Steve, there's still one problem with the alternative liberals and left-leaning "moderates" propose. They, of course, want to change the war on terrorism into one of intelligence and law-enforcement. Nothing wrong with that alternative on the surface, but then we've got the huge complication (and I hesitate to call it that) of human rights.
After all, it is my belief that Abu Ghraib wasn't just a bunch of sex-starved privates getting their jollies, but rather an exposure of some of the methods the CIA uses to interrogate captured soldiers and suspected terrorists. Assuming that's the case, what's going to happen to our intelligence-gathering when some of this "black art" is exposed by the "muckrakers," especially those with left-wing agendas?
Also, consider the difference in law-enforcement between America and Iraq. Here in southern California, a suspect who led police on a chase was caught and beaten with a flashlight. That, of course, was caught on camera (seems like you can't do anything in L.A. without being caught on tape), and it's bringing back painful memories of Rodney King and the L.A. riots. Meanwhile, I just read about one Iraqi storeowner who saw a carjacking taking place just in front of his store. Iraqi police showed up and pistol-whipped the suspects before taking them in. Had an American done the pistol-whipping instead, you can bet every international human rights group would have a fit.
I'm not advocating forsaking human rights just for the sake of security. However, I am advocating that we ought to be honest with ourselves and figure out our priorities. Simply relying on intelligence and law-enforcement isn't nearly enough if we're going to prevent another 9/11.
Tenchusatsu |
