Baklava
You want to go on from there (as does NYTimes) as painting this administration or conservatives as thugs.
I don’t “want” to “go” anywhere. Practising and condoning torture undermines all of the moral precepts and mutual trusts on which a liberal democratic society depends, and condoning torture undermines, often fatally, any democracy. I want to stop torture, not conservatives.

The writer keeps prattling about torture but he never bothers to tell the readers just where, when and how any torture took place. What’s his point, other than torture is a bad thing? His missives against torture, which is a bit like being for motherhood and apple pie, have zero relevancy until he does.

I think we all agree that torture is reprehensible so why does he keep railing against it? Just who constitutes this “side” that supposedly endorses torture? The terrorists? Well … no, THAT can’t be his point – because the terrorists do not represent a “liberal democratic society” and thus do not qualify for his dire warnings against torture. Is he talking about Iran, Syria, Libya or the other Middle Eastern regimes that regularly and without hesitation actually practice torture? No again, because they certainly are not “liberal democratic” societies. Just who are these democratic governments that he claims he is worried about?

I ask these questions but I have little confidence that he will answer them because to do so he would have to come out of the closet and actually make a salient point instead of hiding behind the skirts of sly implication and inane innuendo. The writer is attempting the impossible, which is to accuse without making an accusation with all his babble about torture.

I read huxley’s original comments about the “anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-torture side,” taking on the meaning of the phrase as a whole and its context, as a shorthand reference to an ideological meta-narrative, in which there ARE sides.

We judge the “sides” in in cases such as these by what they do. If one “side” in what you call an “ideological meta-narrative” endorses torture, that makes it the wrong side, at least for those attempting to preserve a liberal, humane, or democratic society.

The use of the term “sides” in this context also illustrates the fallacy of the false dichotomy; in this case, the false alternative that either we support torture, reject efforts to vindicate an innocent person, and generally trust government benevolence, or we support the jihad.

Baklava

You want to go on from there (as does NYTimes) as painting this administration or conservatives as thugs.

I don’t “want” to “go” anywhere. Practising and condoning torture undermines all of the moral precepts and mutual trusts on which a liberal democratic society depends, and condoning torture undermines, often fatally, any democracy. I want to stop torture, not conservatives.

What may be helpful to them is to try to see the procedure from the viewpoint of the waterboarders. What would the normal person be willing to do to get information critical to the safety of innocents? With myself it goes like this:

I could not pull fingernails, beat them, shock them with electricity or any of the other things conventionally viewed as torture. The very thought is scary and beyond the pale for me personally. I just could not do it no matter what the motive might be or who might be in danger. I think I would be sick to my stomach if I were to try and I would never have peace of mind or faith in my own character afterward. It would haunt me for the rest of my life. And I definitely would not want agents of my government to do it for my sake. I speak here of a cold-blooded situation in which my own life is not in immediate danger.

But I could perform sleep deprivation, cold room temperatures to make the terrorist uncomfortable and waterboarding. It would be repugnant in the sense that I would be uncomfortable coercing anyone, but I could and would do it under certain pressing circumstances.

I would insist of course that medical doctors be present every step of the way to make sure no permanent physical harm would result.

But the 3 procedures named above do less physical harm and cause less pain than a visit to the dentist, an injury on the playing field or splashing around in frozen lakes as some do yearly in our northern climes. A common sense perspective must be kept on this issue. Being waterboarded has even been a part of the training of some of our military.

I am not in favor of performing any of these procedures on ordinary criminals. Their rights against self-incrimination take precedence over their sometimes horrendous crimes. But terrorism is something quite different than ordinary criminality. The goals are different, the acts of violence are different and their ruthlessness far surpasses ordinary criminality. We must be somewhat ruthless(in the relatively mild ways outlined above) in our handling of terrorist or they will have a distinct advantage.

We must remember that these villains WANT to die, martyrdom is one of their goals, AFTER of course they murder as many of us as they can.

Thus is the crux of the disagreement.

You want to go on from there (as does NYTimes) as painting this administration or conservatives as thugs.

You lose when you do that.

Stay clear and focused and then you might win some persuasive arguments. To the extent that every lefty uses the disagreement to an exaggerated absurd case – they lose.

I read huxley’s original comments about the “anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-torture side,” taking on the meaning of the phrase as a whole and its context, as a shorthand reference to an ideological meta-narrative, in which there ARE sides. The activities and positions of the Center for Constitutional Rights give a pretty good example of the agenda and methods of one of the sides in the debate.

I argue that this side cynically practices moral inversion to undermine the effectiveness of its liberal and humanitarian opponents. In its operations, there are people who fully understand and direct the relationship between their methods and their goals, there are fellow travelers, and there are useful idiots.

I credit Mr. Spragge as being disingenuous because I don’t include him in the last category, although he could prove me wrong. I think he knows very well what the larger struggle is about, and which side he is on.

