Scarborough Makes My Morning

Joe Scarborough, co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, is a former Congressman from Florida who is unfortunately moderate but has a good grasp of the issues of the day. This morning, he was debating (along with a number of other people) one Jonathan Capart, a Washington Post editorial writer. While I cannot find the clip, even at Morning Joe’s home page, I would like to share what especially impressed me with regards to how Scarborough and one other guest made Capart look like an absolute fool.

The debate was over whether probable terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) should be tried in New York City, and if he should be tried in a civilian court. Scarborough made the case that both moves by the Obama administration (the civilian trial over a military trial and trying KSM in NYC)  are being done for solely public image and symbolism-related goals. Capart immediately denied this, of course, and was subsequently asked by one of the other guests what would happen if KSM was found innocent. Capart immediately took the following tactics:

1. Blank, deer-in-the-headlights look, with eyes wide open in horror at the question and his lack of a convincing answer.

2. Fall back on the liberal mantra that his being found innocent would never happen.

3. Back up statement #2 by stating the government has too much evidence for KSM to ever be found innocent.

4. Avoid the actual question, as there is no good answer. Granted a civilian trial, KSM can be found innocent. Plain and simple. Despite his having been allegedly willing to plead guilty in a military trial, he may now be found innocent in a civilian court of law.

This followed White House Press Secretary Gibbs’ statement on Sunday that KSM would “meet his maker” after a trial goes through. Which leads, of course, to one of the other questions Scarborough asked Capart: if we are trying to be a symbol to the world of American decency and European-style liberalism and enlightenment, why utilize the death penalty? (Paraphrased, of course.)

To steal from Ed Morrissey, an exit question: Why are we still debating this? Whatever one thinks of waterboarding, long prison stays without a trial, etc. KSM is not an American citizen. Giving him a civilian trial not only gives him the right to walk free, but also throws the idea of treating enemy combatants differently from criminals (especially terrorist combatants) overboard. Talk about a bad precedent, and one that has no legal backing.

A Curse on BOTH Our Houses!

Our country seems mired in an important intellectual dialogue between two domineering factions of American government on the issue of ?torture? or ?interrogation.? Let?s scrupulously dissect what we mean when we use these two terms: well, the same thing depending on who you ask. I have been vivaciously devouring everything I can read having to do with this topic in an attempt to reconcile my Catholic conscience with my political and national security positions.

Obviously the differing sides use the terms that carry differing connotative weight; it?s easy to oppose something as cruel as ?torture? while we watch ?interrogations? every night on TNT when they air one of a baker?s dozen Law & Orders per day. I could go on for a very lengthy duration justifying not the ?administration?s use of torture? per se, but President Bush and his administration?s in depth pontification and legal justification for using interrogation techniques that are actually used on our own soldiers while attending SERE School in the military. As a matter of fact, how many people know that the techniques that were eventually employed by DoD (certain units) and the CIA were actually derived from this school and recommended by psychologists working in conjunction with the military.

I could go on at greater length regarding this and put what many would consider my Schmitt-ian view to paper here, but I am digressing from the point of my article. The aforementioned situation is one of morals in the end. I have heard people say ?well if waterboarding has to be used 183 times to elicit information, maybe we need a better method.? People are failing to understand that the duration IS the method. We use this to wear down the suspect slowly, as opposed to pulling finger nails which uses pain alone. A method like waterboarding is more about the psychological aspect of placing the suspect in an atmosphere where he/she has no control. In the end, it has worked.

However, the argument that ?it worked, it?s thusly justified? has allowed liberals to claim that Conservatives are being strict Machiavellians in that the ends solely justifies the means. This is not true, and the fact that the DOJ and CIA had numerous inquiries and memos discussing that not only was the ends justified, the means was not exactly unjust either.

Now we have reached a point where the duplicitous members of Congress, marching in step with President Obama?s administration, are looking into investigating Justice officials and other previous Executive branch officials. This is despite the fact that many members of congress were briefed about the procedures, of course. Like the inspector in Casablanca they are ?SHOCKED! Shocked I say!? to have found out about these procedures (and this goes for you Dick Armitage, as well).

In the words of our former President, Bring It On. Go ahead and establish this sickening precedent, perhaps Republicans were stupid for respecting the Executive prerogative and turning the page with every new administration (as we are supposed to). President Bush and the then-Republican congress could have gone after President Clinton, Janet Reno and the likes for Waco, Elian Gonzalez, or China-gate. Better yet, why didn?t we go after Jamie Gorelick for her role in tying the hands of our intelligence institutions in the 1990?s?
But the Republicans failed to act on this opportunity. No, as usual (with the exception of some pundits) we choose to accept that prior administrations rule how they rule, and our revolutionary prerogative as defined by John Locke, is fulfilled every four goddamn years.

If President Obama wants this fight, and establishes this precedent, then let him. I would then implore, ANY future Republican president to go after President Obama and his cabinet. Regarding what RJ? Well this issue of interrogation (and that is what it is, interrogation) is on a moral playing field currently. Then I would ask that President Obama and his cabinet be investigated for their abortion and health policies. For overturning the rule regarding aborted fetuses (ie Unborn children) and stem-cell research, despite the fact that adult stem cell lines have become far more beneficial when it comes to research. For taking away the right of parents of children under 18 years old to be consulted when their daughters are seeking morning-after pills.? And finally, for overturning the ?conscience rules? and forcing healthcare professionals to provide abortion services to patients despite their religious or ethical beliefs. Forcing people to perform abortions. This alone transcends whether or not a woman has a right to choose; one would think somebody calling themselves pro-choice would be for choice by the Doctor as well. ?

In the end, I hope the Republicans take this seriously, not as a simple rant. This action that the President is taking has immeasurable ramifications for our republic, and if he wants to start down the road, let him reap what he has sowed in three years. I?ll be whistling the new DMB song waiting? Funny the way it is, when you think about it?

-rj