This will be Obama’s undoing: he’s obviously betting that he’s too smart and too “moral” to ever end up under the proverbial bus himself.

My money says he’s betting WRONG.

But what if we did have this conversation about where society should draw the line and society clearly demanded whatever was necessary to extract information? Would Obama be acting morally by standing fast and ignoring the public? Or would he be acting morally by changing his policy?

This part you didn’t answer and I can only guess it’s because that question is deemed irrelevant. Accordingly, @122, the only relevant matter to be determined is what level of security for what price. If somehow the public COULD reach a consensus (impossible, probably) on product and price, are you really telling us THAT’s what makes it moral?

But the whole issue has been presented to the public as: we’re moral, we shouldn’t do that period.

Sorry, I’m not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand. So far, your position seems to be: Harsh interrogation is immoral, unless you potential victims don’t agree. What about all the little babies in the pool of potential victims – how can we get their consent?

You know I luv ya, Wretchard, but really this I do not get.

You mention “balance” and “harmony.” When you’re weighing things out, don’t you think a key might be: innocent lives on one hand and the lives of those committed to death and destruction on the other? Don’t you think that would decisively tip the balance in favor of the innocent? Regardless of their degree of agreement/disagreement?

They didn’t give him a blank check. The voters elected Obama because they believed he could deliver on a set of promises. One of them was to make them safer. And his line — until now — has been that safety could be achieved by reaching out, engaging, being the nice guy. That way people wouldn’t hate them any more. But as even he now admits, things aren’t that simple. Like his checks from the government, it turns out that there’s a price. And so now’s the time to say what exactly is the price? How much safety are we trading off for how much coercion? Is it a lot of safety? A lot of coercion?

I think these are good questions to ask because a society always draws the line based on a balance of interests and values. Maybe Bush drew the line in the wrong place; may he drew it in the right place. But that’s a conversation the public ought to have. If you think back to the Geneva Conventions, its framers wrestled with the same questions and drew the line where they thought it should be. They were no wiser than we, but had the confidence to do it.

I think the real issue here is what happens next. Arguably the techniques and organization and direction from the Bush administration were successful in pushing back the jihadists. Obama has quite a bit of wiggle room here, probably less than he thinks he has, and is throwing a bone to his base.

But if anything is to be learned over the last few years is the resourcefulness and tenacity of the jihadis. The lead up to 9/11 showed that even if the officials of the US government had the information they needed to prevent the attack, focus was lacking and artificial walls and secondary priorities were more important. There is some value when a small group of people are allowed to follow their noses and hunches.

So what is now happening within the FBI, CIA? Is the focus as strong and direct? I would doubt it. How much slack has been handed to the jihadis, and how will they take advantage of it?

It can be argued that the Bush administration in the early days ignored the Clinton appointees warnings. At great cost.

This whole thing is simply moral preening. A good way to demonize the opponent. And normal for the American political back and forth. As long as no one gets killed.

Derek

Being attached to an ailing pet does us good in some strange way I think, even though it is painful for us. Mine was not much past a pup, though a huge Great Dane. He adopted me before I adopted him. He used to run out to jog with me, wagging his tail so hard that it would break my stride when it hit me (I was a smaller woman then.) But his owner across the street beat him. So I got her to give him to me.

Took him right in for his shots, and the vet told me he was in the last stages of distemper and would die in weeks, though he seemed healthy. Nothing could be done.

The last day, 6 weeks later, when he could no longer get up, I sat on the floor with his head in my lap while the vet put the needle in his leg, and he was looking up, glad to see me. He went happy and instantly, no pain.

Afterward I surprised myself by crying – well, bawling – so hard that I used up an entire box of kleenex. I hadn’t known I was that attached to him. In fact, for about 6 months I would tear up when I heard a song that reminded me of him. I mean, he was just a big, clumsy, dumb, affectionate dog that I only had 6 weeks. He even looked dumb, with his head coming to a little point on top. How come I got that attached to him? I don’t know. Maybe being with them in their illness makes us closer somehow.

And I do expect to see him again, along with my other pets. As the Bible says, “And the lion shall lie down with the lamb.” There will definitely be animals there. You will be in my prayers.