Shocked About Waterboarding?

I don't get it. The consensus in Washington these days is against coercive interrogations of even the most dangerous terrorists in the world — monsters who have knowledge of impending massive, deadly attacks on innocent U.S. citizens.

The politicians who control the Congress and the White House say it would be "cruel and unusual punishment" to employ techniques like "waterboarding," even though it causes no permanent damage, scarring or disfigurement.

In fact, many of these politicians seem intent on prosecuting members of the previous administration for utilizing nonlethal waterboarding and other proven methods of extracting vital information from foreign enemy combatants.

I would like to contrast this misguided humanitarian concern with what seems to be a complete lack of social consciousness when far more dangerous force is used, almost routinely, on citizens of the United States by civilian law enforcement.

You've heard about the increase in use of Tasers by police. From news reports, it seems the misuse of them is nearly a daily occurrence. Unarmed Americans, sometimes posing no threat to cops, are much more likely to be Tasered than shot with a sidearm. Evidently, the latter results in much more paperwork, internal investigations and is frowned upon by civilian-police review boards and police commissions.

More and more police departments and sheriff's offices are arming their officers with Tasers. Yet, far more people have been killed and permanently maimed by Tasers than by waterboarding. In fact, the count is not even close.

Amnesty International has compiled a list of more than 300 American civilians who have been killed by Taser guns, which administer a significant electric shock to those targeted.

The death toll reported by the human rights group as of late last year was 334. The report included analysis of 98 autopsies taken from coroners and medical examiners. It claimed the device "is inherently open to abuse and is not always used in accordance with international standards." Amnesty said the report found that 90 percent of those who died after being struck with a Taser were unarmed, and many did not appear to present a serious threat.

Yet, I have not heard a peep out of the bleeding hearts in Washington about the use of Tasers on citizens of the United States.

Doesn't this suggest to you they're really not so concerned about human rights at all?

Doesn't it suggest to you they're much more concerned about punishing their political opponents over policy differences?

Doesn't it suggest to you that the biggest crybabies over waterboarding are really the most morally challenged people on the face of the earth - unable to see how their own policies risk more death and destruction than the policies of their predecessors?

Well, I have an idea. Since the party in power seems to have no issues with the use of Tasers on American citizens, surely they could have no problems using them on enemy combatants, who are believed to have information critical to the nation's safety and security, right?

If they don't like waterboarding, how about Tasers? If it is acceptable to use these painful, crippling devices in local law enforcement on U.S. civilians, it would be adequate to use them on hardened terrorists captured on the battlefield, right?

But then, again, it's not about results with the crowd controlling Washington. It's not about right and wrong. It's not about common sense. It's about politics. It's about scoring points over one's ideological adversaries. It's about appearing to be more humane, when, in fact, they honestly don't care about those terrorists any more than they care about the increasing number of Americans killed and maimed by Taser guns.

Shocking, isn't it?

To find out more about Joseph Farah and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.