The "Moral High Ground"?
Techniguy | Sept. 20, 2006
Techniguy.com | Techniguy's Newsletters
 
Although taking the "moral high ground" might be a winning strategy for a politician running for office, or a Priest, Minister, or Rabbi preaching to his congregation, it's hardly a winning strategy for soldiers fighting a war, or prison interrogators trying to extract vital intelligence information from terrorists on a jihad against the Judeo-Christian world.  The President is right on this one, interrogators need to use whatever means necessary short of torture to extract information from prisoners without the fear of being prosecuted by lawyers and judges.  This is no time to be placing excessive restrictions on interrogators, it's a time to be turning them loose on terrorists.
 
Attempts by John McCain and the Democrats to take the moral high ground and place additional restrictions on interrogators at Camp Gitmo and elsewhere, are based on the false premise that we have been engaging in torture to extract information from prisoners.  This is simply not true.  Our prisoners in the War on Terror have always been granted torture protection rights under US law, and Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, even though, as terrorists not soldiers, they do not qualify for such protection.  McCain wants to take away all of the tools interrogators have and tie their hands behind their backs to protect the terrorist prisoners from harsh interrogations.  All Americans should be outraged with anyone who supports this ridiculous notion.
 
Where is the morality in putting our own citizens at greater risk for the sake of protecting captured enemy from any discomfort or humiliation?  What we should be doing is applying every force and persuasion allowed under existing law to extract every bit of information we can from these killers.  That would be the moral thing to do in the interest of the American citizens but it seems some think morality applies only to treatment of the enemy.  Where is the tactical advantage in applying the moral high ground in a war against terrorists?
 
McCain's problem is that as a former POW in Vietnam, he is identifying with the prisoners instead of the American people who he is sworn to serve.  He has placed their comfort and protection from unpleasantness at a higher priority than the protection and defense of our country.  His experience as a POW in Vietnam has warped his thinking and made him prone to sympathy for prisoners who would slit his throat if given the chance.  He was not granted Geneva Convention rights during his captivity and was subjected to torture and cruel and inhumane treatment by his captors.  Now he thinks what he went through in Vietnam is what prisoners at Gitmo are going through today, he should have been so lucky.  He couldn't be more wrong, but we all know what Vietnam did to the minds of many who served there.  It obviously had it's effects on Sen. McCain as well.
 
McCain's accomplishments include the 2002 McCain-Feingold Election Reform Bill which opened the door to massive voter fraud and negative tv campaign ads from 527 political action groups, and the McCain-Kennedy Amendment to the Immigration Reform Bill that grants amnesty and rights to illegal aliens.  Last year he added language from UN international law into the Defense Appropriations and Authorization Acts which granted Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to jihadists held in American prisons, for the purpose of protecting captured terrorists from effective interrogation techniques that might make them uncomfortable.  McCain's legislation is often co-written with Democrats.  I don't see him writing anything to toughen our defenses and improve our intelligence programs.
 
The current debate between the president and Senate Democrats including 'RINOs' John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham, and Susan Collins is over the the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the court, last June, inappropriately chose to apply Geneva Convention Article 3 rules to prisoner interrogations.  
 
Article 3 section 1 states:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

President Bush says he can live with this but he wants item (c); "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" clarified and defined in specific terms so that interrogators will know exactly what they can and cannot do.  As written, item (c) could mean almost anything.  It was never intended to apply to international terrorists or terrorist interrogations.  It was written for uniformed soldiers being held as prisoners of war.   

McCain would prefer that those definitions be fought over in court by lawyers, one case at a time, by prisoners bringing lawsuits against their interrogators, and where terrorist prisoners would be given access to classified information at their "civilian" style trials.  We cannot afford to allow lawyers and judges to dictate military policy and interfere in this war, nor can we allow terrorist prisoners access to classified intelligence information that even the American public is not privy to. 

Our policy has always been to treat prisoners humanely, that is our nature.  Interrogators must be free to extract information using all means possible short of torture without fear of prosecution.  That is all President Bush is asking for and says interrogations will stop if he doesn't get it.  He is determined not only to protect this country, but also to protect those who are charged with prosecuting the war. 

