John McCain: Let Bygones Be Bygones

The left is so eager to punish Bush over “enhanced interrogations” and I think that is wrong. For all of the perceived short comings of Mr. Bush, he is not an evil man. For any probe to be effective and instructive, a thorough review of the situation post 9/11 and the motives for the Bush administration to act as it did must be evaluated. Otherwise, the current and future administrations may find themselves powerless to act in any future extreme situation. Furthermore, who is going to feel comfortable giving advice to Obama in a charged poitical siutation in the midst of two wars? South Africa had truth commissions to help bring the country back together. We should have no less, otherwise we do run the risk of a new administration criminalizing a previous administration's actions. We've let a lot of presidents off the hook in the past: Lincoln ( suspension of habeus corpus), FDR ( interning Japenese-American citizens in WWII), and FDR and Truman for authorizing the mass killing of Japanese and German citizens in bombing raids during WWII. Vengence is mine said the Lord, and in this case, it shouldn't rest with the partisans of the Democrat party.

“we do run the risk of a new administration criminalizing a previous administration's actions.”
Except that the actions were already illegal, and we are COMPELLED by law to act on them. Why is that so difficult to understand? Just because your lawyer tells you it's okay to break the law doesn't mean you are exempt from the consequences. In this case, the timing of the memos indicates they were an after the fact form of CYA, rendering any “good faith” argument nonsensical.
And if your “future extreme situation” involves some ticking time bomb ridiculousness, you've already lost the argument.
Finally, why are you demanding a two tier system of justice? When us commoners commit crimes, is it merely “vengeance” if we are punished for it? Why is “look forward, not backward” supposed to be an adequate defense for the powerful and not the rest of us?

[...] more than willing to accept that waterboarding is torture and we shouldn’t do it, but thinks we should “move on” and not prosecute the slime balls who have ignored the Geneva Conventions and well, defend the [...]

Were the actions already illegal? Were the specific 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that were used already illegal? Which U.S. law stated this?

I think it's great that Obama, with the support of top lawmakers, has decided to make these actions illegal. But it's just plain wrong to charge someone with a crime if it wasn't illegal at the time. That'd be like making abortion illegal and then prosecuting anyone who has ever had one — it's just plain wrong. Again, if there is a U.S. law that stated, at the time, that the specific 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that were used were indeed illegal, that renders my point moot.

Let's look at the practical, pragmatic side of this as well, though. Besides stealing my money, the government has one responsibility: keeping me safe. I'm all for human rights, but at what point does one no longer maintain those rights? If person A is willing (as proven by actions or planned actions) to violate the human rights of person B, why is person A still entitled to those same rights? Clearly person A didn't believe in the sanctity of said rights to begin with.

So why should the government, whose job it is to protect us, be impeded from fulfilling that purpose to protect the rights of persons who don't believe we are entitled to those rights?

The government (particularly the CIA) has a responsibility to get things done. They deal with crises on a daily basis that need to be handled in a timely manner. If they need to violate the rights of someone who would do harm to the citizens of this country, by all means, they should do so. Granted, I'm not suggesting death or mutilation here, but psychological 'techniques' should most certainly be on the table.

Ultimately, what matters in this case is the current legal system and the laws at the time the 'techniques' were employed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of a law system that inhibits the ability of the government to protect us.

Were the actions already illegal? Were the specific 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that were used already illegal? Which U.S. law stated this?

I think it's great that Obama, with the support of top lawmakers, has decided to make these actions illegal. But it's just plain wrong to charge someone with a crime if it wasn't illegal at the time. That'd be like making abortion illegal and then prosecuting anyone who has ever had one — it's just plain wrong. Again, if there is a U.S. law that stated, at the time, that the specific 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that were used were indeed illegal, that renders my point moot.

Let's look at the practical, pragmatic side of this as well, though. Besides stealing my money, the government has one responsibility: keeping me safe. I'm all for human rights, but at what point does one no longer maintain those rights? If person A is willing (as proven by actions or planned actions) to violate the human rights of person B, why is person A still entitled to those same rights? Clearly person A didn't believe in the sanctity of said rights to begin with.

So why should the government, whose job it is to protect us, be impeded from fulfilling that purpose to protect the rights of persons who don't believe we are entitled to those rights?

The government (particularly the CIA) has a responsibility to get things done. They deal with crises on a daily basis that need to be handled in a timely manner. If they need to violate the rights of someone who would do harm to the citizens of this country, by all means, they should do so. Granted, I'm not suggesting death or mutilation here, but psychological 'techniques' should most certainly be on the table.

Ultimately, what matters in this case is the current legal system and the laws at the time the 'techniques' were employed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of a law system that inhibits the ability of the government to protect us.

[...] John McCain: Let Bygones Be Bygones – The Washington Independent.comOn CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he opposes prosecution of former Bush officials for torture, because even though the abuse of detainees violated the law and further endangered not only U.S. servicemen but [...]