Election 2008: US Torture of Terrorists

A couple of months ago, when the US Defense Department proclaimed their desire to finally bring war crimes charges against six detainees for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the goal was to jump-start the Bush Administration's military tribunal mechanism. Sadly, military justice is proving itself to be slower than the snail's pace civilian criminal justice system.

---

Also, the Democrat-led congress is anxious to bring up the matter of imprisonment and torture of Islamic terrorists, especially those being detained at the US Marine base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The current rationale for the delay is that qualified military defense attorneys are a rare commodity. Even now, in the midst of a high-profile presidential race in the US, not one of the six 2001 terrorist suspects has met with his JAG (Judge Advocate General) lawyer. One of the key roadblocks to a speedy trial is the numerous claims of torture by interrogators. Also, ACLU-type legal authorities are taking issue with the death penalty facing their soon-to-be clients. While military officials at the Pentagon are anxious to try cases in order to prove the tribunal system is capable of meting out justice, some civil liberties groups and defense lawyers are working to slow the pace, partly to keep the system from gaining legitimacy by eliciting testimony against terrorism suspects that could inflame Americans. Also, the Democrats and those sympathetic to the Democrat Party's position on the Global War on Terrorism would like nothing better than to prolong the legal proceedings so as to use them for scoring points in a hotly contested presidential race. Which brings us to this paradox: Intelligence and law enforcement investigators attempt to identify and apprehend the terrorists responsible for killing and maiming innocent men women and children, and instead of showing outrage over the merciless brutality of Islamic terrorists, many Democrats, the liberal-left establishment and their allies in the news media are embroiled in their attempts to portray the Central Intelligence Agency, the US military and law enforcement as heartless, out-of-control torturers. During the war on terrorism, the definition of torture has become so convoluted that Americans are confused as to what is acceptable and what is not in a time of global war. It's understandable why liberals believe aggressive interrogation is something to be avoided at all costs: they still believe that we should employ a law enforcement model to combat terrorism. Treating terrorists as we do auto thieves and robbers is their obvious goal. While the people really fighting the war on terrorism never even mention the word "torture," the mainstream media are keeping it on the frontpages of newspapers, on the covers of newsmagazines and as lead stories on news broadcasts. Here are some headlines from just today's lead stories: Nothing seems to give these left-wing America haters more joy than to accuse men and women serving their country of being torturers and abusers. It's as if Americans are slitting throats, decapitating heads and hanging bodies from bridges instead of the vicious terrorists we face. Employing Stalinist tactics these America-haters even have their own cadre of useful idiots such as the staff at the New York Times. To be sure, no one is condoning the use of torture. The original interpretation of torture was "extreme measures that could cause death or serious injury to a suspect." No reasonable person would condone such conduct. But now torture includes humiliating a suspect, loud noises such as blasting heavy metal music, sleep deprivation or having suspects stand in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time. The liberal reaction to the treatment of terrorists should be juxtaposed with US government treatment of American citizens during the administration of their hero, President Bill Clinton. Once upon a time there was a religious sect named the Branch Davidians whose leader -- self-styled holy man David Koresh -- was a charismatic, sociopath who conned his followers into believing he was a modern day Messiah. The Rev. Koresh created a compound in Waco, Texas where he and his followeres became self-sufficient and desired only one thing from society: to be left alone. Of course, in order to protect themselves and their property they maintained an arsenal within their compound which greatly distressed the federal government including Attorney General Janet Reno. In order to rationalize what was to come, there were phony allegations of child abuse and sexual assault leveled at the inhabitants of the Branch Davidian compound. The Reno Justice Department leaked phony stories about Branch Davidians buying semi-automatic firearms -- which is legal in Texas -- and turning them into fully automatic assault weapons. At the same time that Reno and her cronies in the Justice Department were prohibiting federal law enforcement from taking action against suspected terrorists and their sympathizers, they were planning a quasi-military operation to disarm and arrest members of Branch Davidian. The rest is common knowledge. The extreme measures used against American citizens (including sleep deprivation, blasting loud music and noise, etc.) went unchallenged by the news media of the day. When the compound was attacked using military tactics and excessive deadly force that resulted in the death dozens of men, women and children, and with the compound engulfed by flames, there was absolutely no condemnation of Bill Clinton or Janet Reno. Even some conservatives appeared to condone such horror being inflicted on their fellow citizens. Apparently, in American if you're a Democrat politician you can escape punishment for even the most unconscionable behavior. These same liberals, including some of the same people who not only condoned but praised US actions in Waco, are beating their breasts over the thought that perhaps some terrorist thug is getting smacked around a bit in a prison cell in a far off country. Does this make sense?