Blogwars: Goldstein and Ace versus Sullivan on torture
posted at 12:03 pm on September 7, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Iraq war redux: Congressional Democrats don’t have the stones to vote the nutroots position so instead they’ll go along with the majority and then bitch to anyone who’ll listen that it’s Bush’s fault for forcing them to make tough political choices. Says Captain Sanctimony:
This is the Rove gambit: make this election a choice between legalizing torture or enabling the murderers of 9/11 to escape justice. The timing is deliberate; the exploitation of 9/11 gob-smacking; the cynicism fathomless. There is only one response: call them on it and vote for their opponents in November.
To which Goldstein replies:
In other words, voting their consciences might lose them an election—and when the choice comes down to a vote between conscience and appearance, the people Sullivan wishes us all to vote for will choose appearance and sacrifice principle.
Talk about fathomless cynicism.
Ace runs with it:
Bush wants clear guidelines. Sullivan is of course against that– as are all Democrats, and John McCain — because they want belly-slapping and arm-twisting and even chest-poking to be illegal, but they know damn well the public is not going to vote in favor of such a prohibition…
I’m amused that Andrew Sullivan is offended, appalled, shocked, chagrined and in all other ways extremely put out to find that there are politics going on in a political democracy. The problem is, of course, that Sullivan and liberals prefer a system in which liberals are simply elected for life, immunized and insulated against rejection by the public, and thus free to “vote their conscences” in perpetuity without any fear of adverse popular reaction.
Sullivan’s real problem here, though he’s loathe to admit it, is that the vaunted American “soul” he’s always burbling about doesn’t look exactly like Andrew Sullivan’s. Which it must in order to be truly worthy of the term “virtuous.” He deals with public disapproval of gay marriage by claiming, not unreasonably, that we’ll all come around on that in time; that is to say, America’s soul doesn’t look like his yet. But the prospect of “progress” on torture is less certain, and considerably less now than it was 24 hours ago thanks to Bush’s speech. Taranto, writing about it in today’s BOTW, observes:
Some administration critics have argued (a) that any harsh interrogation amounts to torture, and (b) that torture cannot yield useful intelligence. These claims cannot both be true. This column accepts the president’s assurances that the techniques the CIA used did not amount to torture–but if you disagree, then you have to admit “torture” works.
Not true. You can stick your fingers in your ears and choose option (c), namely, that everything Bush said yesterday was a lie because it has to be because torture doesn’t work ever because if it does then we face an intractable moral choice which we don’t want to face lest we choose wrong and America’s “soul” head further down the wayward path away from the golden light emanating from the Daily Dish. Better to avoid that scenario entirely by blaming “monstrous” George Bush for having led the leviathan known as Andrew Sullivan’s America into “false” choices. Like whether the chance to stop people planning mass murder warrants the occasional jihadi belly slap.
Here’s the list of interrogation techniques that are — and aren’t — available to government interrogators. Remember: if the CIA can “roughly shake” Khaled Sheikh Mohammed then the terrorists have already won.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Is ‘gob-smacking’ one word or two?
JasonG on September 7, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Meanwhile in wacademia, weeping for Moussaoui @ Kansas State;
KSCollegian invites you to be 1st to post feedback here.
Terp Mole on September 7, 2006 at 12:10 PM
Let’s concern ourselves with defending our American lives first. Then we can worry about our souls.
Horse. Cart.
thirteen28 on September 7, 2006 at 12:32 PM
What kind of “american” says something like this. If this is what it’s all about now, then there’s nothing left to fight for. Shit, if we’re complicit in torture, and no one is held to account for it, then fuck it, our great nation amounts to naught. Might just as well be soviet communists. I thought we were better than this. My heart is fucking broken.
What kinda reasoning is this? What exactly does that mean, “you have to admit ‘torture’ works? Sorry, but I don’t see how that follows. More bullsit in an attempt to defend the indefensible. Why aren’t we trying to defend our nation, which in my opinion, is our values. Once our values are sacrificed, then its just earth, land, soil. So, who cares. My country is values above all, period.
THeDRiFTeR on September 7, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Could it be becuase we live in France? With our
nation…er, values?Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 12:45 PM
THeDRiFTeR whined: If this is what it’s all about now, then there’s nothing left to fight for.
Sounds like THeDRiFTeR was frequently tortured in grade school. Nothing to fight for then either, n’est-ce pas?
Terp Mole on September 7, 2006 at 12:48 PM
Could it be becuase we live in France? With our nation…er, values?
Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 12:45 PM
What, Pablo?
THeDRiFTeR on September 7, 2006 at 12:51 PM
Another one, all for torture, n’est-ce pas Terp Mole? Not the america I grew up in!
THeDRiFTeR on September 7, 2006 at 12:54 PM
Defining torture down. Please, Mr Drifter, enlighten us–what constitutes your definition of torture? Be specific. What is and is not torture? No games. Specifics.
As for having nothing left to fight for, I’d think the fact that these maniacs killed 3,000 of us and want to do it again on a grander scale is reason enough. You disagree? Then say so, for the record. Say that self-defense isn’t reason enough, in and of itself, to wage war.
