Osama bin Laden deserved to die. Or at least I think he did. (How much do we ordinary citizens really know?) I wasn’t going to say anything about it until I read The New York Times this morning. In an editorial titled “The Torture Apologists,” The Times editors write:
Osama bin Laden deserved to die. Or at least I think he did. (How much do we ordinary citizens really know?) I wasn’t going to say anything about it until I read The New York Times this morning. In an editorial titled “The Torture Apologists,” The Times editors write:
The battered intelligence community should now be basking in the glory of a successful operation. It should not be dragged back into the muck and murk by political figures whose sole agenda seems to be to rationalize actions that cost this country dearly — in our inability to hold credible trials for very bad men and in the continued damage to our reputation.
In other words, when we shoot and kill an unarmed man, we should be “basking in glory,” but when we detain someone without trial, deny them due process, to say nothing of failing to read them their Miranda rights, we are engaged in “muck and murk”?
Hard to believe this stuff gets past the editors. But wait . . . these are the editors!
