Replies

While I like Romney and continue to evaluate him, his last debate performance seemed like pandering to neo-con hysteria.

I'm referring to his competing to become the Torture Candidate on that goofy question, along with the other candidates. Only McCain distinguished himself on this one, rightly pointing out how unreliable such means really are, something that vets, the Pentagon, the intel services all know and routinely tell us. However, you can wear down weaker terrorist elements over time with such means and therefore neither McCain nor Ron Paul would entirely forswear their use.

The real pandering by Mitt was on that doubling of Guantanamo facility. The usefulness of the facility and the diplomatic costs associated with far outweigh its usefulness. It operates essentially as a front operation from which some very minor intel benefits have been derived. But it is a front in the sense that when Islamic terrorist elements are taken into custody, they can be sent there or to the secret interrogation centers in New Europe. We are 'disappearing' these intel targets. The real suspects end up going to New Europe, the low-value targets go to Guantanomo where they help maintain the PR fiction.

Now, the extent to which Romney could discuss such an issue publicly in a GOP primary could be debated. But we need to reduce the size of the Guantanamo population, not increase it. We already face problems with repatriation of many inmates we already have and it is likely that if we don't resolve some of these issues, they'll end up dragged into the courts for a long and messy series of trials, many of which will tempt the Court into setting precedents dangerous to our liberty and the traditional understanding of the Constitution and of the Geneva Convention (which still offers our soldiers some limited protections when deployed around the world).

Overall, Mitt would have helped himself far more to echo and follow McCain's very sound comments on this matter.

Mitt is very smart. He knows the truth, I think. He chose to pander to the SC rubes in the audience instead of telling the truth: torture is unreliable and is unlikely to produce any real results in a short time frame and its use destroys our human rights agenda in diplomacy and endangers our soldiers by weakening the few protections offered by the Geneva Convention. It also harms the morale of our troops to fight for a government who employs such means; this falls far short of the American ideal. Great military leaders like Grant or Lee or Eisenhower or MacArthur, none of them ever endorsed the use of torture.

Great military leaders like Grant or Lee or Eisenhower or MacArthur, none of them ever endorsed the use of torture.

While I usually enjoy your writing, this time we will have to agree to disagree over what the definition of torture is or is not. I don't think Romney was condoing the use of torture --- and we shouldn't. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" are not torture in my book....or Bush's or Cheney's or Romney's. I guess the only technique used which is on the borderline is waterboarding. I've seen that demonstrated and it leaves no physical marks or disabilities. I also think it is rarely used and saved for the most critical of cases.

Anti-”torture” absolutists like Sullivan adamantly deny that harsh tactics produce reliable information. It’s their way of avoiding the moral dilemma presented by a ticking time-bomb scenario. But they’ll have to face it now, because in four short minutes Brian Ross utterly explodes that particular article of quasi-religious faith as fantasy. Not only did they break Khaled Sheikh Mohammed; not only was the information he gave them valuable; not only did it save lives; but Ross’s sources include people within the CIA who are opposed to the practices.
Bombshell: ABC independently confirms success of CIA “torture” tactics

Does your candidate, Fred Thompson, side with McCain and Lyndsey Graham on this issue as well? ;o)

This issue of torture has become a words game. Romney says he is against torture but in favor of enhanced interrogations. I actually thought that was brilliant because it shows that he will do whatever it takes while being mindful of not offend anyone’s sensibilities.

But anyway, McCain is wrong. The question from Brit Hume presupposed that the terrorist knew about the nuclear weapons and asked if the candidate would authorize waterboarding of that one man in order to save the life of millions. Is there even a dilemma here? I don’t think so.

And his point about Guantanamo was that he wanted to deny the terrorist access to the legal system. Guantanamo was just a figure of speech. They could be held at a secret base or wherever as you suggested.

"Overall, Mitt would have helped himself far more to echo and follow McCain's very sound comments on this matter."

I disagree with McCain's comments on this issue and believe it is irrational and unreasonable to believe that there is NEVER an occasion when torture is a moral option. Furthermore, If we as a nation come to believe so, we might as well pack it up.

Defending against foreign enemies is the most basic and primary functions of government, and such a defense may include on infrequent occasions, torture. No one is suggesting we adopt the barbaric practices of brutal physical torture routinely used by terrorists, the Viet Cong, Nazi's or anyone of hundreds of oppressive, tyrannical regimes.

But using for instance, the technique of water boarding when it may save many or even one life held in a painful, hostile situation, is justifiable. Unlike other forms of physical torture, it is quick (most give up in less than a minute), and leaves no lingering physical or even psychological damage. This in anyone's book, should be a small price for a vicious enemy of the United States to endure, something you GWB, are plenty bright enough to understand.

Furthermore, because of the overall nature of the technique, it is not a form of torture which would increase or inspire retaliation by our enemy against American troops situated in hostile territory.

Seconds or minutes of discomfort administered to a vicious enemy with no lasting side effects, or one to thousands of lives lost forever. Pick one.

All of the things you say are interesting, but you and Mr. McCain are both missing a distinction that is very important to some of us. The people that we are talking about subjecting to "enhanced interrogation techniques" are not soldiers. They are not even militia members or guerrilla fighters. They are not even spies. They are terrorists, and terrorists are a different breed.

I wouldn't have a big problem with torturing terrorists, but the question wasn't even about torture. The question wasn't about doing to the terrorists some of the things that were done to John McCain. No one was going to leave the terrorists with the permanent physical impairments that John McCain suffers. Instead, the question was whether we would do things that would be frightening but not permanently harmful. In order to save innocent American lives, we shouldn't hesitate to do these things if we know the terrorists know something.

Bill