Bryan on September 7, 2006 at 12:56 PM
For the morbidly curious, the DU whined about torture a while ago. I show up at comment #39. I got banned from the DU (for the 3rd time) midway through. It was fun while it lasted.
jdpaz on September 7, 2006 at 1:00 PM
Question seems to be Bryan is how do you define torture?
THeDRiFTeR on September 7, 2006 at 1:00 PM
That’s right! I was that guy in grade school who “tortured” you mercilessly. That’s why Drifters live in urine soaked cardboard boxes.
Yep, that was me.
Terp Mole on September 7, 2006 at 1:01 PM
Then your country lacks sovereignty and geographical borders. Which I guess is convenient and probably explains why nothing is required for it’s defense except pleading, concessions, negotiations, and finally Submission.
By the way, the folks at Abu Ghraib in your links are all being prosecuted. Most have already begun serving time after having been found guilty of abuse. If you’re going to try to conflate lawful interrogation with soldiers acting beyond their brief and outside the reasonable expectations of commanding officers in the execution of an order, surely you can do better than that. If you’re heart is truly broken you should probably head back to the My Little Pony Ranch you hail from cause the big bad real world is clearly just too big, too bad, and too real for a young lady like yourself.
Not every piece of information we aquire is given to us willingly. When terrorists help us with information it isn’t a sign of approval of our values. Your unwillingness to even make arguments that have anything to do with reality is a perfect example of why post-modern liberalism is a mental disease and not a political or moral philosophy. It’s a reflexive twitch in response to delusions. I hope someday you get the help you need.
The Apologist on September 7, 2006 at 1:14 PM
“Cruel, inhumane or degrading” isn’t a workable standard. That’s what Bush said yesterday, and he’s right. Under that definition, torture is anything a lawyer or judge says it is, and that puts our troops in jeopardy for harmless things like sleep deprivation or playing loud music. Is that what you want?
And you didn’t answer my question on self-defense.
Bryan on September 7, 2006 at 1:18 PM
Your little dance is pretty well played out, THeDRiFTeR. That’s what.
Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 1:20 PM
Need I say more?
THeDRiFTeR on September 7, 2006 at 1:21 PM
Yes, you do. You need to explain whether self-defense is in and of itself enough to wage war. And you need to explain what is and isn’t torture, since you seem so sure that we’re engaging in it. And you need to explain why you’re fine with Cindy Sheehan fantasizing about killing President Bush but not our actual enemies.
You need to say a great deal more, you moral cretin.
Bryan on September 7, 2006 at 1:24 PM
Right, so let’s have Alberto Gonzales define it for us, shall we? Oh, and you didn’t seem to get this little bit from the link:
THeDRiFTeR on September 7, 2006 at 1:25 PM
Bryan,
You want it to take a position other than haughty moral superiority? Something it might have to defend, or worse yet forces concession? No way.
Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 1:26 PM
We did, they (al Qaeda) DID NOT. What part of that do you not understand? If you don’t sign on to a treaty, you are not qualified for its treatment. That’s the whole point of getting countries to sign on to treaties.
And–is self-defense reason enough to wage war? Answer the question.
Bryan on September 7, 2006 at 1:27 PM
No, let’s have Congress define it. That’s the topic.
You’re joking, right?
Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 1:29 PM
Fine with it? Jesus, who said I was fine with it? I just said that it wasn’t a stretch to understand why she’d have such fantasies. Like some Jewish friends I have that have talked about how cool it would be to be able to kill Hitler at his birth. And no, I’m not comparing GW to Adolph.
I needn’t explain anything of the sort, so quit setting up the straw man. We were talking about torture, not waging war. A just war is defensive.
THeDRiFTeR on September 7, 2006 at 1:29 PM
It’s very easy to cut-n-paste, Drifter. See I just did it. The question becomes, I think, how do you define the terms being used? Noticeably absent from your diatribe are any such definitions.
Others have pointed out that torture has been defined down, such that wankers like you can scream that yelling at someone is “torture.” Frankly, that qualifies you (and Sully) for the Darwin Award. Anyone so stupid as to remove all interrogation techniques from our arsenal not only deserves to die, but should be nominated to move to the front of the line.
Our genetic tree needs some serious pruning….
nukemhill on September 7, 2006 at 1:30 PM
Umm, no, I wasn’t.
THeDRiFTeR on September 7, 2006 at 1:31 PM
And you somehow did catch the drift of the rest of the sentence you omitted?
Who is that? Sun Tzu?
Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 1:32 PM
You said that if we were engaging in torture, then there was nothing left to fight for. That’s why I pinned you down to answer the question about self-defense. Which you still haven’t actually answered, given your earlier statment about torture. So I’ll ask it this way: If we have tortured a single terrorist, is our right to self-defense now null and void? No games, just a simple yes or no will suffice.
And you compare Bush to Hitler with your analogy and then say you’re not comparing Bush to Hitler. Nice try. For any person with an ounce of moral judgement, it’s quite a stretch to understand why Sheehan would fantasize about killing Bush as an infant. Quite a stretch indeed. Because, you see, George W. Bush didn’t kill Casey Sheehan.
