hist2004
09-22-2006, 12:19 PM
Don't forget global dangers when debating wartime tactics
September 22, 2006
BY STEVE HUNTLEY SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Thankfully the White House and Republican senators led by John McCain reached a compromise Thursday on legislation over interrogation methods for prisoners suspected of having information about terrorism.
It's a tough issue weighing, on one hand, the necessity of gaining information to prevent attacks against us and, on the other hand, the imperative of remaining true to our ideals. McCain, by virtue of his experience as a POW during the Vietnam War, claimed high moral ground on the issue. Still, on President Bush falls the responsibility for defending us from terrorists.
The administration had argued the Geneva Conventions are vague and could open U.S. interrogators to legal trouble. Critics said the White House was treading into dangerous territory by seeming to want to rewrite the conventions. The advice of the military -- not to allow anything even approaching torture -- should guide Congress in crafting this measure.
During this debate, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." McCain characterized his position by observing, "The United States has always been better than our enemies." Those sentiments have been echoed by others who worry that in fighting the war against Islamic extremism we face the danger of sinking to the point of becoming indistinguishable from our enemies. That's always a possibility in war, but let us recall that America has passed this test before.
In World War II, Allied bombing in response to the Nazi blitz against England destroyed German cities and killed civilians, but America did not emerge as a fascist nation bent on world conquest and genocide. In the brutal Pacific theater fighting, U.S. planes poured tons of explosives and two nuclear bombs on Japan without our nation becoming a fanatical state sponsoring Rape of Nanking-like atrocities and suicide bombers. In fact, for defeating fascist totalitarianism the American warriors of the 1940s are, with good reason, recalled as "our greatest generation."
We, reading history books in the comfort of our easy chairs, fault Abraham Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War and Franklin Roosevelt for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Indeed, the treatment of Japanese Americans was especially reprehensible and without justification.
Perceiving an inevitability in history (which may not always be there), we see that neither suspension of habeas corpus nor internment was necessary to winning either of the wars. Yet, the point is that in the midst of those conflagrations, neither Lincoln nor Roosevelt knew just what it would take to win. They knew only the catastrophic consequences of losing and were determined -- ruthlessly determined -- not to let that happen, to do what it took to win their wars. And they are justifiably honored as among our greatest presidents.
What will it take to safeguard American lives today?
In the days right after 9/11, I got a call out of the blue from a New Yorker, a lawyer whom I had met only once at a function in Chicago. The fear in his voice was palpable as he said he worked in an "iconic building," Rockefeller Center, and that New Yorkers were "waiting for the other shoe to drop."
Recall the range of emotions we felt back then: anger, fear, apprehension about the future, among others. What would be our response today to another mega-attack? Would we count the dead and this time be inclined to a criminal justice response, be satisfied with the FBI and prosecutors issuing arrest warrants?
Or would we look to the Muslim world and wonder why a substantial part of it is so quick to take offense at Danish cartoons, so ready to misinterpret the comments of a pope, so eager to blame its problems on the West and "colonialism," and ask why it has been slow and reluctant in confronting the extremist malignancy within its own society? And what would be the implications for our response?
In looking for things we didn't do to protect ourselves, would we turn in furious recrimination on the White House, Congress, CIA, FBI and others in government for not being aggressive enough in protecting us? Would we conclude that the Patriot Act and the much-criticized warrantless eavesdropping program were inadequate?
Yes, it is imperative that we not abandon our ideals as we confront Islamic fascism. But, as we debate interrogations, tribunals, wiretapping and other issues in the fight against extremists, we must not forget the uncharted, dangerous territory in which we would find ourselves if the terrorists succeed in another attack killing thousands of Americans.
Source: (http://www.suntimes.com/output/huntley/cst-edt-hunt22.html)
Hist2004
September 22, 2006
BY STEVE HUNTLEY SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Thankfully the White House and Republican senators led by John McCain reached a compromise Thursday on legislation over interrogation methods for prisoners suspected of having information about terrorism.
It's a tough issue weighing, on one hand, the necessity of gaining information to prevent attacks against us and, on the other hand, the imperative of remaining true to our ideals. McCain, by virtue of his experience as a POW during the Vietnam War, claimed high moral ground on the issue. Still, on President Bush falls the responsibility for defending us from terrorists.
The administration had argued the Geneva Conventions are vague and could open U.S. interrogators to legal trouble. Critics said the White House was treading into dangerous territory by seeming to want to rewrite the conventions. The advice of the military -- not to allow anything even approaching torture -- should guide Congress in crafting this measure.
During this debate, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." McCain characterized his position by observing, "The United States has always been better than our enemies." Those sentiments have been echoed by others who worry that in fighting the war against Islamic extremism we face the danger of sinking to the point of becoming indistinguishable from our enemies. That's always a possibility in war, but let us recall that America has passed this test before.
In World War II, Allied bombing in response to the Nazi blitz against England destroyed German cities and killed civilians, but America did not emerge as a fascist nation bent on world conquest and genocide. In the brutal Pacific theater fighting, U.S. planes poured tons of explosives and two nuclear bombs on Japan without our nation becoming a fanatical state sponsoring Rape of Nanking-like atrocities and suicide bombers. In fact, for defeating fascist totalitarianism the American warriors of the 1940s are, with good reason, recalled as "our greatest generation."
We, reading history books in the comfort of our easy chairs, fault Abraham Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War and Franklin Roosevelt for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Indeed, the treatment of Japanese Americans was especially reprehensible and without justification.
Perceiving an inevitability in history (which may not always be there), we see that neither suspension of habeas corpus nor internment was necessary to winning either of the wars. Yet, the point is that in the midst of those conflagrations, neither Lincoln nor Roosevelt knew just what it would take to win. They knew only the catastrophic consequences of losing and were determined -- ruthlessly determined -- not to let that happen, to do what it took to win their wars. And they are justifiably honored as among our greatest presidents.
What will it take to safeguard American lives today?
In the days right after 9/11, I got a call out of the blue from a New Yorker, a lawyer whom I had met only once at a function in Chicago. The fear in his voice was palpable as he said he worked in an "iconic building," Rockefeller Center, and that New Yorkers were "waiting for the other shoe to drop."
Recall the range of emotions we felt back then: anger, fear, apprehension about the future, among others. What would be our response today to another mega-attack? Would we count the dead and this time be inclined to a criminal justice response, be satisfied with the FBI and prosecutors issuing arrest warrants?
Or would we look to the Muslim world and wonder why a substantial part of it is so quick to take offense at Danish cartoons, so ready to misinterpret the comments of a pope, so eager to blame its problems on the West and "colonialism," and ask why it has been slow and reluctant in confronting the extremist malignancy within its own society? And what would be the implications for our response?
In looking for things we didn't do to protect ourselves, would we turn in furious recrimination on the White House, Congress, CIA, FBI and others in government for not being aggressive enough in protecting us? Would we conclude that the Patriot Act and the much-criticized warrantless eavesdropping program were inadequate?
Yes, it is imperative that we not abandon our ideals as we confront Islamic fascism. But, as we debate interrogations, tribunals, wiretapping and other issues in the fight against extremists, we must not forget the uncharted, dangerous territory in which we would find ourselves if the terrorists succeed in another attack killing thousands of Americans.
Source: (http://www.suntimes.com/output/huntley/cst-edt-hunt22.html)
Hist2004