The "Torture" Debate

Here's Michael Scheuer in the Washington Post, quoted in a posting by Mark Hemingway:

Americans should be clear on what Obama has done. In a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance, the president told Americans that his personal beliefs are more important than protecting their country, their homes and their families. The interrogation techniques in question, the president asserted, are a sign that Americans have lost their "moral compass," a compliment similar to Attorney General Eric Holder's identifying them as "moral cowards." Mulling Obama's claim, one can wonder what could be more moral for a president than doing all that is needed to defend America and its citizens? Or, asked another way, is it moral for the president of the United States to abandon intelligence tools that have saved the lives and property of Americans and their allies in favor of his own ideological beliefs?

That makes me think of this:

The shirt is right. The rest is a good example of a "moral inversion".

"Torture"

One short question:

Do we torture our own soldiers?

It seems self-evident the answer to that question is NO.

Given that answer, it is also clear we did not torture the terrorists held at Guantanamo, since everything in the "enhanced interrogation techniques" is also also included in the training of our best military men.

And that ends the discussion — except for those, like one liberal co-worker, who believe our soldiers are taught in boot camp how to commit war crimes. (I wonder what color the sky is in their world.)