Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

This really is a full service blog.

We do not need to pander to people who do not like what we stand for.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

The National Guard is not Batman.

“I was told there would be no fact checking.”

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

I would gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today.

With all due respect and assumptions of good faith, please fuck off into the sun.

Not rolling over. fuck you, make me.

Many life forms that would benefit from greater intelligence, sadly, do not have it.

Radicalized white males who support Trump are pitching a tent in the abyss.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

We are learning that “working class” means “white” for way too many people.

“When somebody takes the time to draw up a playbook, they’re gonna use it.”

When we show up, we win.

Washington Post Catch and Kill, not noticeably better than the Enquirer’s.

Republicans do not trust women.

Well, whatever it is, it’s better than being a Republican.

Michigan is a great lesson for Dems everywhere: when you have power…use it!

The revolution will be supervised.

I am pretty sure these ‘journalists’ were not always such a bootlicking sycophants.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Military / They Must Have a Book To Sell

They Must Have a Book To Sell

by | 44 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

Charles Krulak and James Hoar join the ranks of the terrorist enablers by pointing out thast torture is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive:

The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night’s presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.

Tenet insists that the CIA program disrupted terrorist plots and saved lives. It is difficult to refute this claim — not because it is self-evidently true, but because any evidence that might support it remains classified and unknown to all but those who defend the program.

These assertions that “torture works” may reassure a fearful public, but it is a false security. We don’t know what’s been gained through this fear-driven program. But we do know the consequences.

As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture — only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works — the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real “ticking time bomb” situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of “flexibility” about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone — the rare exception fast becoming the rule.

To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military’s mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.

This has had disastrous consequences. Revelations of abuse feed what the Army’s new counterinsurgency manual, which was drafted under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, calls the “recuperative power” of the terrorist enemy.

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its “recuperative power.”

The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy. This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.

This is not just a lesson for history. Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.

It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.

They are far to charitable with McCain, who has used his former POW status to enable all sorts of bad behavior by this administration. They essentially do what they want, McCain acts concerned and throws around his alleged moral authority and pretends to impede them, and then, a few weeks later, the administration goes back to their business of doing whatever the hell they want.

At any rate, these military men probably just have a book to sell.

*** Update ***

Belgravia Dispatch. Go.

Reader Interactions

44Comments

  1. 1.

    Zombie Santa Claus

    Why does our military hate America?

    BTW, this paragraph strikes me as exceptionally naive:

    This is not just a lesson for history. Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.

    When has Bush ever shown that he gives two shits about what happens to American soldiers, now or in future?

  2. 2.

    Dug Jay

    A very nice load of crap for this early hour. For a clearer exposition, however, I suggest an alternative interpretation put out by someone else several months ago:

    And then there’s the persistent intellectual incoherence of the anti-torture voices. They can’t decide whether they’re against torture because it doesn’t work or whether they oppose it solely on moral grounds. This confusion belies their own sense of their argument’s weaknesses. If you add up the consensus of informed opinions, torture sometimes gets you some really useful and actionable information, and sometimes gets you utter rubbish. Torture opponents know this, which is why they cherry-pick experts who argue that torture never works. Because if a consensus formed that torture produced any good information, and the media acknowledged that consensus, torture opponents know their position would become politically untenable.

  3. 3.

    tballou

    This is basically the same argument that Ron Paul made during the Republican debate in SC. We reap what we sow. Our long history of involvement in the Middle East, much of which clearly was opposed by the average guy on the street, created lots of disgruntled, unhappy people, some of whom were willing to kill themselves to strike at us. Torture has the same effect.

    Paul had it exactly right – how would we react if we were treated the way we treat other nations. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Someone the Bush admin claims to revere said that once upon a time.

  4. 4.

    Wilfred

    Since we can’t ask suspected terrorists if torture worked against them we’ll have to wait for our own POWs to be released to find out if it’s effective. The three soldiers captured in Iraq are no doubt receiving the same shit doled out to captured insurgents. When they’re released we can ask them if they support torture.

  5. 5.

    Zombie Santa Claus

    A very nice load of crap for this early hour.

    Good morning, spoof!

    And then there’s the persistent intellectual incoherence of the anti-torture voices. They can’t decide whether they’re against torture because it doesn’t work or whether they oppose it solely on moral grounds.

    Both, in my case.

    If you add up the consensus of informed opinions, torture sometimes gets you some really useful and actionable information, and sometimes gets you utter rubbish. Torture opponents know this, which is why they cherry-pick experts who argue that torture never works. Because if a consensus formed that torture produced any good information, and the media acknowledged that consensus, torture opponents know their position would become politically untenable.

