A post over at Dakota Voice about a Time Magazine article on waterboarding deserves some more thought. He does his best to justify the use of waterboarding because it could help in the fight of terrorism.
Sometimes it takes tough measures to stop the bad guys and protect innocent people. Waterboarding does no serious and certainly no lasting damage to the terrorist.
I am surely not going to disagree with his point that terrorists are bad people and that our intelligence agencies need to be creative in their interrogation techniques but ask yourself a few questions before jumping on the waterboarding bandwagon.
If waterboarding isn’t “that bad” of a technique, why did our government condemn it as being torture on several different occasions. Once when the Japanese used it during WWII and then during Viet Nam when we actually courtmartialed soldiers for performing the tactic on a North Vietnamese soldier?
Why does the Bush Administration refuse to comment on waterboarding as a technique by either endorsing or condemning its use? How many times can Dana Perino deflect that question?
Why did the CIA destroy tapes that showed them using the technique on prisoners against the advice of several in Congress and even the White House counsel?
He then tries to justify the use of waterboarding by claiming that the people we are using it on have done a lot worse.
U.S. interrogation techniques are nothing like what terrorists do to innocent people, involving such peace-loving techniques as blow torches, meat cleavers, whips and eye removal.
So it’s the biblical eye for an eye argument?
We as a nation have a document called the US Constitution that used to put us above those that we are currently fighting. Lately our government has seeming approved tactics that have made that document much less relevant. Once we go down this road, what’s stopping us from going even further making us no better than those that seek to destroy us?