Tortured Logic

A report released yesterday by the Senate Intelligence Committee condemns tactics employed by the CIA to gather intelligence from terrorist detainees.  I will skip most of the details here; most of you have heard them.  Waterboarding and sleep deprivation and loud music and being restrained in uncomfortable positions are all detailed in the report.

The report was coincidentally released on the same day that Jonathan Gruber testified before a Congressional Committee about his role in Obamacare.  Gruber spent his time apologizing for his hubris in calling the American people stupid and distancing himself from lawmakers and minimizing his role in all things Obamacare.

The fires in Los Angeles may be out by now.  Protesters in Berkeley, in a stunning fit of irony that was likely completely lost on them, vandalized the MLK building while running amok protesting and looting in their own city.  Nothing says #BlackLivesMatter better than vandalizing a building named after Martin Luther King.

Illinois lawmakers have just passed a bill making it a crime to record most interactions with the police.  The Illinois Supreme Court struck down their last attempt at this, so they are trying again.  I must admit I don’t understand what they are thinking.  It seems to me that recent history shows there is value in having a recording of things that happen in public.  As a quick side note, (I don’t want to bore you), TEN people have been shot and killed in Chicago in the last two weeks.

We have to be multitaskers to keep up with all that is going on.  President Obama certainly seems to be good at multi-tasking.  With all of the above going on he still finds time to taunt lawmakers over his executive actions to stop deportations of 5 million illegal aliens and give them work visas and Social Security cards.  He also felt the need to go on television and joke around with Stephen Colbert, because there is so much going on that is funny.

Back to the Senate and the report on torture, it seems Diane Feinstein was angry at the CIA for spying on her and her staff.  Yes, they have admitted to it.  John McCain joined her in condemning all things torture, which has been his position for some time.  Dick Cheney, not surprisingly, is on the other side of the debate, defending the CIA and reminding us of the need to keep Americans safe from terrorism.

This morning there is considerable debate everywhere about the specifics.  People are arguing about what constitutes torture and whether or not the tactics were effective.  They are questioning whether the report should have been released and if it will cost American lives.  Those are fine discussions to have, but I want to set them aside for the moment.

I am hearing one opinion voiced over and over again that bothers me.  It comes in different forms and the words change, but basically it is the idea that we should do “whatever it takes”.  Whatever it takes to prevent another terror attack is justified.  Some people would do “anything” to obtain information that would be helpful.  Some are saying that since these people are themselves killers, it makes no difference what we do to them, they deserve it anyway.

Many are saying that war is indeed Hell, and we have to show the enemy that we are willing to be as brutal as they are.  If we hamstring ourselves with restrictions and show ourselves to be weak, then it will give the other side an advantage and we will be defeated.

So, Dear Reader, the first question is whether or not there should be any limits.  We have a Constitution that bans cruel and unusual punishment.  The world has gotten together and discussed the ideas before us and we have The Geneva Convention and rules against things like chemical warfare.  But when there is a crisis and we need information in order to keep people safe, do we follow the rules or do we indeed do “whatever it takes”?

One person said that she would do things, even if they were wrong, and then ask God for forgiveness later.  Others have noted that this is war, not philosophy.  These are practical considerations, not some nice sounding rhetoric.  We ask young people to go to war and fire bullets into the heads of our enemies; what is different about this?

With this issue I have noted, once again, the divergence between the “law and order” and “liberty” elements of the Republican Party.  Judge Andrew Napolitano is clearly of the opinion that some of these tactics are violations of federal and international law.  Most libertarians hold the opinion that when you violate the rights of anyone, even a terrorist detainee, you are doing something wrong and eroding the rights of everyone.

The other side vehemently disagrees.  Dick Cheney and Peter King and Ann Coulter see no problem with anything that was done and see these CIA agents as heroes.  Vice President Cheney said if he had it all to do over again he would do exactly the same things.

Make no mistake; people can value both liberty and the rule of law.  We can feel sympathy for both protesters and law enforcement.  We can understand both the need to get information to protect ourselves and the need to respect basic human rights.

Again, I would ask you to try and ignore the specifics here and think about the principles involved for a second.  Do prisoners have any rights?  Well, if we believe that our rights are inherent or inalienable or God-given, then we have rights regardless of the specific circumstances.  We have the inherent right to our life and freedom of speech and religion and to self-defense.  We have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and cruel and unusual punishment.

Our rights can of course be taken away.  We can be killed or silenced or restrained.  We can be victims of theft and we can be tortured or raped or abused.  These things can be the result of criminal activity or they can be done by the State.  We need to think about what rights the State can reasonably take away from us as a result of crimes we may commit.  I am not talking about statutory rights like the right to vote or drive, which are granted by the State and can be revoked by the state.  I am talking about those inherent inalienable natural rights that all men are born with.

We have all been disgusted by the brutality of ISIS and totalitarian regimes like North Korea.  Making people denounce their religion and convert to Islam is an affront to all of us as it violates what we consider an inalienable right; just as beheading deprives us with a more obvious right to live our life.  If the leaders of ISIS see this as necessary to secure the Islamic State and bring about the change they want is it justified?

We are told that the NSA needs to spy on us in order to keep us safe.  We are told the ACA’s individual mandate is necessary as well.  We are told that a carbon tax is necessary to save the planet.  We are told that school lunch choices need to be mandated to keep us healthy and that it is necessary to change the way we learn math.  We are told that New York’s taxes on cigarettes have to be enforced, and that if you resist they will have to use “any means necessary” to make you comply.

It doesn’t make any sense to me that protestors in Berkeley or Ferguson would vandalize or loot or burn buildings to the ground.  But we are told that they need to use “any means necessary” to bring about the change they desire.  It offends me that Jonathan Gruber would call the American people stupid, but it bothers me even more that the proponents of Obamacare were willing to use “any means necessary” to get the law passed.  I know there are problems with our immigration system, but I am upset that an impatient President would consider “any means necessary” to bypass Congress and implement changes he thinks are needed.

The left seems willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want.  The right seems to be equally willing to do what it takes to maintain law and order and keep us safe.  No wonder the two sides are so vehemently opposed to one another.

I realize there are good points on both sides but for me there are certain principles we should not violate.  There are lines we should not cross.  We should not end human life unless it is necessary to protect our own life from an immediate threat to ourselves or our loved ones.  We should not take or damage the property of others.  And we should not infringe on the inherent liberty of other human beings unless it absolutely cannot be avoided.

These are all tough issues with plenty of shades of gray.  The line between interrogation and torture is not clear cut.  The senate report and its timing reek of politics.  They did not even bother to interview the CIA agents they are attacking in the report.  There is a lot of unfair bashing of law enforcement going on right now.  It is just as unfair to lump all cops together as it is to lump all black males together.  But we really must get rid of the mindset that we will do whatever it takes and use any means necessary to see our side win.  Because every time we do that, we all lose.