Why I Can’t Vote for a Democrat

Today the Democrats of the House and Senate approved restricting CIA interrogation techniques to those outlined in the Army Field Manual. Power Line correctly notes that this means that the Democratic Party simply is not serious about the national security of the United States.

Over the last 36 hours, Congressional Democrats have again demonstrated a casual, even frivolous attitude toward their Constitutional duty to assist in keeping Americans safe from attack.

As I said in an earlier post, this means that the Democrats would not pluck a single hair from the head of a terrorist even to save the entire world. I think that disqualifies them from being in charge of national security—or much of anything else.

If you find yourself sympathesizing with the Democrats’ position, here’s a quick hypothetical question. A terrorist has put poison in the water supply, which will soon be released in all major lakes and rivers and kill, within hours, almost everyone in the United States. You capture him. If you use the Army Field Manual techniques, he will not talk, and almost all Americans die. If you go beyond that—by, for example, dripping water up his nose, panicking him for perhaps 30 seconds—he will talk, and those lives will be saved. What would you do? (Don’t answer that we never really are in a position to know all this. It’s a hypothetical case, and your knowledge of all this is stipulated. What would you do?)

This is essentially a trolley problem, but with 300 million people tied to the track on which the out-of-control trolley is racing, and one person who might be splashed if the trolley is diverted to the other track, saving the 300 million. May you flip the switch to divert the trolley? The Democrats are committed to answering “No!”

2 thoughts on “Why I Can’t Vote for a Democrat

  1. I have very mixed feelings about this. On one hand, from what I know of waterboarding, I do not feel that it is particulary cruel, unusual, or dangerous. I like the idea of knowing our government is actualy doing somthing effective towards protecting us.

    On the other hand, I believe it is also just as important for the US to hold the moral high ground. If we stoop to the level of the terrorists, than we have just been the architects of our own demise. Ben Franklin is one of my heroes, and I think it is important for security fanatics to heed is advice. He once said somthing along the lines of any society that would give up a little freedom to gain a little security deserves niether, and will lose both.

    I would rather die by terrorism in a free society than live in so called safety in a police state. To me, that is what it means to be a true patriot.

  2. Your scenario is too unrealistic to be of use. Water supplies are notoriously difficult to poison, which is why you don’t see it done more often. Heck, even if you got him to talk, by that point the damage is done. Pretty bad example.

    As for whether or not waterboarding is torture, if you truly don’t believe it is torture, or believe that this is torture but is justified to save lives, then you must logically support the use of torture for domestic police interogations. After all, there are known cases all the time where some sicko has kidnapped a kid or is perhaps is suspected that they will soon attack a victim or multiple victims.

    So if why not allow our local police or at least FBI to use waterboarding? I mean, if it isn’t torture…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s