    If only the American people knew how often torture works, they’d flock to Bush like lambs to the slaughter!

    Torture works to get you information. No one’s denied that. Whatever it takes to get you to stop shocking a person’s genitals, that person will tell you. Lies, distortions, half-truths, fantasies- you’ll get all of these. Occasionally, you might luck out and get good information. Why you had to torture the person to get it instead of treating them nicely and getting the same information is the kind of question that would keep you awake at night if you were a moral person, and not a spoof of a sociopathic persona.

  7. 7.

    ThymeZone

    torture opponents know their position would become politically untenable

    Opposition to torture is not based on politics, it’s based on the morality of torture.

    Anyone who employs even one brain cell calculating the political viability of opposition to torture before speaking, has nothing to say of any value.

  8. 8.

    Zombie Santa Claus

    Doesn’t this make them gay, like Andrew Sullivan?

    Gay people hate torture. They’re not manly enough to stomach it. They’d much rather run up to terrorists and hug them.

    This is a good test for homosexuality, too. People who hate torture love to snuggle with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Therefore, they’re gay.

    If that reasoning makes no sense to you, it’s probably because you’re blinded by your hatred of America and your love of members of the same sex. Luckily, homosexuality is a choice. If Ted Haggard can cure himself of it in three weeks, so can you!

    Ho ho ho, bitches!

  9. 9.

    caustics

    And then there’s the persistent intellectual incoherence of the anti-torture voices.

    An “appeal to authority” argument based on a Dean Barnett quote. Wow.

    A very nice load of crap for this early hour.

  10. 10.

    RSA

    This confusion belies their own sense of their argument’s weaknesses.

    When I approvingly quote someone, it’s usually someone who knows what words like “belie” mean.

  11. 11.

    Pug

    A very nice load of crap for this early hour. For a clearer exposition, however, I suggest an alternative interpretation put out by someone else several months ago

    And who might this “someone else” be? Nice unattributed quote. I guess we should just blindly accept it, though, because it does have a nice authoritarian ring to it. Manly men torture someone when they need info.

  12. 12.

    Zombie Santa Claus

    A very nice load of crap for this early hour:

    History will remember Blair as one of the few foreign men of vision, who understood the importance of Islamism and was willing to strike at its wellspring, Saddam. He may be castigated for that amongst the fickle, short-sighted fools who comprise the modern British electorate; but future generations will sing his praises unto the ages.

  13. 13.

    Pug

    Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.

    What do these guys know? They aren’t real men like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Brit Hume…you know, the torture guys.

  14. 14.

    Zombie Santa Claus

    A very nice load of crap for this early hour:

    During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: “What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?”

    A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and ’80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals–notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.

    These different responses evoked different treatment. While American policies, institutions and individuals were subject to unremitting criticism and sometimes deadly attack, the Soviets were immune. Their retention of the vast, largely Muslim colonial empire accumulated by the czars in Asia passed unnoticed, as did their propaganda and sometimes action against Muslim beliefs and institutions.
    Most remarkable of all was the response of the Arab and other Muslim countries to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. Washington’s handling of the Tehran hostage crisis assured the Soviets that they had nothing to fear from the U.S. They already knew that they need not worry about the Arab and other Muslim governments. The Soviets already ruled–or misruled–half a dozen Muslim countries in Asia, without arousing any opposition or criticism. Initially, their decision and action to invade and conquer Afghanistan and install a puppet regime in Kabul went almost unresisted. After weeks of debate, the U.N. General Assembly finally was persuaded to pass a resolution “strongly deploring the recent armed intervention in Afghanistan.” The words “condemn” and “aggression” were not used, and the source of the “intervention” was not named. Even this anodyne resolution was too much for some of the Arab states. South Yemen voted no; Algeria and Syria abstained; Libya was absent; the nonvoting PLO observer to the Assembly even made a speech defending the Soviets.

    One might have expected that the recently established Organization of the Islamic Conference would take a tougher line. It did not. After a month of negotiation and manipulation, the organization finally held a meeting in Pakistan to discuss the Afghan question. Two of the Arab states, South Yemen and Syria, boycotted the meeting. The representative of the PLO, a full member of this organization, was present, but abstained from voting on a resolution critical of the Soviet action; the Libyan delegate went further, and used this occasion to denounce the U.S.

    …

    More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences–both for Islam and for America–will be deep, wide and lasting.

    Turds like that make me miss Scrutator. We could’ve had a lot of fun with that pile of shit.

  15. 15.

    MBunge

    “During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: “What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?””

