This is silly on a number of levels. It's also a very simple debate that really doesn't require much thought. Bin Laden was a target of war--a war that was authorized in 2001 by a democratically elected government and put into motion by the President of the United States. The authorization specifically states:
- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
By tracking bin Laden to a country that was harboring him and killing him on the battle field is completely legal under both U.S. law and international; it's also completely reasonable given the destruction bin Laden levied against the United States on September 11th.
Now you will notice no where in the Congressional Authorization does it say anything about being able to torture terrorists responsible for 9/11. That's because torture is not only illegal in America but also internationally. Capturing alleged members of al Qaeda on the battlefield is perfectly legal. Capturing them on the battlefield and then submitting them to torture is not. Coincidentally, killing your enemy on the battlefield is legal, which is what we did to bin Laden. There is nothing hypocritical about it.
It's perfectly credible to be against torture as a state-sanctioned policy of the United States and in favor of killing the enemy on the field of battle, a battle that was completely within the realms of national and international law.
Posts
0 comments :
Post a Comment