So to begin, let's start with the Obama/Cheney speeches from last week:
Obviously, I'm leaning toward the Vice President's side on this specific debate. So to simplify, here's my ideas on the multitude of issues that have been brought up:
Detainee abuse by guards - Abu Ghraib is the most prominent example of this. It's not sanctioned by the government, allowed by the government, and the perpetrators were duly punished by the government for engaging in this. These kinds of actions can never be justified. And the fact that these idiots took pictures of their wrongdoing (thus giving the terrorists ammo) makes it even worse (and conversely, easier to prosecute). The only mitigating comments here is that this shit happens in war, which requires some dehumanizing of your enemy so you're not as haunted after you kill them. Nevertheless, this is why strict oversight is always needed.
Enhanced interrogation techniques - Unlike the abuse previously discussed, there are three things that justify the use of these techniques. First, they must be the rare, last resort items in interrogation, and only for a select group of illegal combatants (terrorists, not soldiers). If the information is there, but can't be otherwise extracted (but must be to save thousands), then get the bucket filled. With waterboarding, we did three people. Second, the purpose is to extract information, not exact revenge. In my case, I'd get into it in an inappropriate way. And third, it's not something that should EVER!!! be public policy. I accept that sometimes things are done outside the law to keep our country safe. In war, this shit sometimes has to happen.
Advertising the interrogation policy - It's a great PR move if you want to set yourself apart from the last President. However, as a war strategy, it's the equivalent of dropping fliers on a terrorist hideout the day before you bomb it. You may blow some shit up, but the terrorists are going to prepare and will not lose a damn thing in the process (except maybe a few mud huts).
Now before you go on with me being all inhuman and in favor of torture (even though I am), let me say I can respect those who fervently disagree with me on this. After all, we do value human life in different ways and in different measures. My biggest problem with this is bringing this up in the middle of the war. If heads need to roll, let's resolve the things that led to the alleged torture (other than the detainee abuse, which must be dealt with before the media can finish reporting the story), but do it after we have achieved peace. This more than anything is what infuriates those of us who look at the practical aspects of this rather than the conceptual moral high ground.
In short, if you're consistent on your views, or you change them after going from ignorance to knowledge, then I have no issue with you. On the other hand:
Poor Madame speaker! First, she's disappointed that McCain lost (because Barry looks like he'll live many years and she was SOOOOOO hoping to use succession (being that she's an unelectable nut outside San Fransicko (or maybe Boston or (Cleveland))). However, she's a bad liar, with the moral high ground of a hairy lunch lady trying to shit in your cereal. Because she didn't have problems with waterboarding... until she did.
Now as eloquent as I can be, I think Jon Stewart says it best as to why ol' Nancy gets (or doesn't get) it:
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||M - Th 11p / 10c|
(Nod to Gayle for the vid)