Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Leftist Heads Explode ...

But I humbly submit that it's better than thousands of innocents dying.

Via Instapundit, I came across this interesting story in which The Guardian "agonises" over the apparent usage of torture by Pakistanis to assist in breaking up the Heathrow liquid-bomb plot last week.

There are too many exquisite subplots here to resist ... too many trails to go down. But I'll take a look at any rate.

Note: The suspect that was tortured ... allegedly ... was a British citizen. But the offenders were apparently Pakistanis. So we have Pakistanis roughing up a Brit to save Americans and Brits? Maybe we do have a global war on jihad, after all.

For me, this episode provides hope that a Muslim-dominated nation (or at least the Musharraf government) will do what's necessary when the chips are down. Hats off to them.

And is it just me, or does the Left only want to reform Muslim countries when they do things that help the West?

And here's another thought to ponder: Who gets to determine if the Pakistanis operated within the law? I say, let's check with the Pakistani Civil Liberties Union. Get back to me on that one, would you? Just what gives the Left the right to superimpose its views of justice on a sovereign nation? I ask this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but do consider the moral umbrage by the Left in this case, and the easy access to long-lost absolute standards.

The Guardian "agonises" that a prosecution in Britain might be jeopardized by the activities of the Pakistanis, but one wonders: Is it better to have the chap behind bars for life or save thousands of lives?

The Guardian story asserts, again, that torture does not work; "of course" it doesn't work. By this we can deduce then that the chap was not tortured then? (Cue sounds of Leftists Heads exploding once more).

So what did they do to the chap, any way? Play Boy George records all night? Wrap him naked in the Union Jack? Deck him out in panty goggles? Put him at the POA for "God Save the Queen"? Probably more than Abu Ghraib treatment for sure.

The Guardian, acknowledging both the horror and the potential success of Pakistani "torture", ends in a "moralising" stupor:
Torture and other illegality can offer authorities a short-term seduction, perhaps even temporary successes. Information provided by torture may have helped foil the alleged airliners plot. But evidence provided under torture is often unreliable, sometimes disastrously so - and its use always pollutes the broader credentials of torturers and their allies. This battle must be won within the law.
So is torture reliable or not? Again, I thought we could deduce by the success here that there was no torture.

I don't know about you, but I'd sure feel better about us all if there were a thousands of dead bodies floating in the Atlantic. At least then The Guardian would have British "dignity" to fall back on.

In the end, the chaps at The Guardian miss the larger, more fundamental point: A battle against a ruthless, murderous, and lawless enemy is never fought and won in a courtroom.