Obama for Prosecution of those Involved in the Interrogation of Terrorists

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/21/obama.memos/index.html

On Tuesday President Obama left open the prosecution of those involved in the writing of the legal documents that provided the basis for interrogation tactics that are deemed by some to be "torturous". The President claimed that our nation has lost our moral compas when it comes to torture and human rights. This bantor clearly links to his campaign promises to bring back humane interrogation tactics and to close facilities like Gitmo.

This article then touches two very sesitive subjects: the merits of physically interrogating those suspected of involvment of terrorism and the validity of prosecuting those involved with previously sanctioned practices by the incumbant administration.

To even suggest that government officials can be held accountable for legal ducuments that sanctioned "torture" while it was being approved by the administration in power is simply political garbage. There is no basis for prosecuting individuals that were acting with the approval of the government in writing documents that supported physical interrogation. It was approved by the government at the time, and at the time they did nothing wrong. While the U.S. was "officially" against physical coercion, it employed the practice regularly. The President was simply doing what he does best, using tough bantor to scare certain republicans while attemptiong to make our national policies appeal to foreign governments.

Secondly, while I won't even attempt to tackle the whole moral argument against "torture" or its effectiveness, the fact of the matter is that it happens. Suspects are physically coerced into forfeiting secrets whether we do it or we send them to foreign governments to do it. Our enemies do it and this is where the rationale tends to be "we can't sink to their level". The fact is that this is where our arrogance sets in, reasoning that we are above our enemies and we cannot employ the same practices as them because we are better. Our "War on Terror" isn't one-sided, and if that doesn't blatantly show that our enemy is formidable then nothing will. We have have better technology than our assailants but we are not above them. While we should respect the natural rights of humans, people can forfeit those rights. And If everyone is equal, then 100 lives are greater than 1 and 28 roadside bombing victims are of greater importance than the 2 or 3 detainees that might have known about the impending attack. The torture question is not about violating human dignity, it is a question about how far will we go to protect it.