The Republican Candidates And Torture

There is a very good editorial up at the Washington Post. Yes, it is hard to believe, but nevertheless they got it right when they came down hard on the republican candidates for president and their stance on being for or against torture. Mr. McCain is the only one that got it right. Brit Hume, of course, asked the question framing it as the "1,000,000 to 1 scenario" of how to interrogate captured terrorists planning on attacking the U.S.

Mr. McCain answered that in that extreme and most unlikely situation, "I, as the president of the United States, would take that responsibility" for determining interrogation methods. But, he added, "We could never gain as much from that torture as we lose in world opinion."

Everything-for-everyone-Rudy was all for torturing, including waterboarding.

Nonsensically, he added, "I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this," though prisoner interrogations had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Mitt Romney commented that instead of closing Guantanamo we should double it. Is he tough, or what? I think probably the what.

He added that he liked to have suspects in Guantanamo because "they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil."

They sum up this great editorial with this:

Does Mr. Romney think the president has gone soft on terrorism? More likely, he and most of the other GOP candidates are calculating that they can curry favor with voters by promising that torture will be a tool of their presidential administrations. Let's hope they are wrong. As Mr. McCain put it, "It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are."

No Mr. McCain, it's about the kind of country we used to be. We're not that way now. Out of fear or for political gain or both we have become not so much the home of the brave, but the homeland of the frightened. We have allowed the government to intrude into some of our basic rights. They listen to our phone calls and watch us on the streets, hell, they even want to look at what we're reading at the library.

When civil libertarians warned about what would happen the government assured us that they wouldn't abuse the so-called Patriot Act. "Trust us. We're from the government and we're here to help you."

It seems that with the possible exception of Mr. McCain the rest of the republicans running for president are either frightened or identify with those Americans who are frightened. They are so afraid or afraid of losing votes that they will torture people and spy on American citizens. They are willing to sacrifice liberty for security, a security that cannot be attained in our society.

If terrorists choose to attack us and are willing to sacrifice themselves then there is precious little we can do about it. We are a free society, not as free as before George W. Bush, but free enough for our enemies to use our freedoms against us. Our borders are porous and once in the country you can move around at will. All the terrorist attacks should not change that.

I would hope that when we are attacked again, and we will be, we will continue on with our pride and freedoms intact and fight the bastards wherever they are. I would also hope that we would continue to act like free Americans and not fall into the cowardly trap and start acting like the terrorists. The terrorists will have won when we become like them in thought or deed.

If attacked our leaders will probably promise us more security and justice for the attacks. You'll probably hear that they will bring the terrorists to justice or take justice to them. We've heard those lies before and the very least we should expect from our leaders is that they obey our Constitution and live up to their oaths of office.

There has been precious little of that for the last six plus years.

Jim Martin

(thanks to The Reaction for the link)