When Moral High Ground is the Pits!

As I am listening to President Obama's "100 Days Press Conference," I am struck by his response to a water-boarding question. He believes this "enhanced interrogation technique" is torture and wants nothing to do with it. He expressed a commitment to "hold true to our ideals" even when doing so makes it harder to fight terrorism.

Will the President better protect our nation by seizing this moral high ground? Will he inspire those who hate us to admit the error of their ways? I can hear them now: "We've made a horrible mistake! Sure, we have not been above some righteous beheading now and then. But the great Satan has disdained interrogation techniques we consider comparatively tame. How he shames us with his obvious moral superiority! How wrong of us to think he is our enemy when he should be esteemed as our teacher."

My purpose in this moment is not to evaluate interrogation techniques or how shifting the line of demarcation between what we will and won't do will influence our national security. My attention was fixed on the glaring incongruity between what he considers "above his pay grade" and what he deems his moral obligation. The President wants to be able to sleep well at night in the knowledge that no one has been intentionally subjected to the fear of drowning on his watch. Yet, he is apparently capable of sleeping soundly while millions silently scream, their lives snuffed out by those who swear, "Primum non nocere."

The Declaration of Independence that captures our "ideals" names "life" as an unalienable right granted all men by their Creator. I am not closed to a debate about what constitutes torture. But spare me the tortured morality devoid of moral sensitivity to the greatest crime against humanity of our age. How disgusting to hear someone crowing about his scruples over scaring people when he so cavalierly dismisses the slaughter of the innocents. I think I'm going to puke.

Comments

[Bo]

Hear, Hear!

[Austin]

Yeah, why can't our answer to "why water-board?" be the same as his answer to "why shouldn't infants who survive botched abortions receive medical treatment?"

"Because that would be a violation of fundamental choice." If choice is the ultimate virtue in that context, why isn't our choice to water-board inviolate?

[Jeff]

To me, it just points to the truth that we're not far away from being considered terrorists because promoting life is something we won't move away from. Sad as it is, I kind of revel in it. At least the sides are becoming more clear.

[Randy]

I wonder who is more tolerant toward abortion - Bin Laden or Obama? My guess is Obama, but regardless, neither are morally equipped to represent either cause, abortion or torture.