Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Anti-PC League

Powered by Blogger

Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Good Policy or Political Move?

There is much howling among the moonbats as to the treatened veto of a proposed anti-torture amendment to the defense budget .

Mudville Gazette has an excellent reason why this is a silly idea:
Interesting that in responding to claims that the Army has failed to provide guidance to soldiers the Senate has endorsed the published Army guidance to soldiers as the definitive response.

MG also has the bill posted, along with the U.S. Army guidance on physical abuse.

What floors me is this press release by John McCain's office regarding the bill.

Consider this:

So the amendment I am offering simply codifies what is current policy and reaffirms what was assumed to be existing law for years. In light of the administration’s stated commitment, it should require no change in our current interrogation and detention practices. What it would do is restore clarity on a simple and fundamental question: Does America treat people inhumanely? My answer is no, and from all I’ve seen, America’s answer has always been no.

So in other words, it's a political move. But why? Is it so the President's political enemies have more ammunition on which to blame him for what a few dumb soldiers do (BTW I'm a soldier myself)?

Note that the amendment does not define what "cruel and inhumane treatment" is. Which is important, because it seems that even touching a Koran by accident is somehow cruel and inhumane in the eyes of the agenda-driven human rights groups.

Then there is this tidbit of naiveté:
Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy – if not in this war, then in the next.

Listen, as this war has shown, terrorists need no pretense to torture their captives.
If a humanitarian aid-worker is subject to it -for no other reason than being a non-Muslim- then a U.S. soldier will be.

Perhaps the biggest reason I oppose this is the arrogance it takes for a U.S. Senator thinks he should define military policy within it's own ranks. Should we then give the responsibility of defining acceptable squad-level tactics to politicians?

I can't help but think if his rumored bid in the 2008 elections is influencing this. Is he trying to earn votes by giving the ACLU and their buddies political ammunition to undermine the military's efforts. Who's side is he on anyways?

While this article may seem unnecessarily harsh towards Senator McCain, there are other reasons I oppose this:

Addition to the Amendment Debate
Another Reason I Oppose John McCain's Amendment.

Please read those before jerking any knees.