Or do you think that he did?
Bryan on September 7, 2006 at 1:34 PM
Did should be “didn’t”, natch.
Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 1:41 PM
Reading blogwars about torture qualifies as torture.
Jim Treacher on September 7, 2006 at 1:45 PM
Of course torture works. That’s how the latest bomb plot in England was thrwarted.
I think that spineless cowards like drifter should be marginalized, mocked, and ridiculed at each and every opportunity.
Capitalist Infidel on September 7, 2006 at 2:07 PM
I think that spineless cowards like drifter should be marginalized, mocked, and ridiculed at each and every opportunity.
What? You would dare to torture him so?
nukemhill on September 7, 2006 at 2:33 PM
An apologist is an articulator and defender. It’s what I do. After months of being called “an apologist for X” by the other side of various arguments I had in college classes, I took the moniker as a badge of honor when online. I wear it proudly. There is nothing dishonest or disreputable in being an apologist. One only need examine the substance of my arguments to see that.
But substance isn’t something you’re “real” enough to handle. The notion that vaguely defined terms should stand in the breach defending Americans from terror and “the corruption of the interrogator’s soul” to quote another post-modern liberal is simply stupid. The President has told Congress to define what we actually can and cannot do.
This is not out of a desire to flay men alive or rape their daughters in front of them, but in order to protect those who carry out American interrogations from harrassing lawsuits filed in the thousands. Lawsuits filed to obstruct American foriegn policy which complainants cannot change through elections. American interrogators must be protected from fringe radicals who would seek to inhibit them in the execution of their duties because laws against torture are left without the hard, clear definitions necessary to action. A man cannot retrieve information from an unwilling witness if he is worried about whether he’s going to draw a Carter appointee suffering from BDS when he gets sued by the ACLU on behalf of Khalid Sheik Mohammed for leaving him in isolation for a week and then subjecting him to Metallica’s Reloaded at 70 decibles for three days and then entering the room and announcing that he is with the Jordanian security services and he going to want some answers to some questions…or else.
The Apologist on September 7, 2006 at 3:04 PM
did anyone else catch that?
drifter, does that mean that we must wait for an attack before going to war? does that mean that we should wait for Iran or NK to drop a nuke? is there EVER a just cause (in your liberal mind) for pre-emptiveness? I guess you would just have us wait for a terrorist to blow up some refineries, or for them to drop a nuke on NY, LA, Chicago or Houston. I guess it’s not enough for you that we have a president who actually WANTS to protect American lives from further terrorism.
pullingmyhairout on September 7, 2006 at 3:34 PM
I agree with the Drifter that there is no logical syllogism here.
I also think it’s a good and interesting discussion to have regarding what constitutes torture and whether it is ever effective or justifiable. I don’t think that name-calling and such is helpful.
mikeyboss on September 7, 2006 at 3:40 PM
Why does anyone even read /andrew the idiot Sullivan? The guy went from shakey logic into flaming idiocy some time ago.
mcgilvra on September 7, 2006 at 3:40 PM
mikeyboss, if I may:
1. What we did works.
2. We do not torture.
If you think what we did is torture, then you admit that torture works, because what we did works. Unless you also think that what we’ve done with KSM and the likes has not worked. Then, I can’t help you.
Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 3:59 PM
mikeyboss: You’re missing where the logic was occurring entirely.
Taranto said:
None of us believes that the CIA are inflicting french pedicures on inmates in its secret prisons. Whatever techniques they are using works; there’ve been actual terror plots foiled as a result. If someone insists on calling harsh interrogation techniques torture, then he must admit that torture works. The logic is inescapable.
You got distracted by the parenthetical
and missed the logic lesson.
jdpaz on September 7, 2006 at 4:05 PM
You beat me to it, Pablo.
jdpaz on September 7, 2006 at 4:05 PM
Thanks for clarifying, guys. I would imagine, though, that many techniques not amounting to torture also were used. Which specific techniques yielded useful information, at this point we don’t know (at least I don’t).
mikeyboss on September 7, 2006 at 4:45 PM
But the CIA does. And as their purpose is to effect accurate disclosures from hostile witnesses and not to “hurt bad guys” we can be reasonably assured that the only methods used repeatedly are methods which yield good results repeatedly. The question is who are we trying to protect with our laws? Our soldiers and intel officers or enemies of the United States? We certainly aren’t trying to protect all of humanity. Anti-torture legislation should be constructed give clear guidance to interrogators as to the red lines they may not cross and allow them as much latitude before that line as is possible. It should not be constructed as a means of protecting our enemies from our interrogators. This is the key disagreement in philosphy here and the reason Democrats and post modern libs are so fuzzy on details when it comes to this stuff. It’s also why they tend to conflate harsh, but legal tactics they disagree with and blatantly unlawful behavior everyone disagrees with. It’s the pretense that they aren’t asking for more protections for terrorists.
The Apologist on September 7, 2006 at 5:00 PM
Comment pages: