One of my favorite arguments against the CIA using rough interrogation methods says that, though waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc. garnered vital information which resulted in saved lives, we can't be certain the exact same information couldn't have been obtained using gentler methods.
So every aggressor in the history of humanity could have been stopped using methods other than those which have proven successful?
We could have made Adolf Hitler close every concentration camp through means other than attacking the German Army! We could have sent leaflets to the commandants asking them to please stop murdering Jewish people?
We don't know the allied forces were even necessary. Hitler could have caught the flu. He could have had an Ebenezer Scrooge-esque dream and changed his evil ways overnight. Today he could be held up as inspiration to those currently headed down the wrong path in life. Dog killer/quarterback Michael Vick could say in a press conference, "I thought about how Adolf Hitler turned all those concentration camps into theme parks for underprivileged children, and decided that if he could do it - So can I!"
But the allies had to go and attack Hitler's army, depriving him of the chance to turn his life around. And can you imagine the emotional toll brought about by seeing his army pelted with artillery!? He was getting daily reports on how his loyal soldiers were being killed! Oh the heartache he must have felt! Hearing from his generals had to be tougher on Hitler than a waterboarding session was for Muslim extremists. Yet you liberals don't admonish the allies like you admonish the Bush Administration. Why not!? In fact, you become extremely agitated when people compare you to Hitler. Why!?
Hitler wanted people dead and Muslim extremists want people dead. They had equal goals, yet you only admonish those who stopped Muslim extremists. You do realize that those who stopped Hitler used a plethora of armies equipped with real guns!
And do you really believe nicely interrogating terrorists would result in useful intelligence? Seriously?
Let's say someone kidnaps you with the express purpose of getting information that you're desperate not to give. Perhaps they would like to infiltrate ACLU headquarters, but can't work the internet and don't know where it is. They've got you tied to a chair and are demanding you tell them how to get there. You know they want to harm the ACLU, and if you spill the beans, the beloved association of which you're a proud member could be irreparably damaged... I'm sure asking you nicely is the best way to pry the information from your cold, dead brain; right?
The fact you people make the argument that nicely asking a captured terrorist if an attack is imminent may work just as well as using mildly forceful tactics is all you need to know about... well, you.
When you have arguments that don't make a lick of sense, your leaders need to lie, which is the reason President Obama insists he would rather Attorney General Holder move forward by not investigating Bush Administration officials for their role in so-called harsh interrogation methods.
But the truth is clear. And the truth is that you know full well harsh interrogation methods save lives, but since they save American lives, and you view Americans as evil oppressors, you're not as passionate about those lives. Because no person who wants their own country to win a military conflict would stand up and demand everyone be nice to the enemy.
No comments:
Post a Comment