War of Wits

In order to make sense of what’s going on around you, you must use reason, logic and critical thinking. You must make your decisions, not based strictly on short-term goals, but also on long-term consequences.

When the Supreme Court rebuked the President’s detention and interrogation policies, they stated that nothing precluded the President from gaining approval for those methods through legislation. The President is finally seeking that approval, and the US Senate is -predictably- standing in his way.

To be sure, in this argument there are pros and cons to both sides. The key is to make your decision based on the totality of the evidence and not on your gut feelings like John “Maverick” McCain. McCain should remove himself from this entire detainee debate. That goes for any other Congressman or Senator who was tortured or even held in captivity. Because he was tortured, McCain’s judgment is clouded by his experience. I’d bet he would be likely to regard anything more aggressive than voluntary questioning over tea and cookies as torture.

We see the same tactic employed by attorneys in peremptory challenges to prospective jury pools and the recusal of judges and attorneys from cases where their individual judgments may get in the way of the proper execution of their duties. Why shouldn’t it apply here?

Bush’s position is that he needs a clear definition of what acceptable detention and interrogation tactics are so they can stay within the law while fighting terror. He would also like many of the current tactics to remain legal. Sounds simple enough.

The pros to this argument are that we’ll now have clear directives and hopefully a somewhat expanded playbook on how to deal with the enemy. There are some cons. First, we will be broadcasting our methods so our enemy can learn how to counter them. Second, according to Senators Warner(R-VA), McCain(R-AZ), Collins(R-ME), and Graham(R-SC), other countries will feel free to follow suit. The problem with their logic is twofold.

First; we’re fighting a stateless enemy, and second; they’re already sawing off heads, booby-trapping corpses and generally not respecting any laws whatsoever.

McCain himself acknowledges that al Qaeda will torture US troops regardless of what laws we adopt, but still insists we must “take the moral high ground” - that we can’t “lower our standards because others do.” Truth be told, we could actually lower our standards quite a bit and still be on higher moral ground than those who saw off the heads of bound captives or hide behind and target innocents.

Second, if we do not escalate our response to at least one level of force higher than the terrorists, how do you expect to win? Remember, we’re talking about people who have no compunction about incinerating whole cities, sawing off heads, shooting nuns or blowing up babies. If your enemy sucker-punches you, you have to kick him in the groin. If he pulls out a knife, you have to pull out your gun, it’s that simple. Anything less, and you’re going to lose.

Looking at all sides of this issue, our leadership seems divided among two schools of thought. Modernize our laws to account for a 21st century, stateless enemy who respects no borders, laws or treaties so we can deal with them more effectively; or take the moral high ground and lose the fight altogether.

Either way, we face tough choices. But why not err on the side of strength, as opposed to weakness?