ARIZONA, please take back John McCain to your own state.  If you want to be represented by a Democrat, then please elect one who has the honesty to run on the Democratic ticket and leave the Republican ticket available for a real Republican.  I might suggest the states who sent us John Warner, Lindsey Graham, and Susan Collins do the same.  These four liberals (plus one or two others) are the reason why we can't get anything done in the Senate.  Not only do they regularly vote with the Democrats, they are also members of the "Gang of 14" who use their affiliation to block important Republican legislation. 
 
Taking the "moral high ground" isn't going to protect America, nor is it going to extract vital intelligence information from prisoners.  They say adopting these new regulations and restrictions on interrogators will protect American soldiers in some hypothetical, conventional war in the future because if we place these restrictions on ourselves, others will do it too.  Maybe we should just turn the terrorists at Gitmo loose and send them home, then maybe other countries will do that too in future wars.  Or maybe we shouldn't take prisoners at all, just let them walk away.  When we have to treat prisoners like respected guests as McCain wants, perhaps it might be better to just shoot them on the battlefield and not have to deal with the courts.  It would save the taxpayers a lot of money and save the terrorists from having to put up with all that immoral treatment that McCain thinks they're getting.
 
Why would we think that an enemy state in some future war would be interested in adopting the restrictions we have foolishly placed on ourselves?  We already know that the enemy we are fighting today does not adhere to Geneva Convention rules of war, nor are they a state sponsored, conventional army.  Shouldn't we be more concerned with adapting to fighting to win the war we are currently in, rather than worrying about some hypothetical future war?  This is a time when we should be taking the gloves off, not putting another layer on.
 
On Tuesday we saw Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela condemning America before the United Nations saying President Bush is the devil and America is an evil empire trying to conquer and take over the world, we've all been hearing it in the news.  Not only were their speeches filled with hate for America and our President, but their later comments to reporters were equally despicable.  Hardly the kind of language we expect to hear on the floor of the UN General Assembly.
 
But non of their anti-American rhetoric was anything new to us, we been hearing it over and over again, not from foreign leaders, but coming directly from the Democratic Party and their mouthpieces on the left.  We usually just chalk it up as partisan political rhetoric but now we can see it coming back at us from foreign powers who's minds have been poisoned by these lies and distortions, and who use it justify their hostility against America. 
 
We have been pointing this out for years now, and how this political Bush bashing is being used by our enemies like Osama bin Ladden and Abu Musab al Zarqawi but never was it more clear than it was at the UN on Tuesday when we heard it coming straight from the mouths of Ahmadinejad and Chavez.  They both sounded just like Cindy Sheehan, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Al Sharpton all rolled into one and reading from the same script.
 
Can we continue to ignore the the alliances being formed against us in places like the UN, Havana, and Tehran, by countries who want to destroy us?  Did you know that Kofi Annan also attended the anti-American cabal in Havana last week?  The countries of the world are choosing up sides and many of them are siding against us because of hateful distortions about American policy and lies about our president.  Neither we, nor our administration is interested in conquering and ruling other countries, that's simply not what it's all about, still the distortions and conspiracy theories keep coming from the American left. 
 
We are reacting to being attacked by radical Islamic terrorists on 9-11-01 and doing what must be done to protect our country and prevent another attack like the last one.  We are fighting a global war that we didn't ask for, but was brought to our shores five years ago which killed 3000 of or citizens.  It's interesting to note that neither Ahmadinejad, Chavez, or the American Left ever mentions that.  They all just pretend that it never happened and we went to war for the sole purpose of conquering other nations and violating their human rights.  What about our human rights not to be slaughtered?  Don't they ever figure in the equation?
 
