Well, this has been quite the week for over-the-top political rhetoric. First we have Dick Durbin saying that what we are doing at Guantanamo Bay is like what the Nazis did during the Holocaust. Then we have Rush Limbaugh selling Club Gitmo shirts, comparing Gitmo to a tropical resort.
OK. I personally subscribe to the Hitler Rule. Comparing anything but Hitler and the Holocaust to Hitler and the Holocaust is, with a few exceptions, over-the-top rhetoric. But comparing it to a tropical resort is pretty insane too. Does the end of getting information from these prisoners justify the means we are using to get it? (Charles Colson, for example, criticized Mark "Deep Throat" Felt because even though the end he was aiming at may have been legitimate, the means he used was deceitful and unethical). If we don't have to live up the the standard of the Geneva Accords when it comes to these prisoners, what standards do we have to live up to? Being more ethical than the SS is clearly not enough. So where do we draw the line?
But these are the wicked perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks! Don't we have the right to use any means at our disposal to stop terrorism?
But have we proved that? And even if it were so, aren't there still limits on what we have the right to do to anyone, regardless of what they might have done. I can't imagine a more despicable and cowardly act than the Oklahoma City bombing. Did we have the right to torture Timothy McVeigh to get whatever information we could out of him about his possible confederates before we put him to death?
I realize that some of you who like my metaphysics may not like what I have to say here. (And vice versa). But we must follow the argument where it leads.