful in a second attack on American soil, one can only imagine the cry from the liberals. Critics of coercive interrogation would have found a different song to sing, one about the laxity and ineffectiveness of coddling enemy combatants, demonstrating political hypocrisy and dishonesty at its worst. Thoughts of world opinion, political correctness and damaging the "psyche" of terrorists would have quickly evaporated. Major media would have had a field day crucifying and castigating the Bush administration. The American people would have been in shock, loss of confidence in homeland security would have been immeasurable.
Feelings of anger and revenge would have grown like a mushroom-shaped cloud.
But the attack didn't happen because President Bush made the right decision to protect the American people at any cost.
President Obama and President Bush have made diametrically opposed statements on interrogation. Bush's was in response to a real situation that existed, the need to learn what captive terrorists knew about another threat. He had a choice of three courses of action; he could ignore, pursue halfheartedly, or authorize coercive interrogation which included "waterboarding," something that thousands of Americans had undergone successfully in training. He chose the latter.
Obama chose to outlaw these techniques. He was responding to critics of "torture," and his response was politically motivated. He was not faced with making the same real-life decision that Bush had faced. Obama even added the caveat that he "will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe." There were no exceptions noted; clearly then "whatever is required' would include coercive interrogation.
Legal means in dealing with enemies who would use whatever destructive powers available to kill Americans, and create terror in this country, must be adapted to fit the contemporary situation. We must not be forced to combat terrorists by trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
Benjamin Wittes in his book, "Law and the Long War -- The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror," frames the issue like this; "The real question is not whether coercion is ever appropriate but how much coercion, how rarely, and with what, if any, degree of legal sanction."
Most of us are at heart opposed to torture. The word conjures up images of inhumane acts too often performed for cruel and sadistic reasons. Opposition to coercive interrogation must take into account consequentialism or it is merely theoretical, high-minded, moral rhetoric. The consequences of not engaging in coercive interrogation are real, potentially devastating and must be weighed in any decision by any president who would "do whatever is required to keep the American people safe."
It is a truism that lies can come back to haunt you. Riding a wave of political lies is a dangerous and tricky exercise.
Any "surfer dude" can attest to the fact that the wave you ride can also bury you; something the Obama administration is learning to appreciate.
Reynolds lives in Pleasant View.
Comments