Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Mr. Abdulmutallab

I have a friend who likes to send me emails with links to columns by conservative commentators. Most of these are from Townhall.com. Lately, he has sent me a number of columns filled with a lot of sound and fury about how this administration is jeopardizing national security by being soft on terrorism and refusing to use harsh interrogation techniques on terrorist suspects, particularly Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The narrative of the Christmas bomber story in all these articles goes like this: Abdulmutallab was read his Miranda rights and then "lawyered up," and we gave up our one opportunity to get any information out of him.

Well, it turns out the the narrative wasn't accurate. Abdulmutallab never clammed up. And he began to be particularly helpful several weeks ago when members of his family flown in from Nigeria persuaded him to cooperate. Once his family arrived in the U.S. on Jan. 17, Abdulmutallab began providing valuable information. Just this last week 10 arrests were made in Malaysia based at least in part on his information. Terror Suspect Has Provided Intelligence, Officials Say. I don't really know this, but I wonder how willingly the family would have co-operated had their son just spent the last two months being waterboarded.

One reflection here is that maybe the pundits should keep quiet until they know what they're talking about.

But, also, this episode raises another more troubling question. Why is it that the answer to every political issue for the Right is brutality? Whether it's the "let then eat cake" attitude toward the uninsured and underinsured, the unwillingness to lift a finger for the recession victims (but we'll take the tax breaks!) or the feverish desire to see harsh interrogation techniques meted out, the policy answer for conservatives is always and everywhere: what's the most inhumane thing we can do here? The Right must look back on the German occupation of Poland with sighs of envy.

1 comment:

Peter H of Lebo said...

I liked how Obama called it torture and not "harsh interrogation techniques" in his State of the Union address.

"One reflection here is that maybe the pundits should keep quiet until they know what they're talking about."

Yeah, interestingly those in favor of "interrogation techniques" and do not consider it torture have not experienced it. Those who undergo the "techniques" all agree it is torture. Including those who previously did not believe it was torture.

Most people do not think waterboarding is torture...Christopher Hitchens writes otherwise in this vanityfair article... http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808