Naiveté, Frêre Jacques, and Dubya Wows ‘Em (Me, Anyway) at the UN

Here are two opposing views on the “interrogation techniques” debate currently raging in Washington and elsewhere. First, Thomas Sowell, writing at Real Clear Politics (Suicidal Hand Wringing):

When you enter a boxing ring, you agree to abide by the rules of boxing. But when you are attacked from behind in a dark alley, you would be a fool to abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. If you do, you can end up being a dead fool.

Even with a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon and the prospect that its nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of international terrorists that it has been sponsoring for years, many in the media and in the government that is supposed to protect us have been preoccupied with whether we are being nice enough to the terrorists in our custody.

The issue has been brought to a head by the efforts of Senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham to get us to apply the rules of the Geneva convention to cutthroats who respect no Geneva convention and are not covered by the Geneva convention.

[…]

No one has suggested that we disregard the Geneva convention for people covered by the Geneva convention. The question is whether a lawless court shall seize the power to commit this nation to rules never agreed to by those whom the Constitution entrusted with the power to make international treaties.

The much larger question -- the question of survival -- is whether we have the clarity and the courage to go all-out in self-defense against those who are going all-out to destroy us, even at the cost of their own lives.

Sowell is absolutely, positively, correct. The fact the US observes the Geneva Conventions didn’t spare Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker from being tortured before they were beheaded after terrorists captured them in Iraq. No sane American believes things will suddenly and miraculously change if McCain & Company have their way. However, a small but very vocal contingent of naïve Americans support Senator McCain’s position. Columnist Eugene Robinson is one such person. Here’s Robinson, writing in today’s WaPo:

It's past time to stop mincing words. The Decider, or maybe we should now call him the Inquisitor, sticks to anodyne euphemisms. He speaks of "alternative" questioning techniques, and his umbrella term for the whole shop of horrors is "the program." Of course, he won't fully detail the methods that were used in the secret CIA prisons -- and who knows where else? -- but various sources have said they have included not just the infamous "waterboarding," which the administration apparently will reluctantly forswear, but also sleep deprivation, exposure to cold, bombardment with ear-splitting noise and other assaults that cause not just mental duress but physical agony. That is torture, and to call it anything else is a lie.

Excuse me, Mr. Robinson, but you’re confusing duress with torture. And given the Armed Forces use these techniques in SERE training, Special Forces training, and SEAL training, are you saying that we’re torturing our own people? You are, you know. So, should we stop? I think not.

There’s a huge difference between sleep deprivation, exposure to cold, and the like and real torture. No one is advocating we bring out the drills and the blowtorches; no one advocates throwing captives off of second story buildings or out of helicopters. What is being advocated is effective interrogation of non-uniformed illegal combatants that pose a mortal danger to the US and the West, in general. You are naïve to the frickin’ extreme if you cannot see the difference.

Brendan Miniter, assistant editor of the WSJ’s Opinion Journal, has more on this subject in “When Miranda Met Osama.” (via Real Clear Politics)

Oh, Jacques, Mon Ami! Bryan, writing at Hot Air:

Only France could manage to lose a war in which it did not fight.

Just ahead of the big Iranapolooza at the UN, France announced that it no longer supports sanctions against the Islamic Republic and that there is in fact now a split on the Security Council on the question of whether Iran has to freeze its enrichment programs as a precondition to entering talks. This abrogates France’s previous support for sanctions, and gives the Russians and Chinese an out on sanctions both clearly were reluctant to support. Like its backdoor support for Iraq in the run-up to that war, France’s move combined with its veto power on the UNSC all but guarantees that either a) Iran gets nuclear weapons, or b) there will be a nasty war to make sure that Iran doesn’t get nuclear weapons.

This is, in part, a response to Chirac’s position that “…he had never seen a situation where sanctions were effective at ending disputes.” Well, no, sanctions aren’t all that effective, especially if you and members of your government actively subvert them. Frêre Jacques is also concerned French troops in Lebanon might be targeted by Hezbollah should France support sanctions against Iran. Looks like a doctrine of pre-emptive surrender, to me. That’ll work.

The initial reactions to Dubya’s UN speech are beginning to come in. I didn’t watch it, but after reading the speech I am impressed with what he said, as are Mary Katherine Ham and The Political Pit Bull. Allah has video highlights and a brief commentary. The full text of the speech is here. It will be interesting to see how the usual suspects (the Beeb, the Guardian, NYT, et al) respond. No, check that. I can visualize their response without even trying…