It's time for Americans to stand up and be counted.   In 2001, President Bush said, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.  We will not distinguish between the terrorist and those who support them."  It's now 2006 and I say it's time for Americans to choose which side they are on.  Whether you agree with current administration and foreign policy or not is no longer the point, you can't change it, except by election, so your hate and discontent will do no good at all.  It simply provides the enemies of America with propaganda fuel and ammunition to use against us in the propaganda half of the war.  You might as well be giving them bullets and bombs for the other half as well.
 
We are all still Americans and as such should be supporting America and not the enemy by feeding them false propaganda designed to undermine the current administration for political reasons.  Propaganda that not only causes increased hate in the Islamic region against our soldiers who are stationed and fighting there, but has now also spread throughout the world and coming back at us in the form of threats and false accusations against our country from places like South America, North Korea, the Mideast, and Europe.  All of it, rash statements against America and our president, created by the American Left who continually show us that they have more mouth than brains.  How about a little support for America from you people on the left?  United we stand, divided we fall.  The enemy knows that and is counting on it.  May Allah be pleased with you.
 
Democrats, you have divided this country long enough by running your lying and misleading mouths on the world stage and creating this impression of an evil empire in the minds of our enemies, former allies and friends.  If you keep it up, you may win a few elections but you will loose the entire country for all of us.  It is not the administration's efforts to protect and defend our country that is causing this global hate for America.  It is your shrill and hateful political rhetoric that is being heard by our friends and enemies and used against us that is costing us our respect in the world.  It is your excessive concern for the human rights of captured terrorists and those still in the fight that is putting our country further in danger and making it more difficult to prevent attacks on our citizens.  It is your ridiculous claims of Bush spying on innocent American citizens that is making it more difficult for us to prevent another attack on our country.
 
The first and foremost responsibility of any president is the protection of the country and it's citizens.  This should also be the first and foremost priority of Congress, including Democrats and even John McCain and his ilk.  Prisoner rights at Gitmo should never take a higher priority than the defense of our country but McCain doesn't seem to see it that way. 
 
Taking the "moral high ground" that goes beyond the moral standards already set by US law will not protect the country or defeat terrorism.  It isn't going to make our enemies like us because we're really nice, moral people.  They already believe we're the evil ones, they've heard it enough times from the American Left.  By us demonstrating an excessive concern for the moral high ground, they will simply see us as the week and hypocritical, evil ones.  They will not be impressed, nor will Europe or anyone else.  It will not help us to win the war. 
 
If we want take the moral high ground, we might start by cleaning up the immorality within our own society which has become a sewer of moral corruption in recent decades.  That's just another thing Islamics use against us in their propaganda war, and rightly so.  This used to be "one nation under God" but lately it's become a nation of sex and crime under the ACLUs war on God.  How can we take the moral high ground with terrorist prisoners when we don't even take it in our own society?  This is the height of hypocrisy and that is exactly the way our enemy will see it.  If we were to apply the same moral standards to enemy prisoners that we apply to oursleves, they would all be appearing in gay porn flicks before we shoot them.  Don't give me this "moral high ground" crap and don't try to give it to our soldiers and interrogators.
 
If you're worried about how the way we fight this war will look to Europe and other parts of the world, then how do you think it looks to the world when we show them we are afraid to use our strength to stand up for our own American values and culture?  Se habla Espanol?  If we won't stand up for our own interests, are allies going to trust us to stand up for theirs?  As Raymond S. Kraft recently wrote: "All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win.  The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them."  I love that!
 
So it's not just about how we treat our prisoners, it's also about how we fight our wars today.  It's about the 'politically correct' climate in which our troops must fight because liberals are always worried about "how will it look?" and "a civilian might get killed" (in a war zone), or prisoner interrogation might look like torture.  As a result, we have soldiers on trial for doing what they are trained to do, and we have terrorist at Camp Gitmo who now know they have nothing to fear from interrogators if they don't talk.  We have al Qaeda knowing about our intelligence methods because liberals have given classified information to the newspapers while saying "the people need to know they're being spied upon", but at the same time telling the enemy how we are able to find and stop them. 
 