    And look where the Russians ended up. This country is best by over-aged children who think utter ruthlessness is a viable life strategy.

    Mike

  16. 16.

    Zombie Santa Claus

    And look where the Russians ended up. This country is best by over-aged children who think utter ruthlessness is a viable life strategy.

    I know. It’s hilarious that the new GOP talking point is “Why can’t we be more like the Soviets? Those guys had a wonderful system!”

  17. 17.

    jenniebee

    What an excellent explanation of why the Islamic world offered zero resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, why it did not serve in any way as an energizing force for radical jihadist theologies, and for why the Soviets never had to recognize that invasion minus conquest is problematic at best and withdraw without having gained anything in the process.

    Oh, wait…

  18. 18.

    Zombie Santa Claus

    What an excellent explanation of why the Islamic world offered zero resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, why it did not serve in any way as an energizing force for radical jihadist theologies, and for why the Soviets never had to recognize that invasion minus conquest is problematic at best and withdraw without having gained anything in the process.

    That’s why Afghanistan still has a Marxist government, and Western Europe is still being menaced by Soviet nuclear weaponry.

  19. 19.

    canuckistani

    And then there’s the persistent intellectual incoherence of the anti-torture voices. They can’t decide whether they’re against torture because it doesn’t work or whether they oppose it solely on moral grounds.

    Those incoherent leftists! They can’t decide if they’re against murder because it’s wrong, or because they don’t want to get murdered!

  20. 20.

    ThymeZone

    This country The world is best beset by over-aged children who think utter ruthlessness is a viable life strategy.

    Fixed and corrected.

    And of course, ruthlessness is a viable strategy, it’s just not one that produces much of anything except more ruthlessness. We can imagine a world in which rutlessness would seem like a breath of fresh air.

    But the question for us is, do we, as “most powerful nation in the world,” want to lead the way to that world?

    I don’t, but that’s just me.

  21. 21.

    The Other Steve

    Dug Jay reminds me of an old joke.

    Stalin receives a Ukrainian delegation in his office. After they’ve gone, he notices that his pipe is missing. He summons Beria and demands that the Ukrainians be stopped and the thief found.

    A little while after Beria has gone he finds his pipe under a newspaper on his desk.

    After 30 minutes Beria returns and says “Comrade Stalin! Half of the Ukrainians confessed to stealing your pipe! The other half died during questioning!”

  22. 22.

    The Other Steve

    Those incoherent leftists! They can’t decide if they’re against murder because it’s wrong, or because they don’t want to get murdered!

    Don’t you just hate inconsistency?

  23. 23.

    Tsulagi

    There is no way you’re going to convince the retards that we’re not just one set of crushed balls away from winning the GSAVE. The same idiots or type who believe the planet and universe are just 6,000 years old know the truth on torture. It’s whatever blows out Hannity’s ass, Bill O’s, or even Geraldo’s that makes them feel all tingly toughy on their sofas. Known truth.

  24. 24.

    Cassandra

    Wow. Did any of you bother to read this brilliant piece for content?

    If Krulak and Hoar are to be taken seriously (and one hopes this is why they wrote this op-ed) “even a little torture” rapidly “spreads like wildfire” through the command until every detainee is tortured.

    O-kay. Did he just say what I think he said?

    Maybe you all need to read more carefully before swallowing this stuff whole. It fails on logical grounds alone.

    That is, unless you truly believe we are torturing ALL our detainees.

    Or in the alternative, that no torture has been taking place to date, because if it had by Krulak’s argument, it would have “spread like wildfire” by now.

    Have fun, gentlemen.

  25. 25.

    ThymeZone

    There is no way you’re going to convince the retards that we’re not just one set of crushed balls away from winning the GSAVE. The same idiots or type who believe the planet and universe are just 6,000 years old know the truth on torture. It’s whatever blows out Hannity’s ass, Bill O’s, or even Geraldo’s that makes them feel all tingly toughy on their sofas. Known truth.

    Bingo.

  27. 27.

    AkaDad

    I’ll take a bold stance by saying, if another country invaded and removed our President, I would be offended…

  28. 28.

    ThymeZone

    It’s boring so far.

    You have to give it at least two seasons’ worth of episodes.

    I have it on good authority.

    Report back in about six months after you watch all those episodes, and then get out of the psychiatric facility.

  29. 29.

    markg8

    We’re not going to win by being more barbaric than terrorists anymore than we won the Cold War by being more ruthless than the Soviets. We win when we live up to our standards which are better than theirs instead of trying to sink lower than them into the gutter.

  30. 30.

