Asesinato, Si; Tortura, No
Osama bin Laden deserved to die. Or at least I think he did. (How much do we ordinary citizens really know?) I wasn’t going to say anything about it until I read The New York Times this morning. In an editorial titled “The Torture Apologists,” The Times editors write:
The battered intelligence community should now be basking in the glory of a successful operation. It should not be dragged back into the muck and murk by political figures whose sole agenda seems to be to rationalize actions that cost this country dearly — in our inability to hold credible trials for very bad men and in the continued damage to our reputation.
In other words, when we shoot and kill an unarmed man, we should be “basking in glory,” but when we detain someone without trial, deny them due process, to say nothing of failing to read them their Miranda rights, we are engaged in “muck and murk”?
Hard to believe this stuff gets past the editors. But wait . . . these are the editors!
The details about the assault on Osama bin Laden’s compound keeps changing. I’m not in a position to judge the specific methods used. But I wonder why the version Administration officials announced to the media on Sunday evening deviated so far from what Administration officials admitted happened on Wednesday.
Good point. The editors of the NYT are not just hypocrits. They are irrational.
Torture is evil, but murder is ok? What senselessness is this? I agree he desevered to die. But I would be a hypocrit if he were captured and detained and tortured and then I complained.
Agree. This is an absurd position.
Great point.
You can be for torture or you cn be against torture. But you can’t be against torture and “bask in the glory” of assasination.
John, why resort to Spanish in your heading? Are you trying to soften the message?
Interesting post. This is the only place I have seen a comment like this.