You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Someone in the MSM Gets It
2009-04-24
Ruben Navarrette via CNN:
For what it's worth, on the issue of torture, I've changed my own view since September 11, 2001. For several years after the terrorist attacks, I bought the argument that the United States couldn't afford to torture terror suspects.

But now, acknowledging that the Bush administration did something right in preventing more attacks, I've come around to the view that we can't afford to take any option away from interrogators as they try to prevent an attack that could cost thousands of lives.

Too many Americans keep forgetting that the threat we face is real, and unrelenting. In fact, the Bush administration claimed that just a few months after 9/11, it thwarted a planned attack on Los Angeles where al Qaeda intended to use shoe bombers to hijack an airplane and fly it into the U.S. Bank Tower, the tallest building in the city. If enhanced interrogation played a role in foiling that plot, wouldn't it have been worth the cost?

After all the bobbing and weaving this week, I'm not really sure what President Obama believes about torture or what to do with those who authorize it. And, at this point, I don't care.

All I care about is that Obama choose a position and sticks to it, and that, as commander-in-chief, he fully grasps the enormous responsibilities that came with the office.

Posted by:Snogum Thresing8904

#2  Ok, this won't be popular, but the problem with torturing people is that it says that they are important enough to keep alive. But they aren't. They should be dead. And their evil friends and colleagues should know that.

As for any information they may have, after Flight 94, may the passengers rest in peace, anyone trying to capture Americans is a fool (c.f. three Somali pirates). It is unlikely that any planning information, exposed by people we had captured and kept alive, would really prevent an attack, because in the event the attack would have been foiled by the common man or woman anyway.

It seems to me better that our enemies get no quarter even if they have or pretend to have some important information. Better that we kill all we can catch and fight the rest. The Predator strikes make that point every week.

Capturing them and putting them on ice for a while was ok. But it would be better to release them and let them die another day rather than keep them confined. Any information they may have is less important than the certainty of their demise.


Posted by: rammer   2009-04-24 21:59  

#1  careful there with the "MSM gets it". Ruben's a tool in most all aspects, even if he occasionally hits it right (stopped clock and all that). He came to the SD Union Tribune from the Dallas MN after James O. Goldsborough (an even more rad lefty) got axed, posed as a "more moderate columnist". He usually decries border patrol and ICE raids, justifies MALDEF, Aztlan, et al, and generally is a pain in the ass, and generally wrong
Posted by: Frank G   2009-04-24 18:13  

00:00