Saturday, March 8, 2008

Bush,Waterboarding, and Terrorists

I don't often write about political issues, but this one really spoke to me (or should I say screamed at me) and demanded a response. Here's the article, followed by my opinion. I hope you'll share your opinion too.


Article by Jennifer Loven, AP writer, March 8, 2008

President Bush is poised to veto legislation that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding — a technique that simulates drowning — and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.
The president planned to talk about the veto in his Saturday radio address.
Bush has said the bill would harm the government's ability to prevent future attacks. Supporters of the legislation argue that it preserves the United States' right to collect critical intelligence while boosting the country's moral standing abroad.
"The bill would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror, the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives," deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday.
The bill would restrict the CIA to using only the 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual.
The legislation would bar the CIA from using waterboarding, sensory deprivation or other coercive methods to break a prisoner who refuses to answer questions. Those practices were banned by the military in 2006, but the president wants the harsh interrogation methods to be a part of the CIA's toolbox.
Backers of the legislation, which cleared the House in December and won Senate approval last month, say the interrogation methods used by the military are sufficient.
"President Bush's veto will be one of the most shameful acts of his presidency," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement Friday. "Unless Congress overrides the veto, it will go down in history as a flagrant insult to the rule of law and a serious stain on the good name of America in the eyes of the world."
He noted that the Army field manual contends that harsh interrogation is a "poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the (interrogator) wants to hear."

Ok, boys and girls, how many of you knew we (the U.S.) used techniques like waterboarding? I sure didn't! In fact (call me naive) when I saw the title of the article I thought it was going to have something to do with water sports & the environment!

Before the twin towers were brought down by terrorists on 9/11 I would've been right out there with those protesting a bill that would allow prisoners to be treated in an "inhumane" way. However, things are different now. Even though the New Testament teaches us to be loving in the face of evil, the Old Testament said "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and somehow to me that seems more applicable in this case.

If you have thousands of innocent people whose murder could be prevented by pouring water on one evil guy, I say GO FOR IT! You know good and well that his country is torturing American prisoners, so why should we be all warm and fuzzy with this murderous man who's helping plan the sequel to 9/11?

I'm not a big George Bush supporter, but on this one he has me in his corner. I don't think these practices should be outlawed. Whether they're actually used or not, just knowing that they might be could help deter evil-doers. (Think about it - when you were a kid and you knew the teacher could paddle you if she wanted to, didn't that contribute to your good behavior?)

When reading this article I was already shaking my head but what really made me go "OMG!" was when I reached the part about Senator Edward Kennedy's throwing in his 2 cents worth. Excuse me, Eddie old boy, but I happen to remember a little situation back in '69 when you left a woman to drown while you saved yourself & ran off to make up a cover story to protect your "political image". I was just a kid, but the horror of it impressed me so much that I remember it to this day.

Mary Jo Kopechne (the starry-eyed young woman who was with you when you drove your car off a bridge) hung on to life for a couple of hours in that dark, cold water, no doubt waiting for YOU to come back with help and save her! But no, you were too busy making up a cover story to protect the great political future that you thought you were going to have.

How interesting that you didn't give a flying flip about an innocent young woman alone in that car under the swirling water, slowly drowning, but you have all this compassion for a terrorist, whose purpose in life is to murder and maim, having water is poured over his face. What a hypocrite!

I just can't believe that you have the gall to ride out on your high horse and declare that BUSH is committing a SHAMEFUL act! Look in the mirror, buddy boy! Just how stupid do you think the American people really are???


Anonymous said...

But what "official" gets to determine who is evil and who is not? In this administration, all it takes is suspicion that a person might be a terrorist, for that person to be treated as a terrorist.

What if your DH or DS were labeled a possible terrorist, and "encouraged to divulge information" by using such tactics?

Remember... this is the same leader that started a war based on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction somewhere out there... a war that hasn't ended after more than six years, based on a supposition that has been disproven.

fuzzywhitedogs said...

You're right, there is a danger that innocent people could be treated this way by people thinking they're suspicious. I'm not sure what the answer is to this - wish I knew!