Thursday, April 10, 2008

Surrender Or The Puppy Dies

Megan McArdle is discussing the failure (or lack thereof) of the media when it comes to the John Yoo memos on the legality of torture for American troops facing irregular combatants. The comments are extensive. With the usual Bush is Hitler slant. I have a little different opinion.

When people don't even know (so many commenting on the article) what John Yoo even wrote about, it is obvious that even for stories people commenting there are interested in, the media has been dishing up moldy slops.

Did Yoo shred the Constitution? How could he? He doesn't make policy.

What was Yoo asked to do? To research the applicable laws, national and international, dealing with torture and irregular warfare.

And what is the number one rule dealing with irregular warfare? Irregular warriors can be summarily shot after a military court. And how rigorous does that court need to be? It can be done on a battlefield.

Why is that a rule of war? Because irregular warfare that does not conform to the rules of irregular warfare endangers non-combatants.

Now if you can kill them on the spot why would torture be out of bounds?

Now that may be a true legal opinion. It says nothing about whether it is wise. It is obvious that our military leaders consider it unwise, despite the legality, because that is not the practice of our military.

Why don't our troops torture and execute as a matter of policy if they have the legal power? It impedes surrender. And we want them to surrender. We want easy fights - not fights to the death. We want to beat them not kill them. A man who changes sides is more valuable in terms of victory than a dead man. Dead men don't change sides.

Now in all this uproar over Yoo has any one of note covered the facts well enough so that at least the majority of the commenters to Megan's piece get it?

I see no evidence of that in those comments.

In this war which side is known as the torturing side? Which side executes civilians at random as policy? Which side is notorious for using human shields?

So for all the fools screaming Yoo, Yoo, Yoo, Yoo, and Bush too, why no outrage at the random mass murder of civilians as a military tactic?

Because the other side is using a tactic well known. It is: give up or the puppy dies.

And the puppy murderers are the friends of so many of Megan's commenters. Not to mention the leftys in general.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

3 comments:

Headless Blogger said...

Ummmm, what does the U.S. Constitution have to do with torture of our enemies? Their torture simply is not punishment, 'cruel and unusual' or otherwise.

dt said...

"Now if you can kill them on the spot why would torture be out of bounds?"

Please consider the moral implications of this statement for a few moments. Unless one argues that morality has no role in warfare I honestly cannot see the how this statement is consistent with a moral code.

M. Simon said...

It was not my intention to do a long exposition on that aspect. In any case torture is not allowed so the point is moot.

I am reminded of a Col. who used psychological torture by firing his pistol near a suspect to extract info. He got it and probably saved some lives.

The military subsequently retired him for the incident. He said he would do it again. A stand up guy.

Torture works.

None the less it can be a career ending move.