- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
April 30, 2009
Exclusive: On Waterboarding and the Torture Question
The subject of torture is an important one, especially for a democratic nation that desires to protect itself from those who seek to destroy it. Let us make no mistake, there are many in the world who seek the outright destruction of the United States its allies Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Spain, Italy, and others in the West who love liberty and individualism. Those enemies who seek our destruction reside not only in caves fighting under the name al Qaeda, but there are those in China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and elsewhere who desire to see liberty and democracy defeated for the benefit of their own self interest and to further a society based on collectivism and central planning.
Democracies cannot take the issue of torture lightly, nor do they. The memos President Obama released, wrongly in my opinion, show that a great deal of discussion and deliberation went into the decision to use harsh interrogation methods against those who had killed almost 3,000 in New York and Pennsylvania. So before we even entertain a discussion of whether torturing terrorists is right or wrong, we should begin by defining what torture is and is not.
Merriam-Webster defines torture as “something that causes agony or pain,” or “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.” Oxford defines it as “the infliction of severe pain as a punishment or a forcible means of persuasion” or “great suffering or anxiety.” And, Dictionary.com specifies torture as “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.” While waterboarding is undoubtedly unpleasant, it should not be described as “severe pain” or an act that causes “agony.” It seems clear that waterboarding induces fear, discomfort, and irritation; however, to be subjected to C-SPAN, PBS, NPR, or for the left, Fox News, might also cause similar agony and discomfort. But I digress.
The media has presented the issue of waterboarding as though it is a decided truth that water boarding is, in fact, torture. However, authors like Christopher Hitchens and others have voluntarily subjected themselves to this interrogation method. I would submit that no sane person would ever volunteer to undergo true torture of any sort. I certainly wouldn’t subject myself to torture at the hands of the Communist Chinese, a KGB member, the sadistic controllers of North Korea, or Fidel Castro’s henchman, not in a million years and certainly not for the sake of journalism or a column.
While it is regrettable that our traditionally peaceful civilization has had to contemplate and carry out this form of interrogation, it has been done only in an effort of self preservation and survival that we have done so. In that course, we should also be somewhat grateful that this form of interrogation even exists. Let me explain, waterboarding causes no permanent physical damage, no scarring, no bleeding, no burning, and there is no evidence of permanent psychological damage either. There is no actual sense of pain or anguish. Waterboarding did bring two horrible terrorists to confess and talk, two men who were willing to martyr themselves for Allah only moments earlier. If I was tortured, I suspect I would hate my torturers, but the journalists who subjected themselves to water boarding expressed no such feelings whatsoever towards their “torturers.”
The present opponents in government of these methods voiced no objection at the time they were being carried out, when the threat of another attack appeared imminent. Pelosi, Reid, Biden, McCain and others seemed willing to do whatever it took to stop al Qaeda from hitting us again, so what changed? Has the threat become less imminent or are we merely better prepared and informed. Quite possibly, we have only become better informed because of the information gleaned from getting Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others to talk via these “enhanced” methods.
Does the desire of Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and others to protect their nation only exist when it is politically popular? Would they not be willing to engage in using stronger methods to protect their constituents and the citizens of their nation otherwise? These are essential questions every voter should ask before casting their vote. It seems absurd that those who oppose waterboarding are so completely willing to drop bombs on suspected hideouts of al Qaeda members in Pakistan. It is illogical that they’re willing to kill them, but not pour water down their nose? They’re willing to enforce a court order against Terri Schiavo to starve her to death over a period of two weeks but not subject KSM to the sensation and fear of drowning? How can such positions be rationally justified?
No rational person wants to subject anyone to waterboarding or other harsh interrogation methods, but I, personally speaking, have no hesitation to subject the likes of al Qaeda members to such procedures to save the lives of my fellow citizens. I only wish the current administration felt the same way.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Jonathan D. Strong graduated from the MichiganStateUniversityCollege of Law. He is a member of the Florida bar and currently resides in a suburb of Toronto, Ontario. E-mail: strongconservative@gmail.com.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
