Cal Thomas isn't very bright

After several years, we've just recently started receiving the local paper again, the Florida Times-Union. I was reading the opinion page last Thursday and had the misfortune to stumble across Cal Thomas' column, titled War on terrorism requires new methods, not naivete.

It's amazing that guys like this, who rehash tired arguments, don't check their facts, and show a complete lack of logical thought processes have this kind of national forum.

The gist of the column is that Bush was justified in using the illegal wiretaps because, if you invoke national security, then you can do anything you damn well please. Or something like that. Here are a few of his more ridiculous statements.

Talking about the New York Times anonymous sources - Just once it would be nice if the anonymous would leak something beneficial to their country. Obviously, his opinion of what's beneficial to our country differs from mine, but beyond that, what the hell is he talking about? The reason people leak information is to report that something is wrong. Happy news is announced in press conferences, not by anonymous sources.

Then he trots out another tired argument - But civil liberties mean nothing if you're killed by a terrorist who has manipulated the constitution to achieve his or her objectives. The Senate's refusal to extend the Patriot Act increases the likelihood that more of us will die sooner than we expect. No, civil liberties mean nothing if they're subject to the unchecked whims of a chief executive. The argument that our safety requires the suspension (or abolition) of liberty has never been demonstrated satisfactorily. But the dangers of giving unlimited powers to the government have been seen throughout history.

Then he makes an unwarranted assumption - Those relatively few who were spied on and had their cell phones monitored must have demonstrated their intention to aid in another terrorist attack on U.S Soil. Really, they must have, huh? I'm glad Cal is satisfied. That's the problem with this whole scenario. Letting the executive branch authorize surveillance with no oversight invites abuse. In this scenario, we're required to trust that the people in power are working in our best interests. And if they're not? Since it's secret, we won't even know enough vote them out of office, (without a whistleblower). I haven't seen much that leads me to trust that this administration has America's best interests in mind.

Then a factual error - Waiting for a judge to give permission to monitor a suspect's cell phone often takes too long. That may be the case, but as has been widely reported, FISA gives the authorites the ability to tap a phone and get the warrant after the fact. Therefore, time is no longer a concern. In that case, the only reason to ignore the requirement to get a warrant is that you think you may not get one. Or you're drunk with power. By all accounts, these warrants are extremely easy to get and are never denied, so if there was a concern about getting the warrant approved, the intelligence need must be seriously questionable.

Then he heads off into part two of his column, condemning McCain's bill banning the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody. One wishes our enemies would adopt such a standard, but they won't because they are more interested in winning than behaving nicely. The major flaw in McCain's thinking is similar to what one sees in our dealings with Israel and her enemies. It is that what we do affects what the other side does and if we will be "humane" to them, they won't blow us to smithereens. That is dangerous wishful thinking and there is no evidence to support it. These and other statements in the column show that Cal clearly supports torture, he thinks it's essential to winning. There are three major flaws in his argument. First, the idea that treating people humanely is only done to get reciprocal treatment for our own soldiers and citizens from the other side. If you've ever read Cal's columns, you know he's a conservative Christian. I'm not a Christian, but I believe that treating people humanely and loving your enemies is one of the central teachings. People should be treated well, not for the hope of any reward, just because it's the right thing to do, it makes us better people. Second, Cal, like all his ilk, make the assumption that everyone we detain is guilty. Where do they get this idea? In actual fact, the vast majority of the people we detain are innocent. We've heard that, especially in Iraq, young men are picked up by the truckload when sweeps are done. If we torture or even stop short and use humiliation and degradation, we are invariably going to harm innocent people. My guess is that people like Cal Thomas don't care about innocent Iraqis. They'll say they do, if cornered, but their positions show otherwise. Third, torture doesn't work. It's widely known that forceful interrogation is not an effective or reliable tool. Look at how many false confessions are forced out of people in this country. And that's with the checks and balances we have in place for our own citizens. Basically, Cal just buys the argument without examination, that if the bad guys behead our hostages, then we must do the same to them.

So you call us naive, Cal? Those of us who hold the U.S. to a higher standard? I think for naivete, you need to look in the mirror.