Do You Hate "Torture" or W?
Dennis Prager has a column at Townhall today - "Nine Questions the Left Needs to Answer About Torture" - which gets to the heart of the "torture" question. Read the column and see what you think of his analysis.
His closing sentence:
"If you do not address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration."
His closing sentence:
"If you do not address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration."
Labels: Politics
posted by Jim | 8:21 AM
8 Comments:
Here's my take on Prager's points.
#1. A red herring. Just because someone believes the U.S. should not torture does not mean they're obligated to agree that country should take all necessary steps to attempt to irradicate torture around the world. No question that Saddam did a lot of awful things.
#2. Interesting question. I would say yes, there are gradations, and it's a hard line to draw. But since the U.S. has in the past prosecuted for waterboarding, it does seem to have in the past met the criteria as torture.
#3. I think that the times when you can capture someone and know for a fact that they have important information are very rare. If you know that much for sure, then you probably have enough information to act. In any case, I think the bar should be high enough that someone has to offer very strong justification and essentially acknowledge that they are taking an extreme step.
#4. Yes, there are important issues here. But 'sincerity' is not really enough to get off the hook. If the legal reasoning advises that actions can be taken that have been previously seen as crimes, then I think the lawyer is responsible for their acts. It's not just a matter of 'disapproval'; I think that laws apply to lawyers in government.
#5. Not sure exactly what he wants people to say here. When pictures came out from Abu Ghraib it "inflamed passions in the Muslim world"; did anyone stand up to take moral responsibility for that? But it's true that there can be consequences either way; one does need to consider what may happen with these revelations. But trying to prove some sort of direct causal relationship is pretty difficult.
#6. My sense is that the debate is alive inside the intelligence world as well. Some believe that these tactics are worthwhile and necessary. Others don't. We don't have all the information so it's hard to judge from the outside. Bottom line for me is that I do believe they can and should do the job without these tactics. I also believe they are on safer ground when the standard is clearly understood by everyone.
#7. Certainly some Democrats are in a compromised position. But there is a legal question of responsibility. It's one thing to authorize actions, and another to be aware that they were authorized. I don't really know what the legal grounds are for prosecuting people in this area.
#8. Like #1, the question is not what foreign terrorists have done, the question is what the U.S. has done. Yes, Saddam and terrorists have done all sorts of awful things. Is that a reason for us to let our own standards down, and now do things that we previously prosecuted others for doing? I don't think so.
#9. To be honest I haven't heard this argument much. I'm not at all sure that it will have any impact on what terrorists will do. But again, the question is what are our standards, what are we trying to live up to? We control our own actions, and set our own standards.
I'd say there is some level of wanting some sort of 'vengeance' against the Bush administration, but I don't think it's fair to attribute that attitude to anyone who believes that the U.S. should not torture.
Read your response to Mr. Pragers questions and my first reaction is:
How what we read in a well written document is interpreted so differently by two intelligient people who have diffenent ideologies!
The arguments just tend to pass each other. More to say later!
Agreed, it is often surprising how interpretations may vary...
Here's one other post that I found interesting about partisan bias:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/04/partisanship-bias-and-the-economy.html
I liked the post on partisan bias. More to say on it later.
I am going to respond to your #1 and #2 today. Will try to cover 2 each day through the weekend!
#1 You read that he wants the U.S. to "...irradicate torture around the world." Not what I read at all!
He is simply saying that for CLARITY and CONSISTENCY the left should recognize the good done with the removal of Saddam - and I might remind you this was done with Congressional and U.N. approval which the left seems to forget - but most don't and if asked would say we should never have gone into Iraq.
He is saying if you feel strongly enough to want your fellow citizens prosecuted for waterboarding, then you must agree that eliminating the torture in Iraq with our removal of Saddam was a good thing! Make sense?
Not a red herring at all, in my eyes.
#2 For me it is not a hard line to draw, but I am glad you agree there are gradations. Do you accept that we can disagree on gradations?
To me, "torture" is any short term "persuasion technique" that causes physical harm and/or pain. You could question "short term" - but I feel anything long term is worse than "torture" and needs another word, just as anything that does not cause physical harm and/or pain needs another word. Waterboarding is an example of this in my mind - it is an aggressive technique, but not "torture".
