Michael Ignatieff: The Last Word on the Afghan Issue

Today is the anniversary of the cowardly and insane murders of 164 innocent persons at Mumbai one year ago.  Once again, Muslim extremists, bent on establishing a world of their own warped vision of Islam, murdered and injured scores of innocent people for no purpose but to create fear and instability. The bodies of many of the dead hostages showed signs of torture or disfigurement.

And go ahead and look at the picture of one of these insane bastards:

Notice the clear uniform of the muslim terrorist..  the badge on his arm denoting "crazed follower of Allah", the flourescent green skin, the official black wrist watch of the Muslim Extremist Club.   Clearly, if this guy were walking down the street without his machine gun, we would all be able to pick him out of a crowd as someone who needs to be detained.

What?

You couldn't make that call?

You think in his cargo pants, t-shirt and back pack he looks just like any other college student walking the streets?  But... how can that be?  Clearly, when persons suspected of having involvement with Muslim extremists are detained for questioning, they are easily picked out of a crowd, no? 

Hmmm...

Now, imagine two scenarios.

In the first scenario, Richard Colvin is in charge of security at the Taj Mahal Hotel, where you are staying.  He has some suspicion that the guy above is up to no good, and, knowing of the importance of taking the high road with terrorism, while he could contact local police and have the man questioned, he is aware that there are allegatations that they abuse detainees.  So.  He has the man detained, and maintains him in the hotel office, while awaiting arrangements to have CSIS personal travel to India to question the man.

While he's doing this, all hell then brakes loose, and 164 persons are murdered.  164 families lose a loved one, and find out later that while Mr. Colvin was protecting the integrity of Canada's reputation, while he was assuring the detainee would not be harmed, their fathers, brothers, sisters, were tortured and then murdered.

In the second scenario, Richard Hillier detains the man.  He immediately contacs Indian police, they take in the suspect, and using only "coercive interrogation techniques" they derive the plan of the terrorists, and are sucsessful in preventing the murders.  However - in hindsight, it turns out that there are established Amnesty International reports that the Indian police have been known to torture and mistreat detainees.  An official judicial inquiry is called, and many human rights groups collectively shake their fingers at Canada and say, "you've let us down."

Which scenario will you live with?  Would it make any difference if it was your parent or sibling or child who was tortured and murdered?

This is the world we live in.  And I clearly over-simplify the point.  But so, too, does the current pack of dogs in Parliament from the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada.

However - thankfully, we have the much-heralded voice of intellect and reason to resolve the difficult question of balancing the needs of security and the rights of the detainee.  And on this point, I yield the floor to the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Michael Ignatieff, paraphrasing very slightly, his acceptance of torture "if it works", as reported in the U.K. periodical "Prospect", titled, appropriately, "If torture works..."

I submit that we would not be “waterboarding” (the suspect)—immersing him in water until he experiences the torment of nearly drowning—if our intelligence operatives did not believe it was necessary to crack open the al Qaeda network that he commanded..  We must at least entertain the possibility that the operatives working on (the suspect) in our name are engaging not in gratuitous sadism but in the genuine belief that this form of torture—and it does qualify as such—makes all the difference.

Well said, Michael.  In difficult times, difficult decisions need be made.  And it's good to know you understand that.  Or did.