First, the very use of the word “torture” begs the question. We put a creepy crawly in with a captive who doesn’t like bugs (I don’t blame him). Liberals call that “torture.” But I have tried to categorize the liberal arguments against “waterboarding” and other “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
1. Torture does not work. (Except when it does work)
- And even if it appears to “work”, there is no way of knowing whether the individual may have given up the information any way if not “tortured”…
- And even if it appears to “work” and terrorist plots are broken up before they are accomplished, there is no way of knowing if the plots would have been actually attempted, or whether they would have been detected by some other means and prevented. Gee, isn’t this fun–you can never prove it unless it happens…
2. They refuse to admit the possibility of distinguishing between enhanced interrogation and real torture: Putting captives who hate bugs in a confined space with a caterpillar is “torture”; Waterboarding” is torture; Waterboarding is the same as tearing fingernails off and putting somebody on the rack. I thought liberals were the ones that were nuanced and did not look at things in black and white but shades of gray?
3. It is possible to torture innocent person. Yes, just as it is possible that innocent persons are killed in combat. The terrorists created that problem by dressing as civilians.
4. Torture is “immoral”—like liberals have morals?
- Except torture might “possibly be moral” in a ticking time bomb scenario
- But a ticking time bomb scenario will never happen. See how easy it is to be a liberal. Just define the problem away. “It will never happen.” Don’t prove it, just say so and that ends it.
i. OK, maybe enhanced interrogation did uncover the Los Angeles plot but it was not a real ticking time bomb scenario. The plot was discovered too far in advance, so the bomb wasn’t ticking yet.
ii. The terrorist might never have carried out the plot, or it might have been stopped by other means, the terrorists might have tried and failed, etc.—so in other words, we never know for sure if a plot would have been carried out unless it is carried out and it is too late to stop it, just as with 1a and 1b above, liberals refuse to accept that it is justifiable, period, because if it was justifiable, then we are arguing about whether it was justifiable in the aftermath of 9/11 and liberals do not want to muddy the water–they want Bush and Cheney’s hides.
5. Enhanced interrogation “leads America down a fatal slippery slope” Like liberals ever cared about a slippery slope argument in other issues, such as immorality and progressive taxes and socialism.
6. America “forfeits any claim to the moral high ground”—we become no better than our enemy I love this one. Liberals cannot see the difference between America’s waterboarding a terrorist to stop future terrorism and the terrorists beheading captives, well, just for the fun of it, because they are fucking animals.
7. Enhanced interrogation builds hatred in our enemies. Oh, that is another good one! As if they do not hate us already. I say it is the liberals calling everything we do “torture” that “builds hatred.” If you say we torture the same as the Iraqis under Saddam did, and masses of people never learn the details, it does make us the same as them. Waterboarding would be a walk in the park compared to what his sadists did to his captives.
8. And it turns our allies against us. Bare unsubstantiated allegation without any proof. And see 7–perhaps the problem is they are only hearing torture and not knowing liberals call “torture” putting a caterpiller in with an inmate.
9. Appeal to authority
- John McCain opposes torture
- Shepherd Smith “America doesn’t fucking torture”
- Torture is condemned by every “civilized society” So is the death penalty, and the right to keep and bear arms, and free speech.
10. Torture is illegal (under international law and American law). But this begs the question–is “waterboarding”, as practiced by the USA, “torture?” Is putting a caterpillar in a cell with a scaredy cat “torture”? And is it a good thing to have such strict laws during times of war? Keep in mind, ONLY THREE PEOPLE were “waterboarded” following 9/11. And if it was so obviously “torture”, when Democrat leaders were briefed on the methods used why did they not complain?
And do not give me this sanctimonious attitude of the Europeans about “torture” violating the Geneva Convention. Following WWII the French, in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, used German POWs to clear minefields. The Brits firebombed Dresden. The Democrat President Roosevelt rounded up American Japs in internment camps, and the Democrat Truman dropped the atomic bomb. Twice. I agree with all of those decisions. But liberals, after the fact, are now questioning what The Bush Administration did during a war. The Democrats did not have the balls to question it while it was happening. They are only doing it now for political posturing. And many mindless sheeple are buying into it.