    Zombie Santa Claus

    Wow. Did any of you bother to read this brilliant piece for content?

    If Krulak and Hoar are to be taken seriously (and one hopes this is why they wrote this op-ed) “even a little torture” rapidly “spreads like wildfire” through the command until every detainee is tortured.

    Let’s look at what I believe to be the paragraph in question:

    As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture — only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works — the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real “ticking time bomb” situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of “flexibility” about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone — the rare exception fast becoming the rule.

    O-kay. Did he just say what I think he said?

    No.

  31. 31.

    Zombie Santa Claus

    You have to give it at least two seasons’ worth of episodes.

    I have it on good authority.

    Report back in about six months after you watch all those episodes, and then get out of the psychiatric facility.

    I watched the first two seasons. The show’s alright. It’s not spectacular or anything. (I did like the idea of drug dealers taking classes in Macro Economics, though. Almost like a show in which loan sharks pick up pointers from the credit card industry.)

    I could take it or leave it. If I try to watch anymore, Mrs. Klaus’ll hit me with a baseball bat, so I think Season 3 rental is out of the question.

  32. 32.

    Jay C

    And then there’s the persistent intellectual incoherence of the anti-torture voices. They can’t decide whether they’re against torture because it doesn’t work or whether they oppose it solely on moral grounds.

    Why not for both reasons? It’s immoral, AND it doesn’t work.

  33. 33.

    zmulls

    I oppose it because it is immoral. Because you leave pieces of your soul behind when you treat another human being, even a human being that has committed evil, like sentient meat. Because empathy leads to a better understanding of oneself. Because when you lead by example it gives people something to look up to, not sink down to.

    But too many people in this country think introspection is for wusses, and thoughtfulness is weakness. So I argue it on the basis of practicality, and that it just doesn’t work. (Also, the ‘ticking time bomb scenario’ doesn’t actually happen in real life).

    I want our national fictional hero to be Atticus Finch, not Jack Bauer.

  34. 34.

    Tax Analyst

    Zombie Santa Claus Says:

    A very nice load of crap for this early hour:

    History will remember Blair as one of the few foreign men of vision, who understood the importance of Islamism and was willing to strike at its wellspring, Saddam. He may be castigated for that amongst the fickle, short-sighted fools who comprise the modern British electorate; but future generations will sing his praises unto the ages.

    I think I’m just too fucking fickle and short-sighted to carry that tune…’course, I’m not British, either.

    Sigh…looks like in the future I’m going to be sitting around doing a lot of castigation. Hope all that commotion those Sweetly Singing, Happy-Hip-Hopping Future Generations end up doing over Tony Blair’s prescient and oh-so-effective handling of the Iraq situation doesn’t keep me from getting enough sleep – at my age and advanced level of defeatist cynicism it’s really important I get enough rest to re-charge all my traitorous negativity. It’s really sad when you wake up in the morning and can’t even utter “Death to Amerika” with any real conviction…and I sure hope at that castigation I’ll be doing doesn’t stain my carpet…

  35. 35.

    RSA

    I did like the idea of drug dealers taking classes in Macro Economics, though.

    Two not-entirely-unrelated works in a different medium: Levitt and Dubner’s Freakonomics, specifically the chapter on crack dealers and the research cited, and Richard Price’s Clockers (this more for the human angle).

  36. 36.

    DragonScholar

    One of the factors often missed in these discussions is what we do does NOT just affect how our troops will be treated. It affects how our civilians will be.

    If we engage in torture as a country (especially a democracy, where in theory the administration and its actions represent the people), then we civilians also become targets for torture if we are captured. In addition, attacks on civilians who seem to allow torture becomes easier for adversaries to do – noting that “these people” allow for such horrible things makes it easier to do horrible things to them.

    Right now the pro-torture people are putting you and me in danger by signalling to the world that Americans are for torture. Hearing that we torture doesnt make people less likely to attack us – it means they’re more likely to hate us, work to find ways around that torture (pseudonyms, better plans, etc.), and even more glad to kill us and hurt us and torture us.

  37. 37.

    Mike S

    Jon Stewart’s take on the Hume debate question last night was dead on. Hume is an idiot propagandist and the GOP candidates are running for the Presidency of a fictional country.

  38. 38.

    nycmoderate

    I cannot thank you enough for calling McCain on his utter, shameful hypocrisy on torture. It is even more appalling from him, given his history and the way he uses that history to seize the moral high ground, than it is from anyone else in the pro-torture crowd.

    If you have any pull, could you maybe enlighten Sullivan on this issue? Because much as I respect him, I have a hard time taking his torture position seriously in light of his massive McCain blind spot.

