My thoughts were once again drawn to the question of whether Bush or Obama is more contemptible in regard to prosecution of efforts to deal with terrorists by a short blurb in the Atlantic Wire. The piece is actually about a book by a former CIA guy claiming there is real benefit to enhanced interrogation techniques and that this benefit was that American lives were saved. I find this claim hard to really accept given recent reports to just the opposite, but am willing to look at the argument and as always to compel my fellow man to provide empirical proof in some form (In God I Trust, the rest of you better bring proof).
But, in the midst of considering the merits of his book, "The former head of the CIA's Clandestine Service Jose Rodriguez says President Obama is waging the nation's war against radical Islam in a far more brutal manner than his predecessor President George W. Bush," (Atlantic Wire 4/30/2012). What is at the core of this statement? Well, it really is simple, is it worse to kill them all and let God sort out the innocents, or is it worse to capture, harshly question (torture for those who can't read into the words), eventually adjudicate, illegally wiretap, eavesdrop, etc.? The Obama plan is marked by the former, while the Bush plan was marked by the latter. Personally, I detest them both. Of course, for my two cents, people can be taught to withstand torture, people will tell you anything to be relieved of pain, and killing people without first even thinking about capture is wrong--There never was even a single thought about capturing Al-Awlaki, just a decision by Obama to have him executed without trial.
But, in the midst of considering the merits of his book, "The former head of the CIA's Clandestine Service Jose Rodriguez says President Obama is waging the nation's war against radical Islam in a far more brutal manner than his predecessor President George W. Bush," (Atlantic Wire 4/30/2012). What is at the core of this statement? Well, it really is simple, is it worse to kill them all and let God sort out the innocents, or is it worse to capture, harshly question (torture for those who can't read into the words), eventually adjudicate, illegally wiretap, eavesdrop, etc.? The Obama plan is marked by the former, while the Bush plan was marked by the latter. Personally, I detest them both. Of course, for my two cents, people can be taught to withstand torture, people will tell you anything to be relieved of pain, and killing people without first even thinking about capture is wrong--There never was even a single thought about capturing Al-Awlaki, just a decision by Obama to have him executed without trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment