Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
For the love of God, the President is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. This may be our ultimate redeeming virtue, the commander in chief popularly elected by civilians. Truman made the decision to drop The Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was also Truman who fired his chief general, MacArthur, who wanted to use tactical nuclear weapons in Korea, for insubordination. The President has to have the scruples to draw the line on what is and is not torture, to follow international and domestic law in the treatment of prisoners, or no one else will. He's the check, the people's check. Otherwise expecting generals to not torture is like expecting coporations not to put profit aboove all else, not polluting, etc. People who think we're constitutionally incapable of sliding into the moral chasm of our predecessors are deluded. Decency at a national level takes discipline and constant moral vigilance.
This exchange between McCain and Romney is about the most appalling thing I've seen in an election. Anyone with a sense of history and the miracle that is our republic ought to be totally disgusted with Romney over that exchange.
|
I was appalled, though not surprised given Romney's earlier comments on the topic.
His answer on torture was embarrassing, particulary with McCain at his side calling him on it. His flat assertion that, as president, he would not authorize torture sounded great- until he then noted that he could not provide any definition of torture. This second part of his answer effectively destroys any utility from the first part of his answer. If you reserve the right to call anything you want non-torture, then of what value is your assertion that you won't torture people?
I am also shocked that he hasn't even formulated an opinion on waterboarding. My guess is that he has, and that he would permit it, but didn't have the cajones to say so in front of McCain.