  39. 39.

    nycmoderate

    I cannot thank you enough for calling McCain on his utter, shameful hypocrisy on torture. It is even more appalling from him, given his history and the way he uses that history to seize the moral high ground, than it is from anyone else in the pro-torture crowd.

    If you have any pull, could you maybe enlighten Sullivan on this issue? Because much as I respect him, I have a hard time taking his torture position seriously in light of his massive McCain blind spot.

  40. 40.

    jenniebee

    What is there to say that Fafnir didn’t say years ago?

    It’s so easy to kind of sweep it all under your brain an think “Well theres nothin more to be said an nothin more to think about it” cause let’s face it nobody wants to think about their government participating in horror. An right now the level of torture talk has gone from “Torture: Bad!” to “Torture: Bad, But Not As Bad As Saddam Hussein” to “Torture: Bad, But What About Ticking Bombs?” to “Torture: Bad, But Not Necessarily Proof That The People Who Ordered Torture Are Bad” to “Torture: We Still Talkin Bout Torture?” to “Torture: Bad?” An before we get to “Torture: Sorta Like Mowin Your Lawn” I think we should try as hard as we can to wake up.

  41. 41.

    Bruce Moomaw

    Ah. So, according to Cassandra, the fact that we’re not torturing EVERY POW is proof that we can’t possibly be torturing TOO MANY of them. After all, that certainly didn’t happen to the French in Algeria…

    Still, at least we’re making progress: the Bushites are now openly saying that (frequent) torture is what they favor. (So much for George Washington and the Roosevelt Administration during the Pacific War — what did they know?)

  42. 42.

    Bruce Moomaw

    Damned if Cassandra, over on her blog, isn’t continuing to make the same cretinous argument: since we aren’t torturing EVERY POW, that proves that the current administration’s (and GOP’s) encouragement of legalized torture can’t possibly be making us torture too many of them. Period.

    Nor does she, apparently, understand or even notice Kresak & Hoar’s central point (shared by G.W. and FDR): that torture is a no-no even when your enemy isn’t reciprocating the favor, because — quite apart from the dangerous calluses it forms on the national character — it provides little useful information but does mass-produce new America-haters.

    For fun, however, take a look at her nervous squirmings on the subject of whether she, personally, aproves of torture — culminating in the statement (to the extent that I can decode it) that we shouldn’t actually engage in torture, but should simultaneously leave everyone with the impression that we ARE using it. Isn’t this managing to have the worst of all possible worlds?

  43. 43.

    Bruce Moomaw

    Postscript: Over at “Just One Minute” Tom Maguire is simultaneously giggling (as usual) over whether waterboarding is “really” torture or merely a frat-house prank, and waxing indignant over McCain’s supposed hypocrisy because he’s said in the past that there is “one case in a million” in which he would allow it if “the President takes responsibility”. Obvious translation: In such extreme emergency cases (such as our famous Ticking Nuclear Bomb), the President orders torture despite the fact that it is still illegal, and is then willing to run the risk of being impeached and convicted if 2/3 of the Senate, a D.A., and all 12 members of a jury agree that it was NOT justifiable. All of which is readily agreed to by virtually all strong opposers of torture (see Brad Delong on the subject, as just one example). What the President, and his underlings, do NOT do is hide behind legal technicalities, as Maguire apparently still wants them to do.

    As for Maguire’s statement that there are(unspecified) “extreme cases” in which it’s permissible: dare one point out that George Washington and the US government in the Pacific War both said it was flatly impermissible — despite the fact that America’s survival was definitely in danger, and that our opponents weren’t reciprocating, in both cases? They did so on the grounds that torture provides very little useful information, but DOES mass-produce new America-haters. Which, of course, is especially true in the current case, given that our enemy is potentially the world’s entire population of Moslems.

    And can we compromise on the idea that — in those extremely rare cases in which torture may be morally and strategically defensible — the decision as to whether to use it had damned well better not be left to one man, whether that man is a local CIA officer, the Secretary of Defense, or the President? If we are going to insist on going ahead with this, set up a Permissible Torture Court similar to the FISA Court, and require a supermajority vote of the justices to approve it in any individual case. And call the court that, rather than engaging in dangerous euphemisms of the type we’re so familiar with by now.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. […] As a civilized nation, we stand for liberty and the dignity of the person. But when times get tough, we step on the values we claim. We stomp on all we would call dear to us. So the mantle of light is lost in shadow. Some would call this reality. We would concede to a cruel world. And what becomes of our soldiers when they come home? Brutality abroad will breed in a new nest closer to home. […]