Thursday, February 17, 2005

Justice is Blind

As sorry as society would like me to feel for the terrorist detained at Abu Ghraib who died from a "Palestinian hanging", I am yet to shed a single tear. It is not compassionate to weep for evil men who wish to murder innocent women and children and would willingly lay down their own lives to do so. I see no virtue in condemning soldiers who, although they did get very carried away and were a tad out of line, were tough in interrogation on a man possibly withholding information valuable to the mission and the lives of the brave men who sacrifice themselves for its execution.

But that's not the crux of the matter. The importance of this controversy lies within a more widespread phenomenon: Nobody understands the concept of war. Of course, when the lives of many Americans and civilians abroad are at stake, we only hear the public outcry against "human rights violations" and the like; however, inasmuch as we are currently waging war against a ruthless enemy, we as a people must accept the fact that we can not afford to maintain all of their dignity. It is a cold and simple fact that in war one must abandon certain compassionate sentiments in order to complete the mission, which remains primary throughout the endeavor.

But instead of a mutual understanding of the implications of warfare and the necessary acts thereof, we get liberalsense; we get this:

"...while in a position condemned by human rights groups as torture..."

And that was a notable factoid? It was even in the opening paragraph. The problem with this widespread epidemic of utopian pacifism is its complete denial of reality. For instance, Bill O'Reilly seems to be awfully fond of Gitmo, so he constantly asks the toughest of questions to DNC officials and non-profit human rights organizations representatives, such as: "If you knew that something like September 11th could happen and you were in charge of interrogating a terrorist who could possibly know information about the potential attack, wouldn't you rough him up a little bit?" or, "If a loved one of yours could die from a terrorist, wouldn't you push him around so that maybe he would tell you something remotely important enough to aid in saving your loved one?" The questions turn on the spin from those opposed to the correct answer, of course, and so the point remains: Is it wrong to maim or possibly kill someone who may contain information regarding the lives of many more innocents?

No, it is not. If "roughing up" evil men in order to save civilians is morally wrong, then I would have to ask those who would agree with such an assertion if knowingly allowing one evil man to live while allowing the deaths of many more civilians is a righteous deed. I would have to ask them to look me in the eyes and say that letting the many good die for the wicked few is virtuous. But are suh simple thoughts even pursued? Of course not, instead we already have the speculation of the President's involvement, and we have more of this, too:

"After we found out he was dead, they were nervous," Spc. Dennis E. Stevanus said of the CIA interrogator and translator. "They didn't know what the hell to do."

Of course they're afraid of the MSM and the public outcry -- they don't understand. I strongly urge all of those who fail to see the wisdom in allowing alternative methods of retrieving information to change their minds for the sake of the greater good. It's not that I support torture, I don't, but I will not condemn the men and the acts they committed in serving me and protecting my freedom for the sake of pseudo-morality and the "global community". It's just not right.

Powered by Blogger