The writer responded to my comment several times, although he says now he has no opinion. I was commenting about waterboarding and he replied, what, maybe 4 or 5 times? And at some length, too. Then at the end he says he has no opinion, really. Just commenting for the pleasure of seeing his words in the comments one must suppose.

However, I cannot “disagree” with someone who at the end of a chain of comment and response finally reveals he has no opinion about the subject of my comments. But I do find it deplorable that he finds it necessary to set himself up as the arbiter of a subject on which he at such a late stage announces he is not qualified to offer an opinion. Aside from that the rest of his offering consists entirely of being against torture in the abstract without offering what he thought torture consisted of.

If the readers have the patience and the stomach for it(admittedly the writer’s lengthy morality missives and pointless history lessons are hard to wade through) they can see that ALL my comments were about waterboarding. I find it strange indeed that he would keep responding to comments about waterboarding and then declare after some considerable time that his comments were not about the subject he responded to so copiously. Was he playing a game with the readers? The old bait and switch?

I explained my position many comments ago.
I don’t want to get into the issue of where these legitimate methods [of investigating terrorism] leave off and torture begins….

The writer has been making a LOT of comments for someone who doesn’t “want to get into the issue.” Myself, if I didn’t want to get into an issue I wouldn’t comment at all. The only decent thing to do if you possess no opinion is to stay out of debate. Better that you confine yourself to reading the comments and maybe learn a thing or two.

What part of that did you not understand? Where exactly you put the line between legal interrogation and illegal torture matters less to me than that you understand that such a line exists, and that if you cross it out of fear, for yourself or others, then you (and possibly they) give up both honour and freedom. It may sound dreadfully hard to say that rather than cross this line, we will give up a city, but history shows that crossing such lines always leads to much worse things.

Oh, I get it. The writer doesn’t want to offer and defend an opinion himself – no, he just wants to sit on the sidelines and subject the rest of us to his stinky little lectures and his silly little ideas on morality, sans debate. I have to say that I for one do not appreciate such condescension.

On the specifics of waterboarding, I did do a little research. I discovered that a large number of sources classify waterboarding as torture, including Senator John McCain, and other eminent persons, including a director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency. Other sources of various kinds, including primary sources, also describe waterboarding as torture. So, although I do not myself have the expertise and experience to classify waterboarding one way or the other, a great many people whose experience and service I have to respect do classify it that way.

I suppose the opinions of the folks mentioned by the writer are interesting in their way. If they were participating in the comment on this post I would gladly engage in spirited debate with them on the issue of waterboarding. But they are not. Instead the writer is hiding behind their skirts. This is a new tactic for the writer, whom I’ve debated several times before. I’ll have to jot this down in my notebook under the heading of silly little messes the writer has deposited on this blog.

…just what is the writer’s exact viewpoint on waterboarding?

I explained my position many comments ago.

I don’t want to get into the issue of where these legitimate methods [of investigating terrorism] leave off and torture begins….

What part of that did you not understand? Where exactly you put the line between legal interrogation and illegal torture matters less to me than that you understand that such a line exists, and that if you cross it out of fear, for yourself or others, then you (and possibly they) give up both honour and freedom. It may sound dreadfully hard to say that rather than cross this line, we will give up a city, but history shows that crossing such lines always leads to much worse things.

On the specifics of waterboarding, I did do a little research. I discovered that a large number of sources classify waterboarding as torture, including Senator John McCain, and other eminent persons, including a director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency. Other sources of various kinds, including primary sources, also describe waterboarding as torture. So, although I do not myself have the expertise and experience to classify waterboarding one way or the other, a great many people whose experience and service I have to respect do classify it that way.

As a general rule, I suggest that if you have to ask the point of the debate, going back and reading through the comments will save you a lot of typing.

I’m “long-winded?” I responded to the writer with considerably less words than the writer’s comments yet I’m long-winded? Oh my.

I’m debating the writer – not huxley. I have not debated huxley at all. The writer, on the other hand, seems to keep trashing waterboarding and the proponents of waterboarding and that is the central issue I have been debating with the writer.

Is the writer claiming now that he was debating with me the morality pulling off fingernails, drills to the eye sockets and other such physically harmful torture?

As far as I can tell no one, not even the far left, has claimed the US has pulled the fingernails off anyone. There’s no debate possible on THAT subject because the US has not been accused of such actions. What the anti-waterboarding side has done has been to label waterboarding as torture and since 3 terrorists were waterboarded in the aftermath of 9/11 they have declared the Bush administration guilty of torture. This is the issue central to my comments.

Perhaps the writer is correct and I have wrongfully assessed his stance on the subject. I am certainly more than capable of making a mistake. If the writer has no beef against waterboarding and is merely against torture then he and I are on the same page. So, I am asking now – just what is the writer’s exact viewpoint on waterboarding? Does he view it as torture or not? If he is OK with the waterboarding of the 3 terrorists(the only time it has occurred) then I will cease debating him and congratulate him on his good sense. If he indicates otherwise the debate will continue.