The objections to and complaints about President Obama's decision to release the Bush Administration Department of Justice torture memos fall into one of two categories: (1) our enemies will know exactly what we will and will not do to gather intelligence; and (2) our own intelligence agents will not carry out their intelligence gathering to maximum extent, for fear of adverse consequences later, at home.
Both objections are the results of very poor marksmanship, indeed. For the only reasoned response to either or both of them is "So what?"
One of the things that has made America unique is our willingness to live by our principles--and not torturing is one of those principles. We've survived for well over 200 years without torturing. The shape of the threats against us may have changed, but we must not. Once we do, we give up who we are, and that will kill America once and for all faster than any terrorists ever could.
[I keep thinking of the original Star Trek episode Mirror, Mirror.In the alternative universe in that episode, the peaceful Halkon race will let the Empire (the evil incarnation of the Federation) obliterate them rather than give up their planet's resources for the purposes of waging war. "We will die as a race, to preserve who we are." Of course, the Halkons weren't exterminated. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.--Ed.]
And why do we presume that it's a BAD thing if our intelligence officers have to consider the consequences of their actions? After all, they swore to uphold, protect, and defend our Constitution. Why should they be exempt from its strictures? Personally, I much prefer intelligent intelligence officers--ones who think about what they are doing, and why--and not just mechanical automatons who brutally wreak havoc all over the world in alleged defense of something they cannot be bothered to obey.
As long as the debate is allowed to be cast in terms of either or both of those two objections/complaints, however, we're never going to come to a real solution. The issue must be rephrased to put the emphasis where it belongs--not on "anything to stay safe" but on "anything to uphold our principles." As Benjamin Franklin so cogently noted, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (1759, from the Historical Review of Pennsylvania)
No comments:
Post a Comment