We fight a war against Islamic fascists yet out of political correctness, we cannot properly identify the enemy for what he is, that just wouldn't be nice to Islam.  Then we turn around and see Islam throwing bombs and bullets at innocent civilians, calling for death to Israel and America, burning our flags and our president in effigy with signs saying death to all those who do not agree with Islam, simply because someone told the truth about them.  Instead of acting like the strong Superpower that we are supposed to be, we act weak and have to be "nice" in the face of our enemy or someone is going to complain and the liberal/Communist ACLU is going to file lawsuits to get some judge to rule against American interests.  This is no way to run a country, or a war.
 
Instead of earning the respect of the world by being strong, liberals prefer that we beg for it - If we show too much force then Europe and Islam won't like us.  Well, they already don't like us but that isn't important, what's important is that they respect us.  If we became just like them, then they would like us but we wouldn't be America anymore.  They don't like us, not because of anything we've done, but because of who we are and our place on the world stage.  They wish they could be us and they all want to come here to live.  But since they can't, they resent us and criticize us in order to build up their own self esteem.  But who do they come to when they need money, help, or defending?  Why of course, their good friends in the good old U.S. of A.
 
How many liberals actually know the history of the United States, why it was founded, why wars were fought to defend it, and how many in history have given their lives to defend American values, not European or Islamic values?  How many liberals even know what American values are, especially those born since Vietnam and raised in this country with American values and morals being trashed by the left and the media, both film and news? 
 
The result is that because of liberal influence on our country, our entire military has to try to fight a "fair" and "politically correct" war, instead of throwing everything at the enemy we have for a fast and efficient victory which was supposed to be the whole reason for going to war in the first place.  If we have to put "nice guy" restrictions on our troops and interrogators, we will never win this war.  We will go down in history as the week giant who was killed by the little people because he was afraid to use his strength and power, but at least he fought fair and treated his enemies well, even when they didn't.  That will make a nice epitaph for America's gravestone.  Or "America died because it forgot the purpose of war was to defeat the enemy".
 
Our enemy fights with no rules at all.  The only way to defeat him is by being more brutal than he is and breaking his will to fight.  If civilians get in the way then they become unfortunate casualties of war, but we kill the enemy just the same.  Liberals won't allow that.  Concerns for the enemy and those protecting them have forced unfair rules on our soldiers.  One, for example, that states that our troops cannot fire until fired upon.  Well that's the same kind of thinking that cost us 3000 lives on 9-11-2001.  I wonder how many of our soldiers lives it has cost. 
 
The Bush Doctrine changed that as far as foreign policy goes and that is why we are in Iraq, but unfortunately, that kind of thinking still applies to the troops fighting there.  65 years ago we were in Europe and Hitler never attacked us, but he was a threat to the free world, just as Saddam was and now the Islamic Fascists are.  Our soldiers in Europe weren't being stocked by liberal media reporters looking for them to make a mistake or be overly brutal, it was war and the media understood that.  Soldiers don't have that kind of freedom today, they can't even celebrate Christmas in Iraq, that might offend a Muslim who hates Christians.
 
The soldiers job in WWII was to kill the enemy and anyone who got in the way.  If we fought war like that today, the civilians would stay out of the way and not let the terrorists hide behind them.  But along comes the liberals who say "you can't kill innocent civilians" and our soldiers don't even know if they're innocent or not.  For that matter, the terrorists and insurgents they're fighting are civilians too and terrorist or not, they're all running around with assault rifles.  We practically have to ask them to show their ID before we kill them.  This war in Iraq wouldn't be lasting so long if our solders had a bit more freedom to do their job, and people like John McCain and Senate Democrats aren't helping.  Where is the moral high ground when it comes to protecting American lives?  It doesn't exist. 
 
Site Meter
 
Techniguy’s Newsletters
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe go to:
http://www.techniguy.com/Newsletters
PLEASE NOTE: Email addresses used for this newsletter are not authorized for use in group mailing lists from your address book under any circumstances. Thank you for your cooperation. You are welcome to post Techniguy's Newsletters to groups ,blogs, and forward them to others on your mailing list.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
http://www.techniguy.com