IF President Obama were as crafty as, say, Osama bin Laden, you might wonder if his decision last week to release new "torture" photos this month was part of some clever psych-ops scheme.
After all, the decision came only a week after Obama & Co. let loose key memos on "brutal" US interrogation techniques. CIA operatives, the memos showed, had "tortured" prisoners and used sinister tactics designed to exploit fears.
Now the Obama folks will hand out scores of new photos from investigations at US prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So is this some new publicity campaign meant to deter al Qaeda by warning about our "scary" practices? Or to convince terrorists that Obama's no softy? America's enemies will see that they aren't the only ones who can play rough. If they mess with us, this is what'll happen.
If only.
Obama says that admitting "mistakes" makes us stronger. But the new photos will only reinforce our image as morally confused and constrained -- and thus weak. They reportedly show "abusive" conduct by US service personnel but nothing approaching the Abu Ghraib level.
Of course, Abu Ghraib itself triggered "shock" mostly in leftist precincts and among US haters abroad. Middle East butchers -- at home with head-chopping, tongue-ripping, death-by-stoning, acid baths and tossing enemies off rooftops -- were "shocked," no doubt, only by America's tortured conception of "abuse." Otherwise, they must've been amused and emboldened by our endless regrets.
They will be again, no doubt, by the hand-wringing and calls for prosecution over tactics described in the memos and whatever is in the new photos.
Consider those tactics: throwing cold water at prisoners, sleep deprivation, slamming them against walls and, of course, waterboarding -- pouring water on a cloth over the prisoner's nose and mouth for no more than 40 seconds.
Will the head-choppers and acid-bathers be deterred by this -- or entertained?
The New York Times describes one technique, "the facial hold," as "essentially what grandma does to a visiting grandchild who misbehaves -- with hands holding the sides of the head as questions are asked."
Huh? Were prisoners supposed to fear being kissed?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates fretted about a Middle East "backlash" from the new photos' release. Yet it won't be outrage at the supposed savagery they depict that incites any violence but the murderers' renewed sense of immunity: If captured, they'll conclude, not only will they be treated humanely, but merely by claiming abuse they may well pit Americans against each other.
Indeed, the photos alone may set off more calls for legal action and inquiries. How high up the chain of command was such behavior condoned?
The left insists that we not stoop to our enemies' level, lest we become no better than them. But that's flawed moral logic. "Harsh" questioning is meant to save lives and protect freedoms; terrorists practice butchery to inflict pain, usurp power and drive innocents into submission.
America will never be in the same moral swamp as terrorists, no matter how "harsh" our interrogations, because our intent is to fight evil, not conduct it. And terrorists forfeit any claim to civilized treatment when they abandon it themselves.
Still, we nonsensically continue to regard them as morally equal. When pirates attacked the Maersk Alabama recently, the ship's crew struck a deal: It would release a pirate it had captured, and the pirates would hand back the ship's captain. The crew then carried out its half of the deal, releasing their prisoner. Guess what? The pirates reneged and kept the captain.
Well, duh. Pirates shouldn't be trusted or accorded the good faith shown others. Nor should terrorists. The Navy sharpshooters who killed three of the brigands displayed the more appropriate response.
Our new enemies require us to adopt new standards. But never for a moment should anyone think such changes compromise our moral standing.
Self-flagellation and restraint won't make us more noble. But they might just make us more . . . dead.
Adam Brodsky, New York Post, May 1, 2009