(Remember that words are VERY important - as Mr. Prager often says "They are the mirror of our soul". If everything is "Torture" then the meaning of the word disappears, and how will future generations recognize it?)
I am unaware of waterboarding prosecutions prior to 9/11 - could you advise me of them?
All for now!
On point #1, Prager wrote: "why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein" - I took this to mean "why did you oppose the Iraq war" in general, since that's what it took to remove him. So I think one could be opposed to the idea of the war, while acknowledging that taking out a 'bad character' was a good thing (one out of many consequences of the war).
On waterboarding, here's one story from a former JAG which discusses some of the historical cases:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
To be honest, I'm not necessarily convinced that prosecution is the right way to go, but I do think these were poor decisions that have bad unintended consequences, and that it's not a bad thing to shed some light on the whole matter.
First, on your previous post, no one on the left acknowledges this!
(By "no one" I am referring to the liberal pundits who we read and see on TV - and I am sure someone, somewhere did acknowledge it - I am talking "in general"; of course lots on the left appreciate that Saddam is gone). Mr. Prager and I would like to hear this from the pundits for CLARITY and CONSISTENCY.
Waterboarding article was interesting. It does not convince me that what was done recently was "torture". Most listed examples were 1) U.S. prosecuting others for doing that to us or allies - I see this as normal, since I am sure the countries of the people on whom we used this would prosecute us; and 2) domestic examples which certainly deserve prosecution for excessive interrogation, but not necessarily "torture". Thanks for the info, it helps the thought process.
Now to #3: you are saying you would use "torture" if the "high bar" is exceeded. I agree, although the height would probably be different! I think we all agree on this one, but lots on the left do not! This I do not understand, due to the deaths it could cause - even if "very rare".
#4: I don't understand you or BHO at all on this one. If they broke laws, don't you think our previous administration would have prosecuted? Do you really believe if one of the lawyers stole from a fund he would have been protected by W? This is analgous - if in fact laws were clearly broken. So it is not clear laws were broken, and this makes it a "fishing expedition".
So no one in his right mind would join the Government as a lawyer in the future, if this "fishing expedition" is carried out. Politics is famous for "payback".
Side bar: the equivalent action from W would have been for him to go after Clinton and his advisors for causing 9/11 do to incorrect analysis on previous terrorist incedence. Would you have liked W to do that? CLARITY and consistency!
To continue:
#5: your argument is a red herring! He is simply asking if you - meaning BHO and his supporters - accept responsibility if the Muslim reaction is as it was to to the Danish cartoons. Seems to me it needs a simple yes or no answer, if you support the issuance of the documents.
I think you still overanalyze!
#6: same response required as in #5. I think you would agree the intellegience has been effected by the the threat of action against them - forget whether you support this action or not - and if you support this (it seems you did above) then if this leads to deaths and maining because of our inability to get information are you ok with that? Again, I think it is a simple answer.
But the left - including you - seem to not want to think about this potential outcome. I don't know if it will happen, but is it worth the chance? We look at things completely differently!
I keep going back to my conclusion that the left thinks only in the moment and the right allows "time" to enter their calculations.
Related to "immediate gratification" which is so prevelant in our society.
Last two paragraphs were a little of point but I am just following my "stream of conciousness."
Continuing:
#7: This is an "if" question, again to be answered yes or no: if the attempted prosecutions of the previous administrations actions were "illegal", then will you be content to let Congressional members who knew of these actions be prosecuted - I'm no lawyer, but allowing or authorizing an "illegal" action must also be "illegal". This needs to be thought through an answered by supporters of this action.
#8: He is not justifying our actions; he is simply saying that these photographs should have equivalent context to allow people to make a judgement.
An analogy (not perfect by any means, but to the point)might be that if police decided publish pictures of prostitutes, I think it would be fair only if the "johns" picture was also published. Context!
#9: his argument is passing by you! The left has made it a major argument since Abu Graib(?) that those actions will cause worse treatment of our captives and strengthen their recruiting effort. I don't believe you could have missed these comments. His question is what proof do they have this has happened? A very legitimate question in a democratic (republiccan) society!
That is my take on his questions and your analysis. We probably don't agree with each other in many cases, but it was a good exercise of the gray matter!
Post a Comment
<< Home